EPA530-R-92-001
a EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9541.00-14
TITLE: State Programs Advisory Number Nine
APPROVAL DATE: January 8, 1992
EFFECTIVE DATE: Ja™ary 8, 1992
Office of Solid Waste
ORIGINATING OFFICE: permits and State Programs Division
State and Regional Programs Branch
Regional Coordination and Implementa
tion Section
X
FINAL
DRAFT
STATUS:
D A - Pending OMB Approval
CD B - Pending AA-OSWER Approval
REFERENCE (Other Documents):
Updates State Authorization Manual 9540.00-09A
OSWER OSWEr OSWER OSWER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
-------
EPA530-R-92-001
United States fcnvironmentai Protection Agency
Washington. DC 204SO
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1. Directive Number
9541.00-14
2. Originator Information
Mail Code
OS-342
Offict
PSPD/SPB/BCIS
Telephone Code
260-9656
3. Title
State Programs Advisory Number Nine
4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)
Updates State Authorization Manual, which replaced the State Consolidated
Authorization Manual. This SPA #9 covers PCRA program changes for the period
January 1 through June 30, 1990. Included are nine new revision checklists and
ten revised existing checklists. A consolidated land disposal restrictions
checklist is also included.
5. Keywords
State Programs/Advisory
6a. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s)?
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)?
No
No
Yes What directive (number, title)
Yes What directive (number, title)
State Authorization Manual
7. Draft Level
A - Signed by AA/DAA
B - Signed by Office Director
C - For Review & Comment
D - In Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
x
Yes
No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinate^
(j&*nutfJ ^J Jje*f~0***&
18»-fSSme(|ind Title of Approving Official
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste
Date
1/22/92
Date
1/8/92
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev, S-87) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER 0
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
-------
EPA530-R-92-001
OSWER DIRECTIVE NQ;,9541. 00-14
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 8 |992
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTS State Programs Adviso
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowr;
Office of Solid
TO: Regional Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I - X
The State and Regional Programs Branch (SRPB) periodically
issues State Programs Advisories (SPAs) as new RCRA program
policies, regulations, and self- implementing statutory provisions
come into effect. These SPAs update the State Authorization Manual
(SAM) , which replaced the State Consolidated Authorization Manual
(SCRAM) .
The attached SPA 9 covers RCRA program changes for the period
January 1 through June 30, 1990. Included in this SPA are nine new
revision checklists and ten revised existing checklists. A
Consolidated Land Disposal Eestrictions Checklist is also in SPA 9,
which consolidates all of the Land Disposal Restrictions from the
first rule (solvents and dioxins) to the Third Thirds Rule. A
revised Model Attorney General's Statement and other revised SAM
materials are also included.
Each Region is asked to distribute the SPA to their States,
Besides the attached hard copy, this SPA is available on diskette,
and is also on the SRPB Bulletin Board Service which is available
to Regions and States at no charge by calling 1-800-243-2792. If
you have guestions about these materials, please contact Richard
LaShier, Chief of the Regional Coordination and Implementation
Section, at ITS 260-2210.
Attachments
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
State Program Section Chiefs, Regions I - X
ASTSWMO
State Programs Liaisons
v§} Prinled on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Summary for State Program Advisory Nine
The following points briefly highlight the content of SPA 9. These points are organized by
topic.
Checklists
a. New
b. Existing
This SPA provides nine new revision checklists (Numbers 71 through 79) and
one amended checklist (Number 24), covering RCRA regulatory changes for
the period January 1, 1990 through June 30, 1990. Revision Checklists 71,
72, 73, 76 and 78 were added to non-HSWA Cluster VI. Revision Checklists
74, 75, 77, 78 and 79 were added to HSWA Cluster II. Revision Checklist
78 is in both clusters because it contains both HSWA and non-HSWA
provisions.
SPA 9 includes a Consolidated Land Disposal Restrictions Checklist which
consolidates all of the land disposal restrictions from the first rule - solvents
and dioxins (Revision Checklist 34) through the Third Thirds Rule (Revision
Checklist 78). This checklist was developed to allow States to apply for
these restrictions at one time rather than in seven separate checklists (i.e.,
Revision Checklists 34, 39, 50, 62, 63, 66 and 78), since the LDRs have
changed so dramatically with every subsequent revision checklist. States
should bear in mind that the deadline for the provisions addressed by
Revision Checklist 34 was July 1, 1988 (July 1, 1989 if a statutory change
was necessary). The deadline for the remainder of the restrictions is July 1,
1991 or July 1, 1992 if a statutory change is necessary.
This SPA provides revised Consolidated Checklists C1-C9 including changes
to the RCRA regulations through June 30, 1990. These consolidated
checklists were developed to help States meet the requirements of RCRA
§3006(b) and 40 CFR 271.3(f) that require a State, applying for authorization,
to include in its program all Federal self-implementing provisions and ail
regulations in 40 CFR Parts 124, 260-266, 268, and 270 that were in effect
twelve months prior to the State's submission of its official application.
Revision Checklist 17 H was revised to include a note at the beginning of
this checklist explaining its relationship to Revision Checklist 77.
Revision Checklist 19 was revised so that the November 19, 1986 Federal
Register article (51 FR 41900) was removed from the title. This article did
not affect any code, but instead addressed issues surrounding the potential
listing of used oil as hazardous. This change was made to make the format
of this checklist consistent with that of the other checklists.
DSUM9 - 12/13/91
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
STATE PROGRAM ADVISORY #9
A. STATE PROGRAM CHANGES FOR JANUARY 1, 1990 - JUNE 30, 1990
1. Mining Waste ..Exclusion l|
Date: January 23, 1990 Reference: 55 FR 2322-2354
Effective: July 23, 1990
Summary: This rule removes five of twenty conditionally retained mineral processing
wastes from the exemption from hazardous waste regulations under the Bevill exclusion
(RCRA 3001 (b)(3)(A)(ll)). These five wastes are subject to hazardous waste regulations if
they are found to exhibit a hazardous characteristic or are otherwise identified or listed as
hazardous. The Bevill exclusion is retained for fifteen other conditionally retained wastes
and five previously retained wastes. The rule also makes technical corrections to the
definition of "beneflciation" promulgated on September 1, 1989 (54 FR 36592), and amends
the definition of "designated facility" under Subtitle C of RCRA.
This rule also waives the RCRA §3010 notification deadline for mineral processing plants
that are located in authorized States and that generate wastes removed from exclusion in
the September 1, 1989 final rule. This rule extends the deadline for such plants in
unauthorized States, with notification required by April 23, 1990.
Note that the checklist addressed by this rule is entitled "Mining Waste Exclusion II". to
indicate that this is the second of two amendments to the mining waste exclusion. The
first occurred at 54 FR 36592 {September 1, 1989) and is addressed by Revision Checklist
65.
State Authorization: This is a non-HSWA rule and will be included in non-HSWA Cluster
VI. The State modification deadline is July 1, 1991. Only final authorization is available.
The State revision application must include a revised program description, an AG
Statement addendum, an addendum to the MOA (if appropriate), Revision Checklist 71,
and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Tabte of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 71 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
DTEXT9.9 - 12/9/91
-------
-------
SPA 9
Summary for State Program Advisory Nine (cont'd)
The land disposal restriction checklists (34, 39, 50, 62, 63 and 66) were
revised to make the optional designations consistent among these checklists
and to make formatting changes which provide better guidance in handling
the nondelegable portions of the land disposal restrictions.
Revision Checklist 53 was revised, reflecting the recent judicial remanding of
five (K064, K065, K066, K090 and K091) of the "Bevill" listings addressed by
this checklist.
Revision Checklist 54 was revised 1) to indicate the removal from the code
of subparagraphs 270.41 (a) (3) (!)-(»() and 2) to correct the Federal RCRA
Citation column so that it reads 270.42(i)-{o) instead of 270.42(i)-{p).
Cluster Information
SAM
SPA 9 delineates timeframes by which States must obtain authorization for
non-HSWA Cluster VI and HSWA Cluster II. Revision Checklists 71, 72, 73,
76, and 78 close non-HSWA Cluster VI and Revision Checklists 74, 75, 77,
78, and 79 close HSWA Cluster II. The due date for both clusters is July 1,
1991 (July 1, 1992 if a statutory change is necessary). For further
information on the cluster rule, see September 26, 1986 (51 FR 33712).
This SPA provides updated Tables G-1 and Q-2, a Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement, a Model Consolidated Attorney General's Statement,
and a Checklist Linkage Table to insert into the SAM.
The instructions to SAM Appendix G were revised to reflect several
formatting changes made to Table G-1.
5' 2 - DSUM9- 12/13/91
-------
-------
STATE PROGRAM ADVISORY #9 (corrt'd) SPA 9
2. Modification of F019 Listing
Date: February 14, 1990 Reference: 55 FR 5340-5342
Effective: February 14, 1990
Summary: This rule amends the Hst of hazardous wastes from non-specific sources under
40 CFR 261.31 by modifying the scope of EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019--wastewater
treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum. This rule excludes
wastewater treatment sludges from the zirconium phosphating step, when such phosphating
is an exclusive conversion coating process in the aluminum can washing process. The
EPA believes that these sludges do not pose a substantial hazard to human health or the
environment.
State Authorization: This is a non-HSWA rule and will be included In non-HSWA Cluster
VI. The standards promulgated in this rule are less stringent than or reduce the scope of
existing Federal requirements. Therefore, States are not required to modify their program
to adopt these provisions. The modification deadline for those States wishing to adopt
these provisions is July 1, 1991. Only final authorization is available. The State revision
application must include a revised program description, an AG Statement addendum, an
addendum to the MOA (if appropriate), Revision Checklist 72, and associated State
regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 72 and its associated FR notice may
be found In Attachment A.
3. Testing and Monitoring Activities; Technical Corrections
Date: March 9, 1990 Reference: 55 FR 8948-8950
Effective: March 9, 1990
Summary: This rule provides technical corrections to the flnal rule Issued for testing and
monitoring activities on September 29, 1989 (54 FR 40260, Revision Checklist 67). The
corrections add a list of the 47 analytical testing methods to the section of the regulations
that incorporates these methods by reference (40 CFR 260.11 (a)). The rule also corrects
Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix ill to 40 CFR Part 261.
State Authorization: This is a non-HSWA rule and will be included In non-HSWA Cluster
VI. The State modification deadline is July 1, 1991. Only flnal authorization is available.
The State revision application must include a revised program description, an AG
Statement addendum, an addendum to the MOA (if appropriate), Revision Checklist 73,
and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
2 ' DTEXT9.9 - 12W91
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
STATE PROGRAM ADVISORY #9 (confd) SPA 9
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA, A copy of Revision Checklist 73 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
4. Toxicity Characteristic Revisions
Date: March 29, 1990 Reference: 55 FR 11798-11877
June 29, 1990 55 FR 26986-26998
Effective; September 25, 1990
September 25, 1990
Summary: This rule revises the existing toxicity characteristics used to Identify those
wastes that are defined as hazardous and that are subject to regulation under Subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) due to their potential to leach
significant concentrations of specific toxic constituents. In this rule, the Extraction
Procedure (EP) leach test is replaced by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP), 25 organic chemicals are added to the list of toxic constituents of concern, and
regulatory levels are established for these organic chemicals based on health-based
concentration thresholds and a dilution/attenuation factor that was developed using a
subsurface fate and transport model. The overall effect of this rule is to subject additional
wastes to control under Subtitle C of RCRA.
The June 29, 1990 (55 FR 26986) notice makes corrections to the March 29, 1990 (55 FR
11798) final rule in order to ensure consistency of the TCLP (Method 1311) with other
methods contained in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (Physical/Chemical
Methods) SW-846 and to clarify the section on quality assurance. The notice also corrects
several errors in the March 29, 1990, notice.
An August 2, 1990 (55 FR 31387) notice corrected the preamble to the March 29, 1990,
notice. The correction was made to an implementation timetable which contained a
typographical error that has created confusion among small quantity generators regarding
their notification responsibilities for TC wastes. The August 2, 1990, ruie also extends the
time period within which affected small quantity generators must comply with the new
modification requirements necessitated by the March 29, 1990, Toxicity Characteristics
Rule. An August 10, 1990 (55 FR 32733) notice corrected the August 2, 1990 notice.
This rule did not affect the Federal code.
On September 27, 1990 (55 FR 39409) a clarification to the March 29, 1990 ruie was
published regarding the following four implementation issues: 1) the regulatory status of
surface impoundments managing newly regulated TC wastes, 2) ground-water monitoring
requirements for newly regulated land disposal facilities, 3) Section 3010 notification
requirements, and 4) permit modification requirements. This final rule did not affect the
Federal code; instead, it provides clarification of issues addressed in the preamble to the
final rule.
An October 5, 1990 (55 FR 40834) interim final ruie extended, for 120 days, the
compliance date of the Toxicity Characteristics Rule for petroleum refining facilities,
marketing terminals and buik plants engaged in hydrocarbon recovery and remediation
3 OTEXT9.9 - 12/W91
-------
-------
DO NOT PHOTOGRAPH THIS PAGE
ATTENTION: REPRODUCTION
THIS DOCUMENT IS MICROFICHED AS ONE REPORT
IT IS PRINTED IN <* PARTS DIVIDED AT THIS PAGE
ATTENTION: SPECIAL REPRODUCTION UNIT
THE PARTS INDICATED ABOVE SHOULD BE PRINTED
AS FOLLOWS:
PART 1: PAGE THROUGH PAGE
disk: Pam25 - Form/extra large rpts - 9/18/90
-------
-------
j 1. NOc
PA8E i
PB92-.-U9285
'i. Title and Subtitle
STATE PR06MHS ADVISORY MUNBER NINE
5= Report Date
JANUARY 1992
8, Performing Organization Rept, No
OFFICE OF SOLID NftSTE
U,S, EPfi
Offits of Solid
401 M, Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Sponsoring Or^snization Name and Address
] 13, Type of Report I: Period Covered
SPA 19 - JftNUARY 1992
15, Suppleaentary Notes
State Prograiiss Advisory No, 9 updates the State Authorization ilanual (PB 9540=00-09fi)s which rsplaced the state
Consolidated Authorization MenusL This SPn 19 covers RCRft Program changes -for the period January i through June 30,
1990, Included are nine new revision checklists, and ten revised existing checklists, ft consolidated land disposal
restrictions checklist is also included*
REPRODUCED BY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161
19, Security Class (This Report)) 21. No, of Pages
j 20, Security Class (This Page)
f UNCLASSIFIED
(See ftNSI-Z39»18)
OPTIONAL FORM 272 14-77
(Foriiieriy NTIS-35!
-------
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM THE. BEST COPY
FURMSHED US BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS
RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING
RELEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE AS MUCH
INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
-------
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA530-R-92-001
PB92-149285
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9541.00-14
TITLE: State Programs .Advisory Number Nine
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
January 8, 1992
Janua^ 8' 1992
Office of Solid Waste
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Permits and State Programs Division
State and Regional Programs Branch
Regional Coordination and Implementa
tion Section
X
FINAL
DRAFT
STATUS:
D A - Pending OMB Approval
D B • Pending AA-OSWER Approval
REFERENCE (Other Documents):
Updates State Authorization Manual 9540.00-09A
OSWEh OSWE* OSWER OSWEFl
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
-------
EPA530-R-92-001
untieo oiaies cnvirDnrnenTai rroieciion Agency
Washington, DC 20460
OSWER Directive initiation Request
1, Directive Number
9541.00-14
2. Originator Information
vlarae of Contact Person
zena Aiariage
Mail Code
OS-342
Office
PSPD/SPB/RCIS
Telephone Code
260-9656
3. Title
State Programs Advisory Number Nine
4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)
Updates State Authorization Manual, which replaced the State Consolidated
Authorization Manual. This SPA #9 covers RCRA program changes for the period
January 1 through June 30, 1990. Included are nine new revision checklists and
ten revised existing checklists. A consolidated land disposal restrictions
checklist is also included.
5, Keywords
State Programs/Advisory
6a. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Direetive(s)?
b, Does It Supplement Previous Direetive(s)?
No
No
Yes What directive (number, title)
Yes What directive (number, title)
State Authorization Manual
7. Draft Level
A - Signed by AA/DAA
B - Signed by Office Director
C - For Review & Comment
D - In Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
x
Yes
No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
9, Signature of Lead Office Directives CoordimrtSN
^ThnutJ ^). &sf~**^D~
1tM9Sme(ipAd Title of Approving Official
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste
Date
1/22/92
Date
1/8/92
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER O
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
-------
EP&53Q-R-92-Q01
OSWER DIRECTIVE NOi9541.00-14
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 8 1992
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT! State Programs Advisory Hunger Nine
FROM! Sylvia K. Lowr
office of Solid
TO; Regional Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I - X
The State and Regional Programs Branch (SRPB) periodically
issues State Programs Advisories (SPAs) as new RCRA program
policies, regulations, and self-implementing statutory provisions
come into effect. These SPAs update the State Authorization Manual
(SAM), which replaced the State Consolidated Authorization Manual
(SCRAM).
The attached SPA 9 covers RCRA program changes for the period
January 1 through June 30, 1990. Included in this SPA are nine new
revision checklists and ten revised existing checklists. A
Consolidated Land Disposal Restrictions Checklist is also in SPA 9,
which consolidates all of the Land Disposal Restrictions from the
first rule (solvents and dioxins) to the Third Thirds Rule. A
revised Model Attorney General's Statement and other revised SAM
materials are also included.
Each Region is asked to distribute the SPA to their States.
Besides the attached hard copy, this SPA is available on diskette,
and is also on the SRPB Bulletin Board Service which is available
to Regions and States at no charge by calling 1-800-243-2792. If
you have questions about these materials, please contact Richard
LaShier, Chief of the Regional Coordination and Implementation
Section, at FTS 260-2210.
Attachments
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
state Program section Chiefs, Regions I - X
ASTSWMO
State Programs Liaisons
V® Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Summary for State Program Advisory Nine
The following points briefly highlight the content of SPA 9. These points are organized by
topic.
Checklists
a. New
b. Existing
This SPA provides nine new revision checklists (Numbers 71 through 79) and
one amended checklist (Number 24), covering RCRA regulatory changes for
the period January 1, 1990 through June 30, 1990. Revision Checklists 71,
72, 73, 76 and 78 were added to non-HSWA Cluster VI. Revision Checklists
74, 75, 77, 78 and 79 were added to HSWA Cluster II. Revision Checklist
78 is in both clusters because it contains both HSWA and non-HSWA
provisions.
SPA 9 includes a Consolidated Land Disposal Restrictions Checklist which
consolidates all of the land disposal restrictions from the first rule -- solvents
and dioxins (Revision Checklist 34) through the Third Thirds Rule (Revision
Checklist 78). This checklist was developed to allow States to apply for
these restrictions at one time rather than in seven separate checklists (i.e.,
Revision Checklists 34, 39, 50, 62, 63, 66 and 78), since the LDRs have
changed so dramatically with every subsequent revision checklist. States
should bear in mind that the deadline for the provisions addressed by
Revision Checklist 34 was July 1, 1988 (July 1, 1989 if a statutory change
was necessary). The deadline for the remainder of the restrictions is July 1,
1991 or July 1, 1992 if a statutory change is necessary.
This SPA provides revised Consolidated Checklists C1-C9 including changes
to the RCRA regulations through June 30, 1990. These consolidated
checklists were developed to help States meet the requirements of RCRA
§3006(b) and 40 CFR 271.3(f) that require a State, applying for authorization,
to include in its program all Federal self-implementing provisions and all
regulations in 40 CFR Parts 124, 260-266, 268, and 270 that were in effect
twelve months prior to the State's submission of its official application.
Revision Checklist 17 H was revised to include a note at the beginning of
this checklist explaining its relationship to Revision Checklist 77.
Revision Checklist 19 was revised so that the November 19, 1986 Federal
Register article (51 FR 41900) was removed from the title. This article did
not affect any code, but instead addressed issues surrounding the potential
listing of used oil as hazardous. This change was made to make the format
of this checklist consistent with that of the other checklists.
DSUM9 - 12/13/91
-------
SPA 9
Summary for State Program Advisory Nine (cont'd)
The land disposal restriction checklists (34, 39, 50, 62, 63 and 66) were
revised to make the optional designations consistent among these checklists
and to make formatting changes which provide better guidance in handling
the nondelegable portions of the land disposal restrictions.
Revision Checklist 53 was revised, reflecting the recent judicial remanding of
five (K064, K065, K066, K090 and K091) of the "Bevill" listings addressed by
this checklist.
Revision Checklist 54 was revised 1) to indicate the removal from the code
of subparagraphs 270.41 (a)(3)(i)-(iii) and 2) to correct the Federal RCRA
Citation column so that it reads 270.42(i)-(o) instead of 270.42(i)-(p).
Cluster Information
SAM
SPA 9 delineates timeframes by which States must obtain authorization for
non-HSWA Cluster VI and HSWA Cluster II. Revision Checklists 71, 72, 73,
76, and 78 close non-HSWA Cluster VI and Revision Checklists 74, 75, 77,
78, and 79 close HSWA Cluster II. The due date for both clusters is July 1,
1991 (July 1, 1992 if a statutory change is necessary). For further
information on the cluster rule, see September 26, 1986 (51 PR 33712).
This SPA provides updated Tables G-1 and G-2, a Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement, a Model Consolidated Attorney General's Statement,
and a Checklist Linkage Table to insert into the SAM.
The instructions to SAM Appendix G were revised to reflect several
formatting changes made to Table G-1.
- 2 - DSUM9 - 12/13/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
STATE PROGRAM ADVISORY #9
A. STATE PROGRAM CHANGES FOR JANUARY 1, 1990 - JUNE 30, 1990
1. Mining Waste Exclusion II
Date: January 23, 1990 Reference: 55 FR 2322-2354
Effective: July 23, 1990
Summary: This rule removes five of twenty conditionally retained mineral processing
wastes from the exemption from hazardous waste regulations under the Bevill exclusion
(RCRA 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii)). These five wastes are subject to hazardous waste regulations if
they are found to exhibit a hazardous characteristic or are otherwise identified or listed as
hazardous. The Bevill exclusion is retained for fifteen other conditionally retained wastes
and five previously retained wastes. The rule also makes technical corrections to the
definition of "beneficiation" promulgated on September 1, 1989 (54 FR 36592), and amends
the definition of "designated facility" under Subtitle C of RCRA.
This rule also waives the RCRA §3010 notification deadline for mineral processing plants
that are located in authorized States and that generate wastes removed from exclusion in
the September 1, 1989 final rule. This rule extends the deadline for such plants in
unauthorized States, with notification required by April 23, 1990.
Note that the checklist addressed by this rule is entitled "Mining Waste Exclusion II" to
indicate that this is the second of two amendments to the mining waste exclusion. The
first occurred at 54 FR 36592 (September 1, 1989) and is addressed by Revision Checklist
65.
State Authorization: This is a non-HSWA rule and will be included in non-HSWA Cluster
VI. The State modification deadline is July 1, 1991. Only final authorization is available.
The State revision application must include a revised program description, an AG
Statement addendum, an addendum to the MOA (if appropriate), Revision Checklist 71,
and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 71 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
DTEXT9.9 - 12/9/91
-------
STATE PROGRAM ADVISORY #9 (cont'd) SPA 9
2. Modification of F019 Listing
Date: February 14, 1990 Reference: 55 FR 5340-5342
Effective: February 14, 1990
Summary: This rule amends the list of hazardous wastes from non-specific sources under
40 CFR 261.31 by modifying the scope of EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019--wastewater
treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum. This rule excludes
wastewater treatment sludges from the zirconium phosphating step, when such phosphating
is an exclusive conversion coating process in the aluminum can washing process. The
EPA believes that these sludges do not pose a substantial hazard to human health or the
environment.
State Authorization: This is a non-HSWA rule and will be included in non-HSWA Cluster
VI. The standards promulgated In this rule are less stringent than or reduce the scope of
existing Federal requirements. Therefore, States are not required to modify their program
to adopt these provisions. The modification deadline for those States wishing to adopt
these provisions is July 1, 1991. Only final authorization is available. The State revision
application must include a revised program description, an AG Statement addendum, an
addendum to the MOA (if appropriate), Revision Checklist 72, and associated State
regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 72 and Its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
3. Testing and Monitoring Activities: Technical Corrections
Date: March 9, 1990 Reference: 55 FR 8948-8950
Effective: March 9, 1990
Summary: This rule provides technical corrections to the final rule issued for testing and
monitoring activities on September 29, 1989 (54 FR 40260, Revision Checklist 67). The
corrections add a list of the 47 analytical testing methods to the section of the regulations
that incorporates these methods by reference (40 C.FR 260.11 (a)). The rute also corrects
Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix III to 40 CFR Part 261.
State Authorization: This is a non-HSWA rule and will be included In non-HSWA Cluster
VI. The State modification deadline Is July 1, 1991. Only final authorization is available.
The State revision application must include a revised program description, an AG
Statement addendum, an addendum to the MOA (if appropriate), Revision Checklist 73,
and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
2 DTEXT9.9 - 12/0/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
STATE PROGRAM ADVISORY #9 (oont'd) SPA 9
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 73 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
4. Toxicity Characteristic Revisions
Date: March 29, 1990 Reference: 55 FR 11798-11877
June 29, 1990 55 FR 26986-26998
Effective: September 25, 1990
September 25, 1990
Summary: This rule revises the existing toxicity characteristics used to identify those
wastes that are defined as hazardous and that are subject to regulation under Subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) due to their potential to leach
significant concentrations of specific toxic constituents. In this rule, the Extraction
Procedure (EP) leach test is replaced by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP), 25 organic chemicals are added to the list of toxic constituents of concern, and
regulatory levels are established for these organic chemicals based on hearth-based
concentration thresholds and a dilution/attenuation factor that was developed using a
subsurface fate and transport model. The overall effect of this rule is to subject additional
wastes to control under Subtitle C of RCRA.
The June 29, 1990 (55 FR 26986) notice makes corrections to the March 29, 1990 (55 FR
11798) final rule in order to ensure consistency of the TCLP (Method 1311) with other
methods contained in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (Physical/Chemical
Methods) SW-846 and to clarify the section on quality assurance. The notice also corrects
several errors in the March 29, 1990, notice.
An August 2, 1990 (55 FR 31387) notice corrected the preamble to the March 29, 1990,
notice. The correction was made to an implementation timetable which contained a
typographical error that has created confusion among small quantity generators regarding
their notification responsibilities for TC wastes. The August 2, 1990, rule also extends the
time period within which affected smail quantity generators must comply with the new
modification requirements necessitated by the March 29, 1990, Toxicity Characteristics
Rule. An August 10, 1990 (55 FR 32733) notice corrected the August 2, 1990 notice.
This rule did not affect the Federal code.
On September 27, 1990 (55 FR 39409) a clarification to the March 29, 1990 rule was
published regarding the following four implementation issues: 1) the regulatory status of
surface impoundments managing newly regulated TC wastes, 2) ground-water monitoring
requirements for newly regulated land disposal facilities, 3) Section 3010 notification
requirements, and 4) permit modification requirements. This final rule did not affect the
Federal code; instead, it provides clarification of issues addressed in the preamble to the
final rule.
An October 5, 1990 (55 FR 40834) interim final rule extended, for 120 days, the
compliance date of the Toxicity Characteristics Rule for petroleum refining facilities,
marketing terminals and bulk plants engaged in hydrocarbon recovery and remediation
3 DTEXT9.9 - 12/9/91
-------
STATE PROGRAM ADVISORY #9 (cont'd) SPA 9
activities. This interim final rule is addressed by Revision Checklist 80 which will be part of
SPA 10. A Consolidated Toxicity Characteristics Checklist will also be available for States
wishing to adopt the TC rule and all of its corrections at one time.
State Authorization: These are HSWA rules and wiii be included In HSWA Cluster II. Both
interim and final authorization are available; interim authorization expires January 1, 1993.
The State modification deadline is July 1, 1991 (or July 1, 1992, if a State statutory change
is needed). The State revision application must include a revised program description, an
AG Statement addendum, an addendum to the MOA (if appropriate), Revision Checklist 74,
and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 74 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
5. Listing of 1.1-Dlmethvihvdrazine Production Wastes
Date: May 2, 1990 Reference: 55 FR 18496-18506
Effective: November 2, 1990
Summary: This rule lists as hazardous four wastes (K107-K110) generated during the
production of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) from carboxyllc acid hydrazides.
State Authorization: This is a HSWA rule and will be included in HSWA Cluster II. The
State modification deadline is July 1, 1991. Both interim and final authorization are
available. The State revision application must include a revised program description, an
AG Statement addendum, an addendum to the MOA (if appropriate), Revision Checklist 75,
and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 75 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
6. Criteria for Listing Toxic Wastes; Technical Amendment
Date: May 4, 1990 Reference: 55 FR 18726
Effective: May 4, 1990
Summary: This rule is a technical amendment to the final and interim final regulations
implementing RCRA, promulgated May 19, 1980. The rule amends the language of the
regulation to reflect EPA's intent and consistent interpretation of the criteria for listing
4 DTEXT9.9 - 12/»91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
STATE PROGRAM ADVISORY #9 (cont'd) SPA 9
wastes as hazardous under RCRA. Specifically affected are the criteria for listing toxic
wastes at 261.11(a)(3).
State Authorization: This is a non-HSWA rule and will be included in non-HSWA Cluster
VI. The State modification deadline is July 1, 1991. Only final authorization is available.
The State revision application must include a revised program description if appropriate, an
AG Statement addendum, an addendum to the MOA (if appropriate), Revision Checklist 76,
and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 76 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
7. HSWA Codification Rule, Double Liners; Correction
Date: May 9, 1990 Reference: 55 FR 19262-19264
Effective: May 9, 1990
Summary: This rule is a correction notice to 50 FR 28702, July 17, 1985 (Revision
Checklist 17 H) pertaining to certain landfill and surface impoundment units for which the
Part B permit application was received by November 8, 1984. Permits issued for units in
this category are not required to include conditions imposing double liner and leachate
collection system requirements as a matter of statute (RCRA §3004(o)), except as deemed
necessary on a case-by-case basis to protect human health and the environment (RCRA
§3005(c)). This rule was necessitated by a Court of Appeals decision which found the
requirements at 40 CFR 265.221 and 264.301 invalid to the extent that they impose RCRA
§3004(o) technological requirements on owners and operators whose applications for a final
determination on their RCRA §3005 permits were received before November 8, 1984.
State Authorization: This is a HSWA rule and will be included in HSWA Cluster II. The
State modification deadline is July 1, 1991. Both interim and final authorization are
available. The State revision application must include a revised program description, an
AG Statement addendum, an addendum to the MOA (if appropriate), Revision Checklist 77
and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 77 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
DTEXT9.9 - 12/9/91
-------
STATE PROGRAM ADVISORY #9 (oonfd) SPA 9
8. Land Disposal Restrictions tor Third Third Scheduled Wastes
Date: June 1, 1990 Reference: 55 FR 22520-22720
Effective: May 8, 1990
Summary: This rule promulgates regulations implementing the final of five Congressionally
mandated prohibitions on the land disposal of hazardous wastes, the third one-third
(referred to as the Third Third) of the schedule of restricted hazardous wastes. The notice
also promulgates specific treatment standards and effective dates for "soft hammer" Rrst
and Second Third wastes, five newly listed wastes, four wastes that fall Into the F002 and
F005 (spent solvent) waste codes, F025, multi-source leachate, certain mixed
radioactive/hazardous wastes, and characteristic wastes except TC wastes. Treatment
standards are revised for petroleum refining hazardous wastes (K048-K052). Alternate
treatment standards are promulgated for lab packs.
A three-month national capacity variance from the effective date Is granted for all Third
Third wastes unless a longer national capacity variance is specified. This variance was
granted due to the time required by the regulated community to make adjusttnents
necessary to comply with the new rule. Therefore, this rule's land disposal prohibitions will
be effective on August 8, 1990, rather than May 8, 1990. Between May 8, 1990 and
August 8, 1990 wastes not meeting the treatment standards must meet the 40 CFR
268.5(h}(2) minimum technology standards if disposed in landfills or surface impoundments.
The California list prohibitions must be complied with, where applicable. The 40 CFR
268.7(a)(3)&(b)(6) recordkeeping requirements apply to all Third Third wastes during the
three-month national capacity variance.
A six-month national capacity variance is granted for K048-K052 nonwastewaters from the
petroleum refining industry. Thus, the effective date for these wastes is November 8, 1990.
A two-year national capacity variance is granted for mixed radioactive/hazardous 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). Tables 1 and 2 on p. 22533 of the Federal Register
for this rule provides a summary of two-year national capacity variances for surface-
disposed and deep well injected wastes.
For further guidance regarding this rule, see the Environmental Fact Sheet for the Third
Third Land Disposal Restrictions (EPA/53Q-SW-90-046) which is Included in this SPA with
the checklist developed for this rule.
State Authorization: This is a HSWA rule and will be included in HSWA Cluster II, except
for one clarifying amendment to 40 CFR 261.33(c), which is in non-HSWA Cluster VI. The
State modification deadline is July 1, 1991, for all provisions, both HSWA and non-HSWA.
Ail changes, except for the 261.33(c) amendment, go into effect immediately. The non-
HSWA change to 261.33(c) will not be effective in an authorized State until the State
revises its program. Interim authorization is available only for the HSWA provisions. The
State revision application must include a revised program description, an AQ Statement
DTEXT9.9 - 12/W91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
STATE PROGRAM ADVISORY #9 (cont'd) SPA 9
addendum, an addendum to the MOA (if appropriate), Revision Checklist 78, and
associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 78 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
9. Organic Air Emission Standards for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks
Date: June 21, 1990 Reference: 55 FR 25454-25519
Effective: December 21, 1990
Summary: This rule is the first part of a muRiphased regulatory effort to control air
emissions at new and existing hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities
{TSDFs). The rute establishes final standards limiting organic emissions from 1) process
vents associated with distillation, fractionation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction, and
air or steam stripping operations that manage hazardous wastes with 10 parts per million
by weight (ppmw) or greater total organics concentration, and 2) leaks from equipment that
contains or contacts hazardous waste streams with 10 percent by weight or greater total
organics. These standards were promulgated under RCRA §3004(n) which requires EPA to
promulgate standards for the monitoring and control of air emissions from hazardous waste
TSDFs as necessary to protect human health and the environment. EPA plans to
promulgate additional standards under §3004(n) in two phases.
State Authorization: This is a HSWA rule and will be included in HSWA Cluster II. The
State modification deadline is July 1, 1991. Both interim and final authorization are
available; interim authorization expires January 1, 1993. The State revision application
must include a revised program description, an AG Statement addendum, an addendum to
the MOA (if appropriate), Revision Checklist 79, and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 79 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
B. CONSOLIDATED LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS CHECKLIST
To aid States in adopting the Land Disposal Restrictions, a checklist was developed that
consolidates ail of the Land Disposal Restriction rules, and their corrections, through June
30, 1990 into one checklist. States can use this checklist to apply for ail of the Land
Disposal Restriction rules at the same time. Otherwise, seven separate checklists (34, 39,
50, 62, 63, 66 and 78) must be submitted to pick up all of these restrictions and each
successive checklist makes substantial changes to the other. States which have not yet
adopted any of the Land Disposal Restrictions should bear in mind that the restrictions on
7 OTEXT9.9
-------
STATE PROGRAM ADVISORY #9 (cont'd) SPA 9
solvents and dioxins (Revision Checklist 34) are in HSWA Cluster I and should have been
adopted by July 1, 1989 (July 1, 1990 if a statutory change is necessary). The remainder
of the Land Disposal Restrictions are In HSWA Cluster II and are due July 1, 1991 (July 1,
1992 if a statutory change is necessary). States that have already been authorized for
only the initial Land Disposal Restrictions (51 FR 40572; November 7, 1986; Revision
Checklist 34) may also want to utilize this consolidated checklist rather than use six
separate checklists to apply for the remaining requirements, all of which must be adopted
by July 1, 1991 (July 1, 1992 if a statutory change is required). This consolidated checklist
is included in Attachment B. An update to this checklist will be included in SPA 11.
C. REVISIONS TO SAM
The addition of nine new checklists necessitated revisions to Tables G-1 and G-2 of
Appendix G, to the Model Revision Attorney General's Statement in Appendix D, and to the
Checklist Linkage Table in Appendix H. These revised tables and model are included in
Attachment C and should replace these parts in the SAM Manual. Specific revisions are
detailed below.
• The revised Tables G-1 and G-2 (pp. 4-24) should replace pages 4 through 23
of SAM Appendix G. Table G-1 was revised by: 1) adding Revision Checklists
71, 72, 73, 76 and 78 (only the amendment to 261.33(c)) to non-HSWA Cluster
VI and 2) adding Checklists 74, 75, 77, 78, and 79 to HSWA Cluster II.
The Revised Attorney General's Statement (pp. 9-47) should replace pages 9
through 41 of SAM Appendix E. Section I K and XVII B(1) were revised and
the following sections were added: i A(14), I A(15), I A(16), I L, I M, I N, I O,
VII E, XV L, and XXI F.
The Revised Checklist Linkage Table should replace pages 3 through 6 of SAM
Appendix H.
Also, included in Attachment C are new Revision Checklists 17 H, 19, 53, and 54, and the
Land Disposal Restriction Checklists (34, 39, 50, 62, 63 and 66). The new Revision
Checklist 17 H differs from the previous Revision Checklist 17 H in that it includes a
beginning note indicating the relationship of this checklist to Revision Checklist 77. Also
several errors on page two of this checklist were corrected. The new Revision Checklist
19 differs from the previous Revision Checklist 19 in that the reference to the November
19, 1986 (51 FR 41900) Federal Register notice was removed from the title. This notice
did not affect the RCRA regulations; instead, it was a background notice addressing the
issues of listing used oil as hazardous. This was not necessary to list it on the title
although it is discussed in the note at the top of the checklist.
Revision Checklist 53 has been revised reflecting the recent Judicial remanding of five
(K064, K065, KQ66, K090, and K091) of the "Bevilf waste listings addressed by this
checklist. Specifically, the revisions to 261.4(b)(7) were added to the checklist and all
revisions regarding the listing of the five remanded wastes were removed from the
checklist. In addition, the Model Revision Attorney General's Statement included in this
SPA was revised. Specifically, the old entry for Revision Checklist 53 at H was moved to
8 DTEXT9.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
STATE PROGRAM ADVISORY #9 (cont'd) SPA 9
I A(10) and an entry regarding the removal of the six Seville wastes from the mining
exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7) was placed at I I.
Revision Checklist 54 has been revised to include the deletion from Federal code of
subparagraphs 270,41 (a)(3)(f)-(iii). The deletion of these subparagraphs isn't apparent in
the Federal Register addressed by Revision Checklist 54, but they have been removed and
the July 1, 1990 CFR correctly reflects their deletion. Several typographical errors were
also corrected.
The Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) Checklists (34, 39, 50, 62, 63, and 66) have been
revised for the following reasons:
to make the optional designations consistent among the seven (includes
Revision Checklist 78) LDR checklists;
to add the presently non-delegable portions (268.5, 268,6, 268.42(b) and
268.44) of Part 268 to the checklists in an effort to alleviate some of the
confusion these sections have caused States. Specific instructions regarding
placement of these sections within a State's code precede each of these
sections on the checklists; and
» to add information to the notes at the top of the checklists, tying each checklist
to the other LDR checklists.
Lastly, revised instructions for SAM Appendix G are also included in Attachment C. these
instructions were revised to reflect the following formatting changes to Table G-1:
• Parenthesized checklist numbers were added to entries which were
corrections/amendments to a major final rule and were included on the checklist
for that major final rule (e.g., the two technical corrections which are included
on Revision Checklist 13 developed for the January 1, 1985 final rule
addressing the definition of solid waste). Previously, these entries were
unnumbered and bracketed. This change was made to help alleviate some of
the confusion which has occurred over these entries since requests for StATS
data have been sent to the Regions.
Corrections/amendments which are part of the checklist for a major final rule
have been moved into the cluster of the checklist (i.e., final rule) on which they
were included. For example, Revision Checklist 26 was developed for the final
rule promulgated on May 28, 1986 (51 FR 19320). This checklist also includes
two subsequent technical corrections (51 FR 33612, September 22, 1986 and
52 FR 28697, August 3, 1987) to the initial final rule. The checklist itself is in
non-HSWA Cluster II while the two corrections which it also includes are in non-
HSWA Clusters III and IV, due to where the corrections fall chronologically.
Under the revised format, Revision Checklist 26 plus the two corrections
included in it, would all be placed in non-HSWA Cluster II. This change was
made because the due date for these corrections is the due date of the
checklist they are part of, rather than the due date of the cluster in which they
chronologically fall.
DTEXT9.9 - 12/9/91
-------
STATE PROGRAM ADVISORY #9 (cont'd) SPA 9
D. REVISED CONSOLIDATED CHECKLISTS AND MODEL CONSOLIDATED
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S STATEMENT
The consolidated checklists and corresponding Model Consolidated Attorney General's
Statement originally introduced in the State Authorization Manual have been updated
through June 30, 1990, These updated materials may be found in Attachment D, These
consolidated checklists should be used by States that have not received authorization for a
hazardous waste program. For further guidance regarding these checklists, see Appendix
K of the SAM Manual, Guidance for using the Model Consolidated Attorney General's
Statement may be found in SAM Appendix D.
10 DT1XT9.9 -
-------
OSWER DIE. No. 9541.00-14
ATTACHMENT A
New Revision Checklists and
Corresponding Federal Register Articles
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 71
Mining Waste Exclusion II
55 FR 2322-2354
January 23, 1990
(Non-HSWA Cluster V!)
Note: This is the second revision to the mining waste exclusion. The first occurred at 54 FR
36592 (September 1, 1989) and is addressed by Revision Checklist 65.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUW^
ALENT
MORE I BROADER
STRINGENT | IN SCOPE
PART 260 - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
SUBPART B - DEFINITIONS
DEFINITIONS
1 revise "designated
facility"
260.10
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
EXCLUSIONS
"§261.4(b)(7)" replaces
"this paragraph" twice;
"roasting, autoclaving,
and/or chlorinatton"
replaces "roasting";
insert "(and/or auto-
ciaving and/or chlori-
nation)" after
"roasting" within exis-
ting parenthetical
clause; semi-colons
replace a number of
commas; significant
revisions to last sen-
tence which intro-
duces list of wastes
261.4(b)(7)
January 23, 1990 - Page 1 of 3
DCL71.9 - 12/9/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 71: Mining Waste Exclusion II (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
revisions to list of
excluded wastes;
(1)(A)-{E) and
(ij){A)-{T) are replaced
by (i)-(xx), with
deletion of five
conditionally retained
wastes and some
revisions in wording
for retained wastes
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.4(b)(7Mn
261.4(bM7Mii)
261.4(b)(7)(iii)
261.4(b)(7)(iv)
261.4(bM7Mv)
261.4(b)(7)(vi)
261.4(bH7Hvi!)
261 .4{b)(7){viii)
261.4(b)(7)(ix)
261.4(b)(7)(x)
261.4(b){7){xi)
261.4(b)(7)(xii)
261.4(b>(7)(xili)
261.4(b)(7)(xiv)
261.4(b)(7)(xv)
261.4(b)(7)(xvi)
261.4{bM7)(xvii)
261.4(b)(7){xviii)
261.4(b)(7)(xix)
261.4(W(7)(xx)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
j
i
BROADER
IN SCOPE
January 23, 1990 - Page 2 of 3
DCL71.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 71: Mining Waste Exclusion I! (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
£Q(jW-
ALENT
MORi
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 262 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART B - THE MANIFEST
USE OF THE MANIFEST
add new paragraph
stating requirements
when shipping
hazardous waste to a
designated facility In
an authorized State
which has not yet
obtained authorization
to regulate that
particular waste as
hazardous
262.23(e)
Note that this definition in the Federal Register (55 FR 2353, January 23, 1990) and in the July
1. 1990 CFR contains a typographical error. The reference to 260.20 should be 262.20.
January 23, 1990 - Page 3 of 3
DCL71.9 - 12/9/91
-------
-------
Tuesday
January 23, 1990
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Part ill
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 260, 261 and 262
Mining Waste Exclusion; Section 3010
Notlilcatiorr for Mineral Processing
Facilities; Designated Facility Definition;
Standards Applicable to Generators of
Hazardous Waste; Final Rule
-------
2322 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 200,201 and 262
[SWH-FRL-3S09-3;CPA/OSW-FH-90-013J
Mining Waste Exclusion; Section 3010
Notification for Mlnc-ral Processing
Facilities; Designated Facility
Definition; Standards Applicable to
Generators of Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Today's finnl rule removes
five of 20 conditionally retained mineral
processing wastes from the exemption
from hazardous waste regulations
provided by section 3001(h)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), often referred to
as the Bovill exclusion. The five wastes
removed from the Bevill exclusion by
today's final rule are: Furnace off-gas
solids from elemental phosphorus
production, process wastewater from
primary lead processing, air pollution
control dust/sludge from lightweight
aggregate production, sulfate process
waste acids from titanium dioxide
production, and sulfate process waste
solids from titanium dioxide production.
Wastes removed from the exclusion are
subjoct to hazardous wnste regulations
if they are found to exhibit a hazardous
characteristic or are otherwise identified
or listed as hazardous.
Three wastes previously proposed on
September 25,1909 (54 FR 39298). for
removal from the Bevill exclusion are
retained under the exclusion by this
final rule. Those three wastes are: (1)
Treated residue from roasting/leaching
of chrome ore: (2) process wastexvater
from coal gasification; and (3) process
wastewater from hydrolfluoric ncid
production. The Bevill exclusion also is
retained for 12 of the original 13 other
conditonally retained wastes, which will
be addressed, along with 5 other wastes
in a Report to Congress and subsequent
Regulatory Determination by January 31,
1991. -
Today's rule makes technical
corrections to the definition of
"bcneficiation" that was promulgated on
September 1,1989 (54 FR 30592) and also
waives the RCRA Section 3010
notification deadline for mineral
processing facilities that are located in
authorized states and that generate
wastes removed from the exclusion in
the September 1,1089 final rule. Because
of confusion expressed by the regulated
community in response to statements
made in the preamble of the September
1 rule, today's rule also extends the
RCRA Section 0010 notification deadline
for mineral processing facilities that are
located in unauthorized states and that
generate wastes removed from the
exclusion by the September 1,1909 final
rule. Notification will now be required in
unauthorized states by April 23,1990.
Today's final rule also amends the
RCRA Subtitle C definition of
"designated facility" and the standards
applicable to generators of hazardous
waste to clarify the requirements for
completing hazardous waste shipment
manifests for transporting wastes from
one state where they are regulated as
hazardous to another in which they are
not regulated as hnzardous.
DATES: Effective Date: July 23,1990. Not
later than April 23,1990, all persons in
unauthorized states who generate,
transport, treat, store, or dispose of
wastes removed from temporary
exclusion by this rule or the September
1,1989 final rule and which are
characteristically hazardous under 40
CFR part 261, subpart C, must notify
EPA of these activities pursuant to
section 3010 of RCRA.
See sections V and VI of the preamble
below for additional dates and details.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:
RCRA/Superfund Hotlne at (800) 424-
9310 or (202) 382-3000, or for technical
information contact Dan Derkics or Bob
Hall, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20100, (202) 382-3008, or (202) 475-
8814, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMA1ION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Context
B. Overview of Today's Rule
C. Future Activities
II. Analysis of and Response to Public
Comments on Beviil Status of 20 Mineral
• Processing Wastes Proposed on
September 25,1909
A. General Comments on EPA's
Application of the Finnl Dcvill Criteria
B. Comments on the 13 Waste Streams
Proposed for Retention
C. Comments on the Seven Wastes
Proposed for Removal
D. Relationship of the Proposed Rule to
Subtitle C of RCRA
E. Costs and Impacts of the Proposed Rule
F. Requests for Clarifications/Technical
Corrections on the September 1,1989,
Final Rule
C. Concerns with Administrative Procedure
III. Revised Application of the Final Criteria
for Defining Bevill Miners! Processing
Wastes
A. Clarification of Waste Stream
Definitions
D. Compliance with the High Volume
Criterion
C. Compliance with the Low Hazard
Criterion
D. Bevill Status of Conditionally Retained
Mineral Piocosting Wastes
IV. Analysis of and Response to Comments
on Clarification to the Definition of
"Designated Facility" and Modificiiiio.'i
of the Standards Applicable to
Generators of Hazardous Wuste
A. General Comments on the Proposed
Definition
B. Relationship Between Today's
Clarification and Non-RCRA State
Hazardous Wastes
C. Who Can Qualify as a designated
Facility?
D. Which Standards Apply to Interstate
Shipments
E. Other Comments
F. Manifesting Requirements
V. Regulatory Implementation and Effective
Dates of the Final Rule
A. Section 3010 Notification
B. Compliance Dutes for Today's Rule
VI. Effect on State Authorizations
VII. F.conomic Impact Screening Analysis
Pursuant to Executive Order 12291
A. Approach
B. Aggregate and Sector Compliance Costs
C. Economic Impacts
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
IX. List of Subjects in 40 CFR 260, 261 and 202
I, Introduction
A. Context
Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) temporarily excludes "solid
waste from the extraction, beneficiation,
and processing of ores and minerals"
from regulation as hazardous waste
under Subtitle C of RCRA, pending
completion of certain studies by EPA. In
1900, EPA temporarily interpreted this
exclusion, often referred to as the Bevill
exclusion, to encompass "solid waste
from the exploration, mining, milling,
smelting and refining of ores and
minerals" (45 FR 76619, November 19,
1980).
In response to the decision of the
District of Columbia Circuit Court of
Appeals in Environmental Defense Fund
v. EPA, 852 F.2d 1318. (D.C. Cir. 1988),
cert denied, 109 S.Ct. 1120 (1989), EPA
proposed criteria by which mineral
processing wastes would be evaluated
for continued exclusion from hazardous
waste regulation until the required
studies and subsequent regulatory
determination was made. On September
1,1989 (see 54 FR 36592). EPA provided
the final Bevill exclusion criteria.
Twenty mineral processing wastes were
conditionally retained within the scope
of the Bevill exclusion pending the
analysis of newly collected data. The
Bevill exemption was retained for the
following Five mineral processing
wastes, which will be studied in a
Report to Congress.
1. Slag from primary copper processing.
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 2323
2. Slag from primary lead processing.
3. Red and brown muds from bauxite
refining.
4. Phosphogypsiun from phosphoric acid
production.
5. Slag from elemental phosphorus
production.
All of the other mineral processing
wastes that wers permanently removed
from the Bevill exclusion by the
September 1,1989 rule are subject to
RCRA Subtitle C regulation if they are
solid wastes and exhibit one or more of
the characteristics of hazardous waste
as defined in 40 CFR part 231 or ire
otherwise listed as hazardous waste.
On September 25,1989 (54 FR 39298),
EPA Devaluated the status of the 20
conditionally retained wastes. Applying
the high volume and low hazard criteria
contained in the September 1,1989 final
rule, the Agency proposed to
permanently remove seven mineral
processing wastes from the Bevill
exclusion and retain 13 other mineral
processing wastes within the exclusion
for study in a Report to Congress. The
seven mineral processing wastes
proposed for removal from the Bevill
exclusion were:
1. Roast/leach ore residue from primary
chromite production:
Z. Process wastewater from coal
gasification:
3. Furnace off-gas solids from elemental
phosphorus production;
4. Process wastewater from hydrofluoric
acid production;
5. Process wastewater from primary lead
processing:
6. Sulfate process waste acids from
titanium dioxide production: and
7. Sulfate process waste solids from
titanium dioxidt production.
The 13 mineral processing wastes
proposed for temporary retention in the
Bevill exclusion were:
1. Casifier ash from coal gasification;
2. Calcium tuifatt wastewater treatment
plant sludge from primary copper processing:
3. Slag tailings from primary copper
processing;
4. Fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric add
production:
S. Air pollution control dust/siudg« from
iron blast furnaces:
6. Iron blast furnace slag;
7. Au pollution control dust/sludge from
lightweight aggregate production;
a Process wastewater from primary
magnesium production by the anhydrous
process;
9. Process wastewater from phosphoric
acid production;
10. Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth
furnace air pollution control dust/sludge from
carbon steel production;
11. Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth
furnace ilag from carbon steel production;
12. Chloride process waste solids from
titanium tetrachloride production: and
13. Slag from primary zinc processing.
The September 25,1989 notice also
proposed to modify the RCRA subtitle C
definition of "designated facility" for
purposes of clarifying the requirements
for completing hazardous waste
manifests for wastes transported from
one State where they are regulated as
hazardous to another in which they are
not regulated as hazardous. Under the
proposed modification, if a waste is sent
to an authorized Stats where the waste
is not regulated as hazardous, then the
designated facility must be a facility
allowed by the State to accept the
waste. The Agency solicited public
comments on the appropriateness of
these modifications as well as on the
data used to make the proposed Bevill
exclusion decisions.
D. Overview of Today's Rule
Today's final rule establishes the
status of 20 mineral processing wastes
which were proposed either for removal
from or retention in the Bevill exclusion
in the September 25,1989 notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM). In
addition, today's rule contains technical
corrections to the September 1,1989
final rule. Furthermore, today's final rale
also promulgates a clarification to the
definition of "designated facility" that
the Agency proposed on September 25,
1989.
This final rule completes the
rulemaking regarding the Bevill status of
mineral processing wastes until the
completion of the required report to
Congress and Regulatory Determination,
In establishing the current status for
these 20 mineral processing wastes, the
Agency has considered information
presented in public comment on the
September 25 proposal together with
additional analysis of previous EPA
industry survey and field data and.
where appropriate, has modified the
decisions.
As in the September 25 proposal, the
Agency evaluated the 20 mineral
processing wastes by applying the high
volume and low hazard criteria
contained in the September 1,1989 final
rule, using a three-step process. First,
the Agency applied the high volume
criteria to the available waste
generation data. For each waste, the
Agency obtained facility-specific annual
waste generation rates for the period
1983-1988 and calculated the highest
average annual facility-level generation
rate. Mineral processing wastes
generated above the volume criteria
thresholds (an average rate of 45,000
metric tons per facility for non-liquid
wastes, and 1,000,000 metric tons for
liquid wastes) passed the high volume
criterion.
In the second step, the Agency
evaluated each of the 20 wastes with
respect to the low hazard criterion using
the relevant waste characteristics. EPA
considered a waste to poae a low hazard
only if the waste passed both a toxicity
test (Method 1312) and a pH test.
The third step involved consolidating
the results from the first two steps to
determine the appropriate Bevitl status
of the 20 conditionally retained mineral
processing wastes. Applying these
criteria, the Agency is today removing
the Bevill exclusion for the following
five mineral processing wastes:
1. Furnace off-gas solids from elemental
phosphorus production.
2. Process wastewater from primary lead
processing.
3. Air pollution control dust/sludge from
lightweight aggregate production.
4. Sulfate process waste acids from
titanium dioxide production.
5. Sulfate process waste solids from
titanium dioxide production.
The following 15 mineral processing
wastes are to be retained within the
exclusion (in addition to the five already
retained in the September 1 rule),
pending preparation of a Report to
Congress and the subsequent Regulatory
Determination:
1. Treated residue from roasting/leaching
of chrome ore;
2. Casifier ash from coal gasification;
3. Process wastewater from coal
gasification;
4. Calcium sulfate wastewater treatment
plant sludge from primary copper processing:
5, Slag tailings from primary copper
processing:
9. Fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric acid
production;
f, Process wastewater from hydrofluoric
acid production:
8. Air pollution control dust/sludge from
iron blast furnaces:
9. Iron blast furnace ilag;
10, Process wastewater from primary
magnesium production by the anhydrous
process;
11. Process wastewater from phosphoric
acid production:
12. Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth
furnace air pollution control dust/sludge from
carbon steel production:
13. Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth
furnace ilag from carbon tteel production:
14. Chloride process waste solid* from
titanium tetrachloride production; and
IS. Slag from primary line processing.
Today's rule also contains technical
corrections to the September 1,1989
final rule. The Agency's review of the
final rule, as weU as public comments,
revealed slight differences between
portions of the regulatory language and
the corresponding discussion in the
preamble. As a result today's rule
includes minor editorial changes to the
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
2324 Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
language of September 1 final rule.
These changes are fully described in
Section IL
In addition, EPA is promulgating a
clarification to the definition of
"Designated Facility" as defined in 40
CFR 28040. The Agency is amending
this definition for purposes of clarifying
the requirements for completing
hazardous waste manifests for wastes
transported from one State where they
are regulated as hazardous to another in
which they are not regulated as
hazardous. Today's clarification allows
such generators to ship the waste to a
facility in an authorized State in which
the waste is not yet regulated as
hazardous, as long as the facility
receiving the wastes is allowed by the
State to receive the waste. This rule also «
clarifies that it is the responsibility of
the generator to assure that any out-of-
state transporter and designated facility
sign the manifest form that accompanies
the waste shipment.
C. Future Activities
This rule establishes the boundaries
of the temporary exclusion from
hazardous waste regulations for mineral
processing wastes provided by RCRA
section 3001(bJ(3)(A){ii). All 20 mineral
processing wastes for which the Bevill
exclusion has been retained will be
subject to detailed study by EPA.1 The
findings of these studies will be
contained in a Report to Congress that
will be submitted by July 31,1990.
Six months after submission of this
report, the Agency will publish a
Regulatory Determination stating
whether or not any of the studied
wastes will be regulated under Subtitle
C of RCRA as hazardous wastes, or that
such regulation is unwarranted.
II. Analysis of and Response to Public
Comments on Bevill Status of 20 Mineral
Processing Wastes Proposed on
September 25,1989
This section summarizes and
discusses the comments received on the
September 25,1889 proposal. In general,
this discussion is limited to the issues
germane to the September 25th proposal
Comments on other issues are not
discussed here, except in • few
instances where the Agency believes it
is important to restate its position to
avoid confusion or misunderstanding in
the regulated community. The Agency
did review all of the comments received,
however, and comments not discussed
here are summarized in a background
document in the docket.
A. General Comments on EPA's
Application of the Final Bevill Criteria
1. Sources of Volume and Hazard Data
a. Volume Data. One commenter
argued that the volume data supporting
the proposed determinations of whether
proposed waste streams are high volume
lack adequate verification. Specifically,
the commenter contended that
tremendous discrepancies are evident
between the data provided by
commenters and the data reported from
the 1989 National Survey of Solid
Wastes from Mineral Processing
Facilities for the following four waste
streams: Coal gas process wastewater,
elemental phosphorous furnace off-gas
solids, lead process wastewater, and
titanium dioxide sulfate process waste
solids.
EPA agrees that some of the data
reported in the comments and the data
from the surveys that were used in
developing waste volume estimates for
the proposal are not in close agreement
As a result, in developing today's rule.
the Agency has relied almost
exclusively on data collected in the 1989
National Survey of Solid Wastes from
Mineral Processing Facilities, which was
conducted under RCRA Section 3007
authority, under the assumption that the
various respondents realize that
submission of false data is a punishable
offense. The Agency believes that these
are the most recent and accurate data
available.
Additional analysis of responses to
the surveys, carried out in response to
these comments, has indicated some
variability in the way in which
respondents interpreted the survey
instructions. In developing the proposed
rule. EPA relied primarily on the
responses to survey question 2.11 ("How
much of the special waste did this
processing unit generate in 1988?") to
derive the average facility waste
volumes. Additional review of the
survey responses has indicated that in
same instances the volume data that the
Agency expected to be reported in
response to question 2.11 were in fact
reported in other sections of the
questionnaire that requested
information related to waste treatment
plants, surface impoundments and other
waste management units (i.e., sections 4
through 8.) *
1 TheM Include the five wastes for which th*
temporary exclusion was retained in the September
1.1909 final ml* end th* IS wast** for which th*
exclusion i» rauioBd in today** rale.
• Thii occun raoit often for the flvt wnttt that
«r» covered by till* rukmiking (or whjch data wire
not specifically requested in th* survey. Apparently,
a number of facility open ton «Ui«r neglected to
read, misunderstood, at ignored th* instruction to
provide information on way waste that tliey
As a consequence, EPA has been
careful to select the response to the
appropriate survey question (which
sometimes is not question 2,11) in
developing today's final rule. For
example, the appropriate waste volume
data were sometimes provided in
response to question 4.18 ("What was
the quantity of sludge/solid outflows
from this wastewater treatment plant in
1988?"}, question 5.8 ("Approximately
how much cf the total amount of
accumulated sludge/solids in this
surface impoundment on December 31,
1988 was added during 1988?"), or
question 8.4 ("What were the inflows to
this waste management unit and what
was the quantity of each inflow in
1988?"}. In those cases where responses
to questions contained in sections 4
through 8 of the survey have been
selected for use by the Agency, the
responses are in much better agreement
with the data provided in comments. In
a number of cases, as discussed more
fully in section III, below, estimated
waste generation rates have been
revised, and in fact in a few instances,
the Agency's evaluation of whether
particular waste streams comply with
the high volume criterion has been
reversed. Documentation addressing the
Agency's calculation of waste volumes
can be found in the docket supporting
this final rule.
The commenter also criticized the
Agency for liberally panting
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
designations to responses submitted by
industry respondents to the National
Survey. These designations, they
claimed, have impeded independent
verification of the volume data, noting
that for residue from roasting/leaching
of chrome ore and titanium dioxide
sulfate process waste acids, all of the
facilities generating these waste streams
designated their relevant survey data as
CBI. The commenter stated that if the
public is unable to scrutinize these data
because of their confidentiality, then the
Agency should make a professional
verification of the information provided.
Under the provisions of section 3007
of RCRA, facilities providing
information to EPA can designate
information, in whole or in part as CBI.
EPA has not automatically granted
claims for CBI status. Rather, EPA
reviewed the CBI claims made for data
submitted by mineral processing
facilities in support of this rulemaking
and, when claims for CBI status
appeared excessive, requested, often
successfully, that the CBI claims be
considered eligible for BeviH ttarut, irrespective of
whether it was on EPA'i preliminary list.
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 2325
reduced or eliminated. In addition, EPA
has included aggregated CBI data in the
publicly available documentation
supporting the development of today's
rale to the extent that this could be done
without revealing company-specific CBI
information.
As disc-assad above, facilities that
submit either CBI or non-CBI data
requested by EPA under RCRA 3007
authority are subject to enforcement
action if they submit false data. As a
result, the Agency believes that data
collected under Section 3C07 authority
can be relied upon without additional
verification, regardless of whether it is
CBI or not. In addition, as a practical
matter, the schedule requirsd by the
Appeals Court for this ruleoaakkt.g did
not provide ths time needed to conduct
such verification.
One cornmenter stated that for some
of the wastes of interest, EPA volume
determinations are based on a fraction
• of those facilities generating the waste.
As a result, the commenter contends,
EPA lacks a sufficient basis for
determining whether proposed wastes
meet the high volume criterion. In
instances where EPA lacks data on
more than 25 percent of the facilities
generating the waste, the commenter
believes that EPA should not make a
volume determination without
determining whether the facilities
providing the volume data are
representative of the industry; the
Agency should also attempt to obtain
data on the remaining facilities. The
commenter maintained that in the
absence of survey data, EPA should not
rely completely upon data provided in
public comments.
EPA responds that, as dicussed above
and in more detail in Section HI of this
preamble, further analysis of the survey
data has shown that the survey
responses do in fact provide adequate
waste volume data for all but one of the
20 mineral processing wastes covered
by today's rulemaidng. With the
exception of this one waste, waste
volume data are available in the survey
for far more than 25 percent of the
facilities generating the waste. For the
one waste with limited data available in
the survey, basic oxygen furnace and
open hearth furnace air pollution control
dust/sludge from carbon steel
production, data provided by the
American Iron and Steel Institute (MSI)
were used for the volume determination.
These data were verified through
comparison with the survey data that
were provided for several of the
facilities for which AISI also provided
volume data.
b. Hazard Data. Several conunenters
argued that the Agency used too few
samples, especially when results were
inconsistent, or neglected to sample
inactive facilities for determining the
hazard of waste streams. As a result the
ccmmenters argued, the samples were
not representative of the entire industry.
Other commenters contended that many
inconsistencies in the waste sampling
data were overlooked in making
proposed exclusion decisions.
EPA responds that as clearly stated
in the September 25,1988 NPRM. the
low hazard criterion was established in
the September 1,19G9 final rule and is
not subject to public comment at this
time. For further discussion of tho
development and application of the low
hazard criterion, refar to 54 FR 36592. In
applying the final Sevill low hazard
criterion, EPA has not ignored any
apparent inconsistencies or widely
varying concentrations. The low hazard
criterion is applied ur.ing the lower 80
percent confidence interval that, as a
practical matter, allows for one or more
samples to exhibit contaminant
concentrations above relevant
standards, without disqualifying the
waste for Bevill status. Inactive facilities
were not sampled because they are
affected by today's rulemaMng only if in
the future they resume operation or
actively manage historical
accumulations of wastes for which the
Subtitle C exemption is being removed
by today's rule. The Agency believes
that it would be inappropriate and
impractical to consider these
speculative future activities in
developing today's rule (For further
discussion see 54 FR 36595-36597.)
Another commenter disputed EPA's
use of data submitted by waste
generators for the low hazard
determinations, stating that the use of
these data contradicts the criteria set in
the September 1.1989 rule.
As explained in the preamble to the
September 1,1989 final rule, EPA
established that low hazard
determinations are to be based on EPA
Method 1312 data unless
i. The wasto is generated at five or mar*
facilities; aad
ii. Substantial additional relevant data or*
available and the prepaadaruc* of then
additional data indicate that the waste
should be considered low hazard, where;
a. Relevant data an defined as data that
result from analysis of wasta extracts
obtained by EPA Methods 1310,1311, and
1312. ASTM Teat Method 03887-81, or
comparable procedures that Agency has
reason to believe product reliubk and
representative data: aad
b. To be considered substantial, th»
additional data mu*t charmclanza the wait*
at 3 plants (other than thot« two planta
where Method 1312 results axea*d 100 time*
the MCLa] or at least half of the facilities that
generate the waste [other than those tvro
plants where Method 1312 results exceed 100
times the MCLs), whichever number of plants
is larger. (54 FR 36630)
The Agency wishes to point out that
there is no explicit or implicit
assumption in this low hazard criterion
about the source of the data that the
Agency is to use in making low hazard
determinations. Accordingly, EPA has
used available Method 1312 data
regardless of source {e.g., EPA, industry)
in making low hazard dsteirminations in
today's rule (and, indeed, the September
25. 19S9 proposal).
B. Consents -J.T '.he 13 Waste Sl'sanis
Proposed fcr Retention
This saction discusses comments
received on each of the 13 mineral
processing wastes for which EPA
proposed to retain the Bevill exemption;
The comments received on each of the
wastes generally are presented under
one of three subheadings: Processing
Criterion/Waste Definition, Volume, or
Hazard. These subheadings appear only
when they are relevant to comments
identified for the waste being discussed,
so for many of the 13 wastes, one or
mere of the subheadings are not
included.
1. Gasifier Ash From Coal Gasification
One commenter supported EPA's
proposed retention of gasifier ash from
coal gasification within the Bevill
exclusion.
2. Calcium Sulfate Wastewater
Treatment Plant Sludge From Primary
Copper Processing
One commenter agreed with EPA's
proposed determination that calcium
sulfate wastewater treatment plant
sludges from primary copper processing
are high volume, low hazard materials
and. thus, qualify for the Bevill
exclusion and further study.
o. Processing Criterion/Waste
Definition, One commenter asserted that
no rational basis exists for
distinguishing between calcium sulfate
and sodium hydroxide sludges, arguing
that both are generated in identical
treatment plants, and both are
reprocessed in the primary copper
processing operation to recover
additional copper. The commenter
indicated that the only difference
between the two sludges is the type of
reagent used [lime or sodium hydroxide)
to neutralize acidic aqueous streams
that enter the treatment plants. The
commenter reasoned that the only
explanation for this disaggregation is the
amount of sludge resulting from use of
the different neutralizing reagents.
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
2328 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23. 1990 / Rulea and Regulations
The Agency has considered the
comment and finds these arguments
unconvincing. EPA believes that tha
type of reagent used is an important
factor in determining the chemical
nature and quantity of the sludge
generated. As explained In the preamble
to the April, 1989 proposed rule (54 FR
15316), EPA believes that there are
significant differences between these
materials, and accordingly, has retained
this distinction in today's final rule.
b. Volume. Three commenters
addressed the volume data for this
waste. One commenter agreed with
EPA's determination that calcium
sulfate wastewater treatment plant
sludge meets the high volume criterion.
Another commenter contended that all
wastewater treatment plant sludga from
primary copper processing should ba
studied under the ievill Amendment. If
the generation rates for calcium sulfate
and sodium hydroxide sludges are
added, they noted, the resulting average
is above the 45.COO metric ton per year
cutoff. The third commenter claimed
that public comment data submitted by
waste generators and survey data for
those same wastes are not consistent
The third commenter noted that In
public comments, industry submitted an
average annual generation rate for
calcium sulfate wastewater treatment
plant sludge from primary copper
processing of 75,750 MT/yr (comments
of Kennecott Utah Copper on October
20,1988 NPRM), while according to
EPA's survey data, the average
generation rate for this waste stream
was 1,179,341 MT/yr. Because these
data are not in agreement the third
commenter concluded that all of the
volume data are suspect especially
when EPA had previously estimated an
annual generation rate of 38,033 MT/yr,
a volume that would not have supported
a high volume determination.
The Agency agrees that the volume
data cited by the commenter appear to
be inconsistent The Agency has
reviewed the survey data and found that
these apparent inconsistencies arise
from the fact that appropriate waste
volume data sometimes were reported in
sections 3 through 0 of die
questionnaire, rather than section 2.
which was used to develop average
volume data for the proposed rule. As a
result these differences have since been
resolved and are explained in Section
01, below, and a background document
in the docket which present the
Agency's revised waste generation
estimates. Finally, EPA's previous
volume estimate of approximately 35,000
MT/yr average per facility wa* based
on an aggregation of calcium sulfate and
sodium hydroxide sludge, which the
Agency has concluded is
inappropriate. *
c. Hazard. Two commenters
addressed the hazard level of calcium
sulfate wastewater treatment plant
sludge from primary copper processing.
One agreed with EPA's proposed
determination that the waste meets
EPA's low hazard criterion. However,
another commenter asserted that EPA's
sampling data demonstrated that
calcium sulfate wastewater treatment
sludge from primary copper processing
exhibits the hazardous waste
characteristic of EP-toxicity for arsenic,
cadmium, and selenium, and questioned
why it was not proposed for removal
from the Bevill exclusion on that basis
alone.
EPA finalized the low haaard criterion
In the September 1,1989 nils, and is not
entertaining comments on It The
Agency's rationale for the low hazard
criterion is outlined in 54 FR 36592. As
discussed in the September 25,1989
proposal, the waste does not exhibit
levels of toxic constituents above those
established by the September 1,1989
final rule.
3. Slag Tailings From Primary Copper
Processing
Two commenters supported EPA's
proposed retention of slag tailings from
primary capper processing for further
study, asserting that EPA properly
determined the waste to be high volume
and low hazard.
a. Processing Criterion/Waste
Definition. One commenter stated that
at its facility, slag tailings are produced
when the ore input to the mill is
supplemented with slag from the
facility's primary copper smelting
operations. Because the slag tailings
cannot be differentiated from the ore
tailings, the commenter arguns that the
Bevill exemption, as either a processing
waste or • beneficiation waste, should
be retained for the slag tailings.
While EPA plans to study copper slag
tailings in a report to Congress, EPA
disagrees with the commenter'•
contention that the fact that tha waste is
generated in combination with a
beneficiation waste ia relevant to the
decision that inclusion in the report to
Congress is appropriate. The Agency
has decided to include this waste in the
report to Congress because it is a
* Availabln data indicato that sludge n*ulting
from tnatmant of waitawalen from primary copper
proestsing uimg todium hydroxide ii jmanted ia
much innllgr volume* than calcium iul/jt« i!udg»t
miuJUng from treatment with lime. A* * mult. «o
average annual iludg* voluma that Include* both
type* of tlutigw ia iignificanily lowe* Ulna on* thai
ia bated only on calcium lulmt* iludi;4.
mineral processing waste that Is both
high volume and low hazard according
to the criteria previously established.
The Agency will, however, examine tha
current practices that involve co-
management of a beneficiation waste
and a mineral processing waste in the
report to Congress.
b. Volume. Three commenters
concurred that slag tailings from
primary copper processing meet EPA's
high volume criterion. One commenter
submitted complete volume data for this
waste stream in the Survey, stating that
it generates mors than a million metric
tons per year of the waste stream.
Another commenter claimed that about
3,700,000 short tons of tailings, of which
approximately 22,000 short tons were
slag tailings, were generated by its
facility.
4. Air Pollution Control Dust/Sludge
From Iron Blast Furnaces
One commenter asserted that the
Agency's proposal for retention of iron
and steel industry wastes within the
Bevill exclusion is fully supported by the
data. These wastes are mineral
processing wastes, and they meet the
criteria as high volume, low hazard
wastes,
5. Iron Blast Furnace Slag
Oaa commenter asserted that tha
Agency's proposal for retention of iron
and steel industry wastes within the
Bevill exclusion is fully supported by the
data. These wastes are mineral
processing wastes, and they meet ths
criteria as high volume, low hazard
wastes.
8, Basic Oxygen Furnace and Open
Hearth Furnace Air Pollution Control
Dust/Sludge From Carbon Steel
Production
One commenter asserted that the
Agency's proposal for temporary
retention of iron and steel industry
wastes within the Bevill exclusion is
fully supported by the data. These
wastes are mineral processing wastes,
and they meet the criteria as high
volume, low hazard wastes.
One commenter argued, however, teat
EPA's volume data is incomplete,
because for some wastes, the volume
determinations are based on only a
fraction of the facilities generating the
waste. In the case of basic oxygen and
open hearth furnace APC dust/sludge
from carbon steel production, the
commenter maintained that EPA based
its volume determination on data from
only four of 27 facilities. The commenter
argued that the Agency made no effort
to determine if these few facilities were
-------
DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 2327
representative of the industry in general.
or if the facilities were unusually large
or email and would skew the data.
In response to this comment, EPA has
carefully reviewed all data available
from the industry survey and from other
sources. The Agency's revised waste
generation estimate (presented in
Section III, below), is based upon data
obtained from the vast majority of
active carbon steel facilities. These data
show that this is a high volume waste.
7. Basic Oxygen Furnace and Open
Hearth Furnace Slag From Carbon Steel
Production
One commenter asserted that the
Agency's proposal for temporary
retention of iron and steel industry
wastes within the Bevill exclusion is
fully supported by the data. These
wastes are mineral processing wastes,
and they meet the criteria as high
volume, low hazard wastes.
8. Fluorogypsum From Hydrofluoric
Acid Production
a. Volume. One commenter agreed
with EPA's proposed determination that
fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric acid
production meets the high volume
criterion.
b. Hazard. One commenter agreed
with EPA's proposed determination that
fluorogypsum meets the low hazard
criterion.
9, Air Pollution Control Dust/Sludge
From Lightweight Aggregate Production
a. Volume. One commenter argued
that EPA's volume data are incomplete,
because for this waste, the volume
determination was based on only a
fraction of the facilities generating the
waste. The commenter maintained that
EPA based its volume determination for
lightweight aggregate APC dust/sludge
on data from only six of the 28 facilities
it believes to generate the waste. The
commenter argued that the Agency
made no effort to determine if these few
facilities were representative of the
industry.
In response to this comment EPA has
carefully reviewed all data available
from the industry survey and from other
sources. The Agency's revised waste
generation estimate (presented in
Section m, below), is based upon data
obtained from the majority of active
lightweight aggregate production
facilities. These data show that this is
not a high volume waste.
10. Process Waste water From Primary
Magnesium Production by the
Anhydrous Method
a. Hazard. One commenter questioned
EPA's decision not to propose for
removal from the Bevill exclusion
process wastewater from primary
magnesium processing by the anhydrous
method even though EPA's sampling
demonstrated that the waste exhibits
the hazardous waste characteristic of
cortosivity {pH level of 1.22). EPA
should, they contended further consider
this data in preparing its Report to
Congress.
The Agency generally agrees with the
commenter that relevant hazard data
should be considered in the study of the
waste stream when preparing the Report
to Congress. However, EPA finalized the
low hazard criterion in the September 1,
1989 rule, and is not currently
entertaining comments on it. The
Agency's rationale for the low hazard
criterion is outlined in 54 FR 38S92. As
discussed in the i/25/89 proposal, the
waste does not exhibit a pH below the
Bevill hazard criterion value of 1. •
11. Process Wastewater From
Phosphoric Acid Production
Four commenters stated that EPA
correctly proposed that process
wastewater from phosphoric acid
production be retained within the scope
of the Bevill Amendment and that EPA
should retain this waste within the
Bevill exclusion in the final rule.
a. Processing Criterion/Waste
Definition. One commenter argued that
process water recirculated in the
phosphate complex including the
gypsum stacking system, is not
discarded. Process water's nutrient
value, which is extracted for fertilizer
products, and its utilization as a coolant
and transport medium, are not activities
that should cause it to be classified as a
solid waste as defined by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
EPA responds that the definition of
solid waste is an issue that is not open
for comment in connection with today's
rulemaking. EPA wishes to point out
however, that the issue of when cooling
water is a solid waste has been
discussed in previous rulemakings.
Specifically, in the preamble to the
January 4,1985 (50 FR 614) final rule that
established the current definition of
solid waste, the Agency indicated that
cooling water managed entirely in •
closed-loop system was not considered
to be reclaimed and, thus, would be
eligible for the closed-loop exclusion.
The Agency also Indicated, however,
that secondary materials managed in
impoundments would not be eligible for
the closed-loop exclusion. In addition,
the surface impoundments collecting
cooling water off of gypsum stacks •»
waste treatment units, further indication
that the contents «ra solid wastes.
(i) Comments on phosphogypsum
transport water. One commenter
supported EPA's inclusion of the water
used to transport phosphogypsum within
the definition of process wasttwater
from phosphoric acid production.
(ii) Comments on stack runoff. Three
commenters argued that "stack runoff*
should be included in the definition of
process wastewater from phosphoric
acid production. One commenter
maintained that stack runoff is
comprised of "phosphogypsum
transport" water, which is specifically
included in the definition of process
wastewater from phosphoric acid
production. The commenter further
stated that the definition of process
wastewater from phosphoric acid
production, which includes "several
points in the wet process," is intended to
include all process wastewater
generated at all points within that
process. A second commenter reasoned
that just as process wastewater
managed in a pond that receives
precipitation continues to be process
wastewater, gypsum transport water
that is temporarily trapped within a
gypsum stack and receives precipitation
continues to be gypsum transport water.
The commenter also indicated that
because runoff from dry stacks is not
hazardous, and as runoff from wet
stacks contains transport water which
has been retained, stack runoff should
also be retained within the Bevill
Amendment
One commenter noted that comments
from previous rulemakinga and other
documents may have led to the incorrect
impression that phosphogypsum stack
runoff standing alone exhibits
characteristics of hazardous waste. The
commenter also indicated that they
believe the Agency has resolved this
issue satisfactorily, however, by
including water used for
phosphogypsum transport in the
description of phosphoric acid process
wastewater included in the proposed
rule. The commenter further concluded
that because only the phosphogypsum
transport water entrained in
precipitation runoff from
phosphogypsum stacks ever exhibits
characteristics of hazardous waste,
EPA's proposal to include
phosphogypstun transport water within
the scope of the Bevill Amendment
resolves the issue of the status of
precipitation runoff.
(lit) Comments on uranium recovery
wastewater. Commenters noted that the
uranium recovery step of phosphoric
acid production follows the reaction of
phosphate rack and sulfuric acid and
precedes the concentration and
-------
2320 Federal Register /Vol. 55, No, 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
purification steps required to produce
commercial grade, also known as
merchant grade, phosphoric acid. Two
commenters argued that the process
wastewater generated from tha uranium
recovery step of phosphoric acid
production must be considered a
component of "process wastewater from
phosphoric acid production" and, thus,
proposed it for retention within the
BeviH Amendment,
(iv) Comments on process wastewater
from animal feed production. Two
commenters maintained that process
wastewater from animal feed production
should be included in the definition of
process wastewater from phosphoric
acid production and thus retained in the
Bevill exclusion. One commenter
claimed animal feed process
wastewater, standing alone, meets the
Agency's high volume ond low hazard
criteria. This commenter further argued
that the production of animal feed
constitutes mineral processing, citing the
following reasons: (1) Three key animal
feed ingredients (dicalcium phosphate,
mono- and dicnlciam phosphate, and
defluorinated phosphate rock) are
produced from bermfimation of either
phosphate rock or limestone; (2)
processing removes and/or enhances
the characteristics of either benefieiated
phosphate rock or limestone; (3) none of
the materials used is a scrap material;
(4) the processes produce final mineral
products; and (5) no combination with
non-mineral products is involved.
Therefore, the commenter argued,
process wastewater from such
production should be retained within the
scope of the Bevill Amendment.
The commenter also addressed
several aspects of the production
process. The commenter argwed that the
defluorination step in animal feed
production should not prevent process
wastewater from animal feed production
from remaining within the Bevill
exclusion. The production of
defluorinated phosphoric acid involves
essentially the same process as the
production of undcfluorinated
commercial grade phosphoric acid.
Defluorination is only an additional step
in acid production in which fluorides are
removed from the acid by heat and the
addition of a silicon mineral to facilitate
removal of fluorine. No meaningful
distinction can or should be made
regarding defluorinated phosphoric acid
simply because defluorination occurs
before or after concentration to
commercial grade strength.
The commenter further argued that
the production of monoammonium
phosphate, an animal feed product,
constitutes mineral processing, even
though the process makes use of
ammonia, a non-mineral ingredient. The
commenter indicated that ammonia is
added to defluorinated commercial
grade phosphoric acid in a granulation
process, involving approximately 7,000
gallons per minute of phosphoric acid
production process water for particulate
scrubbing. The commenter maintained
that this amount of water is
"infinitesimal" compared to the mineral
processing process wnstewatcr
generated on a daily basis, and thus this
small granulation process should be
considered co-management and
monoammonium phosphate process
wastewater should be included within
the Bevill exclusion of phosphoric acid
process wastewater.
The commenter maintained that, if
EPA determined that returning to its
source the 7,000 gallons per minute of
phosphoric acid process wnstewater
used during feed grade monoammonium
production would result in the removal
of the entire phosphoric acid process
wastewater system from the Bevill
Amendment, the production of feed
grade monoammonium phosphate would
be ceased and the product removed
from the market,
(v) Comments on superphosphate
waatewater. One commenler contended
that process wastewater from
superphosphate production should be
retained within the scope of the Bevill
Amendment. The commenter argued
that data submitted by industry in the
mineral processing survey demonstrates
that this waste from superphosphate
production meets the high volume and
low hazard criteria. In addition, the
commenter claimed that superphosphate
production meets the relevant aspects of
the EPA mineral processing definition,
stating that the production of
superphosphate rock involves the direct
reaction of phosphate rock with dilute,
not merchant grade, phosphoric acid,
(vi) Comments on ammoniated
fertilizer wastewater. Two commenters
argued that process wastewater
generated in the production of
ammoniated phosphate fertilizers (APF)
should be retained within the scope of
the Bevill Amendment. The inclusion of
phosphoric acid process wastewater
within the scope of the Bevill
Amendment should, they contended,
resolve the issue of whether APF
process wastewater is included. The
influent water to the ammoniated
phosphate fertilizer process is the
process wastewater from phosphoric
acid production, which remains under
the Bevill exclusion. The commenter
claimed that if APF process wastewater
exhibits hazardous characteristics, it is
solely because process wastewater from
phosphoric acid production is used in
APF production. The commenter further
argued that the entire APF production
process should not be removed from the
Bevill exclusion, when the cause of the
hazardous characteristic is phosphoric
acid wastewaler, which is covered
under the Bevill exclusion.
(vii) Comments on sulfuric acid
wastewater. One commenter contended
that captive sulfuric acid production
involves mineral processing and Is
absolutely essential to the production of
phosphoric acid by the wet process. The
commenter urged EPA to either clarify
that sulfuric acid wastewater produced
as a result of sulfuric acid production is
part of phosphoric acid process
wastewater or revise its interpretation
of the mixture rule so that such process
wastewater can continue to be managed
In the sound and cost-effective manner
practiced today.
(viii) Response to Comments. In the
proposal, EPA noted that process
wastewaters are generated at several
points in the wet process, included
phosphogypsum transport, phosphoric
acid concentration, and phosphoric acid
temperature control and cooling. [See 54
FR 30303.) As staled previously, the
Agency did not intend to imply that
these were the only sources of process
wastewater from phosphoric acid
operations.
The Agency has carefully considered
the comments and, based on the
information available, agrees, for the
reasons described in the comments, that
phosphogypsum stack runoff, process
wastewater generated from the uranium
recovery step of phosphoric acid
production, process wastewater from
animal feed production (including
defluorination but excluding
ammoniated animal feed production),
and process wastewater from
superphosphate production are also the
result of mineral processing operations
and should be considered part of
process wastewater from phosphoric
acid production.
As discussed on September 1 (see 54
FR 36621), the Agency does not consider
the production of ammoniated
phosphate fertilizer from phosphoric
acid and ammonia to be a mineral
processing operation. For the same
reasons, the Agency does not consider
the production of ammoniated animal
feed from phosphoric acid to be a
mineral processing operation. As also
discussed on September 1 (see 54 FR
36623), the Agency does not consider
wastes from sulfuric acid production to
be part phosphoric acid process
wastewater.
-------
OSWER DIE. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 15 / Tuesday^ January 23. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 2329
b. Volume. A commenter stated that
the data collected by the Agency at its
facility and similar facilities indicate
that the process wastewater meets
EPA's high volume criterion.
c. Hazard. Two commenters
addressed the hazard level of this
waste. One supported EPA's proposed
determination that process wastewater
from phosphoric acid production meets
the low hazard criterion. However, one
commenter questioned why the waste
stream was not proposed for removal
from the Bevill exclusion because EPA'a
sampling data showed that process
wastewater from phosphoric acid
production exhibits the hazardous waste
characteristic of corrosivity fpH values
of 2.0, 2.1,1.8. and 1.5). EPA should, they
maintained, further consider this data in
preparing its Report to Congress.
The Agency generally agrees with the
commenter that relevant hazard data
should be considered in the study of the
waste stream when preparing the Report
to Congress. However, EPA finalized the
low hazard criterion in the September 1,
1983 rule, and is not entertaining
comments on it. The Agency's rationale
for the low hazard criterion is outlined
in 54 FR 36592. The waste passes the pH
criterion described in that rule.
12. Chloride Process Waste Solids From
Titanium Tetrachloride Production
One commenter agreed with EPA's
proposal to retain chloride process
waste solids from titanium tetrachloride
production within the Bevill exclusion.
a. Processing Criterion/Waste
Definition. One commenter claimed that
EPA. in its description of the "chloride
process waste solids from titanium
tetrachloride production" in the
proposal, described only the "chloride"
process for manufacturing titanium
dioxide and not the "chloride-ilmenite"
process. The Agency stated that "the
chloride process involves fluidized
roasting and chlorinarion of rutile,
synthetic rutile, slag or beneficiated
ilmenites." This statement, according to
the commenter, essentially describes the
"chloride" process that uses "high-
grade" ores or beneficiated ores as
feedstocks; the chloride-ilmenite
process, in contrast, uses "low-grade"
ores as the principal feedstock for its
process.
In addition, the commenter contended,
the Agency incorrectly stated that the
product formed is "titanium
tetrachloride." This may be true of the
"chloride" process that uses "high-
grade" ores or previously beneficiated
material, but is only partially true of the
chloride-ilmenite process. In the
"chloride-ilmenite" process, the
commenter continued, gaseous iron
chlorides are generated first and are
subsequently condensed into iron
chloride "waste acids". This is the
"beneficiation" process. After this, the
titanium in the ores is converted at a
much slower rate into titanium
tetrachloride. Both of these processes.
however, occur in a continuous, "one-
step" operation. The titanium
tetrachloride generated by the chloride-
ilmenite process is then used as the
feedstock for the ultimate production of
titanium dioxide. The commenter
expressed concern that EPA appears to
incorrectly consider the "chloride-
ilmenite" process to be covered within
the "chloride process," for which the
"mining waste exclusion" was
eliminated for "chloride processing
waste acids" in the September 1,1989
final role. The commenter objected to
this conclusion because the chloride-
ilmenite process should not be "lumped"
with a process that is clearly and
substantially different, noting that the
distinction between the two processes
has been recognized since at least 1970.
The commenter claimed that its titanium
dioxide plants could be materially and
adversely affected by EPA's
determinations regarding whether or not
"chloride-ilmenite" plants are
considered "beneficiation" versus
"processing" facilities. The commenter
also claimed its "chloride-ilminte"
process is not covered by either of the
Agency's rulemakings (Sept l and Sept.
25,19B9), and thus would be covered by
an upcoming "special study" for
beneficiation wastes. The commenter
urged EPA to make a determination that
the "chloride-ilmenite" process is one of
beneficiation of low grade iknenite ore
and "chlorination" and should be made
subject to the upcoming RCRA 8002(p)
special studies to determine the
appropriate waste management
requirements.
In response to these comments, EPA
reviewed the court opinions and related
EPA effluent limitation guidelines cited
by the commenter for precedents for
considering the chloride-ilmenite
process to be significantly different from
the conventional chloride process. The
Agency also referred to written
comments submitted by the same
commenter in response to previous
proposed rulemakings addressing the
scope of the Mining Waste Exclusion.
Based upon this review. EPA agrees
with the commenter that the chloride-
ilmenite process is different than the
conventional chloride process in that
ilmenite ore used as the feed stock to
the process contains much larger . .
quantities of iron, which must be
removed, than the feed stocks used by
other chloride processes. In addition.
EPA agrees that, in part, the chloride-
ilmenite process involves beneficiation
of ores or minerals. Nevertheless, the
Agency continues to believe that it is
reasonable to consider the chloride-
ilmenite process to be a part of the
general "chloride process" category for
purposes of this rulemaking because the
process destroys the identity of the
mineral, produces titanium tetrachloride
gas (a saleable mineral product), and
generates wastes which are functionally
identical to, although larger in volume
than, the wastes generated by other
chloride process facilities. Moreover,
because the "beneficiation" wastes and
the "processing" wastes generated by
the chloride-ilmenite process are
inseparable, according to EPA effluent
guidelines development documents and
as argued by the commenter, the Agency
concludes that the "chloride-ilmenite"
process must be considered a mineral
processing operation for purposes of this
rulemaking.
The Agency also notes that the
commenter's contention that the
"chloride-ilmenite" process is not
covered by the description of the
chloride process provided in the
September 1.1989 final or the September
25,1989 proposal is incorrect. While the
description of the chloride process
provided in these rules does not
describe the "chloride-ilmenite" process
in detail due to Confidential Business
Information claims made by the
commenter, the Agency has clearly
considered this process to be one of the
several chloride processes covered by
these previous rulemakings and.
therefore, this rulemaking as well. This
fact is clearly demonstrated by the
inclusion of the commenter's facilities in
the background documentation for these
rulemakings. Accordingly, all solid
wastes generated by this process are
subject to EPA's reinterprets tion of the
Mining Waste Exclusion, including this
rulemaking.
b. Volume. One commenter agreed
with EPA's determination that chloride
process waste solids satisfy the high-
volume criterion. Another commenter
submitted volume data, claiming that
the waste streams from the "chloride-
ilmenite" process are generated at over
1,400,000 and 600,000 tons annually in
two facilities.
c. Hazard, One commenter agreed
with EPA's determination that chloride
process waste solids satisfy the low-
hazard criterion,
13. Slag From Primary Zinc Processing
One commenter asserted that EPA
properly applied the high volume/low
-------
2330 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
hazard criteria to slag from primary zinc
processing in the September 25 proposal.
a. Hazard. One commenter questioned
EPA's decision not to propose to remove
slag from primary zinc processing from
the Bevill exclusion because the
sampling data demonstrated that the
waste exhibits the hazardous waste
characteristic of EP-toxicity for lead.
They stated that EPA should further
consider these data in preparing its
Report to Congress.
The Agency generally agrees with the
commenter that all relevant hazard data
should be considered in the study of the
waste stream when preparing the Report
'o Congress. However, EPA finalized the
low hazard criterion in the September 1,
1989 rule, and is not currently
entertaining comments on it The
Agency's rationale for the low hazard
criterion is outlined in 54 FR 3§S92. As
discussed in the September 25,1989,
proposal, the waste passes the toxicity
criterion described in that rale.
C. Comments on the Seven Wastes
Proposed far Removal
This section discusses comments
received on each of the seven mineral
processing wastes for which EPA
proposed to remove from the Bevill
exemption. The comments received on
each of the wastes generally are
presented under one of three
subheadings: Processing Criterion/
Waste Definition, Volume, or Hazard.
These subheadings appear only when
they are relevant to comments identified
for the waste being discussed, so for
many of the seven wastes, one or more
of the subheadings are not included.
l. Roast/Leach Ore Residue From
Primary Chromite Processing
a. Processing Criterion/Waste
Definition. Two commenters remarked
on the designation of the waste stream.
One commenter contended that the
original designation of roast/leach ore
residue from primary processing of
chrome ore referred to the ore residue
solids in the form currently being
disposed (after treatment), not the form
in which the waste is generated. The
commenter stated that it is the waste as
disposed that has the potential to enter
the environment, and that this waste is
low hazard and high volume and should
be retained. Another commenter argued
that because the ore used in production
of chromium chemicals contains not
only chrome but also other compounds
(e.g., magnesium silicate), the term
"chrome ore" or "chromium ore" would
be more appropriate for use by the
Agency.
EPA agrees with both of these
comments. la today's final rule, the
Agency bases its evaluation of this
waste's compliance with the Bevill
criteria on treated residue from
roasting/leaching of chrome ore.
b. Hazard. Three commenters
addressed the apparent failure of this
waste stream to meet the low hazard
criterion. One commenter agreed with
EPA's proposed determination, and
provided data that indicated that treated
waste from chromite ore processing is
occasionally EP toxic, based on data it
received from American Chrome and
Chemical.
One commenter acknowledged that
residue from the roasting/leaching of
chrome ore is hazardous at the point of
generation. The commenter asserts,
however, that through treatment at the
wastewater treatment plant in
compliance with the facility's NPDES
permit, the waste stream ceases to
exhibit the hazardous waste
characteristic for chromium; both the
liquid and non-liquid fractions of the
stream are rendered non-hazardous. The
commenter states that this treatment
practice has been demonstrated to, and
accepted by, the State of North
Carolina.
Another commenter maintained that,
in making its hazard determination for
this waste, EPA relied on samples taken
from an inappropriate stage of the waste
management process. The commenter
claimed that die materials from the post-
treatment stage, and in particular the
solids, are non-hazardous and qualify
for the exclusion. In addition, they
contended, this treatment does not
affect the volume of the waste.
The Agency has reviewed the
available data and agrees with the
commenters that these data indicate
that the treated residue from roasting/
leaching of chotne ore is low hazard.
The Agency notes, however, that waste
management activities associated with
the untreated wastes, including the
treatment operation itself, are not
exempted from Subtitle C requirements
by the Bevill amendment because prior
to treatment the waste ia not low hazard
(although any tanks involved in the
treatment process may qualify for the
wastewater treatment until exemption
under 40 CFR 2&4.1(g)(6)J.
2. Process Wastewater From Coal
Gasification
o. Processing Criterion/Waste
Definition. One comenter described the
production process for coal gasification.
The production of coal gas (and thus
process wastewater) involves, first, the
controlled combustion of lignite. This
produces a raw gas stream sent first to
the Raw Gas Cooling and Shift
Conversion units and then to the
Rectisol unit. The Rectisol unit removes
acid gases COi. HjS, CS». and COS) and
produces synthetic fuel gases. These
gases undergo methanation and gas
compression and then are delivered to a
pipeline as synthetic natural gas A
coproducl. naphtha, is also produced.
"Gas liquor" is also produced by the
cooling and refining of the raw gas
stream.
The commenter added that the
Gasification, the Raw Gas Cooling Shift
Conversion, and the Rectisol units all
produce gas liquor streams which are
routed to the Gas LJquor Separation
unit. During the gas liquor separating
process, another coproduct, tar oil. is
recovered. Afterwards, the gas liquor is
sent to the Phenosolvan unit where
crude phenol is recovered. Ammonia is
then recovered in the Phosam unit,
which discharges a "stripped gas
liquor." The stripped gas liquor is sent to
the Cooling Tower for use as a make-up
water. Other liquids used as make-up
water include: small quantities of
filtered Dissolved Air Flotation water
from the oily water sewer system,
softened water from the potable water
treatment plant, a small stream from the
Rectisol unit, and small volumes of
distillate water from the Multiple Effect
Evaporators. The comenter also notes
that: (1) Stripped gas liquor comprises
over 70 percent of the make-up water in
the Cooling Tower; (2) the Cooling
Tower is operated with a blowdown
rate of approximately 350 to 500 gallons
per minute or 650.000 to 995,056 metric
tons per year, and (3) the Cooling Tower
blowdown is directed to the Multiple
Effect Evaporators.
The commenter argued that because
the stripped gas liquor is continuously
used, and is not discharged by the
facility, it cannot logically be regarded
as a "waste," The commenter added.
however, that if EPA does consider
stripped gas liquor to be a waste, then it
is the "process wastewater" generated
by the facility.
EPA has reviewed the information
provided in these comments and the
National Survey response provided by
the commenter and concluded that the
available information indicates that
stripped gas liquor is a solid waste that
does not appear to be eligible for the
closed-loop exemption because it
sometimes is stored in an impounded
prior to use. (See above discussion
regarding phosphoric acid process
wastewater and January 4,1985 notice
(50 FR 814.) However, EPA also
concludes that stripped gas liquor is the
principal aqueous waste generated by
the gasification process and thus is
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 35, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
2331
process wastewater and remains a
Bevill waste.
b. Volume. Two commenters urged
EPA to reconsider its proposed
determination that process wastewater
from coalgasiflcat:on.fails the high
volume criterion. They contended that
the data cited by EPA in the September
25.1989 Federal Register were not
accurate. Both cocunentars stated that
process wastewaters are actually
generated at a rate that far exceeds one
million metnc tons per year. One
cotnmenter claimed that rather than
being generated at a rate of 598,030
metric tons per year, this waste is
produced at a rate of approximately
5,000.000 metric tons per year. The
commenter believed that this error was
based on the Agency's
misunderstanding of the gasification
process and on its own response to the
mineral processing waste questionnaire,
The commenter identified the process
wastewater as "cooling water" because,
as discussed above, they do not
consider it a waste. The- commenter
submitted the following volume data:
1986—1,910,000 metric tons:
1987—5,020.000 metric tons:
1988—4.830,000 metric ton* ami
1989—5,050,000 metric tons.
The volume reported for 1989 is through
October and projected through the end
of the year.
EPA has carefully reviewed the
comments and survey information and
agrees that: (1) The facility
mischaraterized the point of generation
when it initially completed the 1969
National Survey, which EPA used in
developing the proposal; and (2) process
wastewater from coal gasification meets
the high volume criterion because it is
clearly generated in quantities above the
applicable criterion value of 1.000.000
mt/yr average per facility established by
the September 1 final rule.
c. Hazard, A. commenter supported
EPA's proposed determination that coal
gasification process wastewater meets
the low hazard criterion.
3. Furnace Off-Gas Solids From
Elemental Phosphorus Production
One commenter supported EPA's
decision to remove furnace off-gas
solids from elemental phosphorus.
production from the Bevill exclusion.
a. Processing Criterion/Waste
Definition. One commenter raised
several issues about the definition of
this waste stream. The commenter
supported EPA's proposed
determination that furnace off-fas solids
are "solids," even though one facility
generates the waste in the form of a
slurry. The commenter notes that
furnace off-gas solids from elemental
phosphorous production are generated
either as a solid waste stream or as a
slurry and contends that the term
"elemental phosphorus off-gas solids"
was specifically defined to include,
among other things, "prscipitatcr
slurry." EPA's assertion that the
commenter aggregated off-gas solids
with scrubber blowdown is, the
commenter claimed, incorrect, The
commenter also claimed that further
examination shows that the material
stream is more properly classified as
"phossy water" and that one result of
reclassification is that 1.5 million tons of
furnace off-gas solids should be
reclassified as "phossy water." Tha
commenter maintained that the
regulatory status of "phossy water" for
the September 1,1989 Final Rule was
based upon data that understated the
generation rate of this process stream by
approximately one-half. The commenter
further maintained that all furnace off-
gas solids waste streams need to be
similarly classified to prevent this
rulemaking from having inequitable
competitive effects between companies.
EFA agrees that the waste stream in
question should be denned uniformly
across all facilities that generate-it.
Because the waste stream is generated
(and managed) as a solid at the majority
of facilities where it is generated, EPA's
position is that the waste of interest is a
solid. As a result, at the two facilities at
which the off-gas solids are collected in
a liquid, the high volume and low hazard
criteria have been applied to the solids
entrained within these liquid wastes, as
determined by the settled solids
reported by the facilities in their
responses to the National Survey. The
liquid portions of the wastes, as
generated, clearly fail the applicable
high volume criterion (average annual
generation rate of more than one million
metric tons per year),
6. Volume, A commenter stated that
the waste stream encompassing furnace
off-gas solids from elemental
phosphorous production is generated as
a liquid at one facility. The commenter
concurred that the stream does not meet
the high volume criterion. Another
commenter argued that because of the
relatively low volume of the furnace off-
gas solids (4,885 mt/yr), the treatment of
these solids as hazardous wastes is
reasonable and practicable.
However, one commenter argued that
the volume determination must be made
using data from all facilities that
generate furnace off-gas solids. EPA's
proposed determination that the average
rate of generation per facility is 4,885
metric tons per year was, they
contended, based on incomplete
information because data from facilities
that submitted data as Confidential
Business Information were not included.
The commenter further contended that
when all five facilities' furnace off-gas
solids material streams are considered.
the per plant facility average for the
"furnace off-gas soiids" is 44.012 metric
tons per year, and that this average is
well within any statistical margin for
error and thus, furnace off-gas solids
should be deemed a "high volume"
waste.
As stated above, "furnace off-gas
solids" generated at two facilities that
reported using wet collection systems
are denned as the solids removed from.
the scrubber waters. Furnace off-gas
solids generated by three other facilities
are in fact solids as generated. Revised
(and final) waste generation
determinations have been prepared en
this basis and are presented in Section
III, below. These data show that furnace
off-gas solids is not a high volume
waste.
c. Hazard. Two commenters
addressed the hazard level of furnace
off-gas solids from elemental
phosphorus production. One commenter
stated that the analytical information it
provided in the 1989 National Survey
demonstrated that the waste stream is
not a hazardous waste under the RCRA
characteristic of corrosivity. The other
commenter contended that samples of
the slurry of furnace off-gas solids were
found to contain cadmium in
concentrations as great as 249 percent of
the regulatory level of 100 times the
MCL
Review of EPA's sampling data
indicated that this waste passes the low
hazard criterion, as discussed in Section
III below.
4. Process Wastewater From
Hydrofluoric Acid Production
a. Processing Criterion/Waste
Definition. Two commenters described
the hydrofluoric acid production
process. The hydrofluoric acid
production process extracts mineral
values by reaction of mineral rock with
suifuric acid, creates a calcium sulfate
co-product, fluorogypsum, which is
slurried to disposal, and circulates
process wastewater through a pond
system prior to reuse in the processing
facility. One commenter noted that
additional process wastewater is
generated by cleaning the hydrofluoric
acid gas.
One commenter argued that EPA's
determination to list separately
fluorogypsum and process wastewater
from hydrofluoric acid production is
impractical. The similarities between
-------
2332 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday, January. 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
the two waste streams are such that at
the Calvert City, Kentucky hydrofluoric
acid plant, the two are co-mingled at the
point of generation. The commenter
claimed that the proposed regulation
would impose different regulatory
requirements on two similar wastes
(because fluorogypsum would remain
excluded, but process waste water
would not), which from a practical
perspective, is unreasonable since the
requirements applicable to one will
affect the management of the other. EPA
should allow process wastewater from
hydrofluoric acid production to retain its
status under the Bevill exclusion, and
should not evaluate fluorogypsum and
process wastewater separately, because
the two streams are essentially
identical.
EPA disagrees. The two waste
streams are identiflably distinct (one is
a solid and the other a liquid) and are
generated by different parts of the
production process. The fact that they
are currently co-managed does not
imply that they should or must be co-
managed.
b. Volume, Two commenters
disagreed with EPA's proposed
determination that process wastewater
from hydrofluoric acid production failed
to meet the high volume criterion. One
commenter questioned the basis for
EPA's decision, given the lack of data.
The commenter argued that the waste
was not included in the 1989 National
Survey of Solid Wastes from Mineral
Processing Facilities. Therefore, in the
September 25,1989 NFRM, the average
rate of generation of process
wastewater from hydrofluoric acid was
listed as "n/a". Yet EPA determined that
this liquid waste stream was not
generated in quantities over 1,000,000
metric tons per year through
calculations or interpretations of survey
results, which were not provided In the
background documents. The second
commenter argued that EPA may have
overlooked or misunderstood the Survey
data. In fact, they stated, process
wastewater from hydrofluoric acid
production is generated at an average
rate per facility far in excess of 1 million
metric tons per year. The commenter
resubmitted its Survey, which includes a
process flow diagram of die hydrofluoric
acid process. Information is also
provided on the volume of process*
wastewater generated and managed in
sections 5 and ft of the Survey.
One commenter supported EPA's
application of the high volume criterion
to the reported process wastewater
inflows to surface impoundments. The
commenter maintained that the flow
rate to surface impoundments can be
used to estimate process wastewater
flow rates. According to the commenter,
data available through plant NFDES
records, the commenter claimed,
indicate that the flow rate does exceed
the 1,000,000 metric tons per year Bevill
criterion. Specifically, the most recent
water balance, submitted as part of the
NPDES renewal application, indicated
that the inflow to surface impoundments
from the hydrofluoric acid production
process was 2,079,400 gallons per day,
which is equivalent to 2,900,000 metric
tons per year, according to the
commenter.
The Agency has carefully reviewed
these comments and the revised survey
submitted by the commenter and agrees
that process wastewater from
hydrofluoric acid production satisfies
die high volume criterion, as discussed
below in section ID.
c. Hazard. Two commenters
addressed the hazard level of process
wastewater from hydrofluoric acid
production. One commenter agreed with
EPA's proposed determination that the
waste is low hazard. Another
commenter claimed, however, that
EPA's sampling data demonstrated that
process wastewater from hydrofluoric
acid production exhibits the hazardous
waste characteristic of corrosivity (pH
values of 1.4 and 1.86), and questioned
EPA's failure to remove the waste from
the Bevill exclusion. The commenter
also urged EPA to consider this data in
preparing its Report to Congress.
The Agency generally agrees with the
commenter that all relevant hazard data
should be considered in the study of the
waste stream when preparing the Report
to Congress. However, EPA finalized the
low hazard criterion in the September 1,
1989 rule and is not currently
entertaining comments on it The
Agency's rationale for the low hazard
criterion is outlined in 54 FR 36592.
EPA's sampling data indicate that this
waste does not exhibit a pH of less than
1, and therefore, complies with the low
hazard criterion.
5. Process Wastewater From Primary
Lead Processing
a. Processing Criterian/Wasta
Definition. One commenter claimed that
EPA must study all process wastewaters
from primary lead production.
contending that once EPA completes its
study, it will realize that these are not
wastes, because process wastewaters
from primary lead production are reused
within the primary lead production
circuit RCRA hazardous waste
requirements, therefore, are not
appropriate.
In response to this comment EPA
notes that the extent to which this waste
stream is managed through "closed
loop" recycling, and hence, is not
subject to RCRA requirements, would be
addressed in the Report to Congress, if
this material were found to meet the
Bevill special waste criteria. The waste
does not meet these criteria, however.
and thus will not be included in the
Report to Congress. Nevertheless, if the
waste is managed in such a way that it
does not meet the definition of a solid
waste, then RCRA hazardous waste
requirements would not apply.
One commenter urged EPA to clarify
its definition of process wastewater
from primary lead production so that all
waters that are collected from
processing operations are specifically
included in that definition. The
commenter states that the only reason
for EPA's including contact cooling
water in the definition of process
wastewater and not including acid plant
blowdown is the arbitrary elimination of
one relatively large volume process
water stream from the volume amount.
In addition, defining this waste as
"waters that are uniquely associated
with processing operations that have
accumulated contaminants to the point
that they must be removed from the
mineral production system" is confusing.
Do the waters need to be removed from
the system, or do the contaminants need
to be removed from the waters?
EPA responds that the reasons for
distinguishing between different
aqueous waste streams generated in the
mineral processing industry have been
discussed at length in previous
rulemaking notices (54 FR :5318, April
17,1989: and 54 FR 38592. September 1,
1989.) Briefly, EPA believes the
distinctions it has made are appropriate
based on the available information
concerning the waste characteristics
and points of generation in the process.
As explained in the preamble to the
September 1,1889 final rule, EPA has
considered acid plant blowdown and
other wastewaters from primary lead
processing to be two distinct wastes
because these wastes have substantially
different characteristics. EPA believes
that the definition of wastewater clearly
indicates that it is the wastewater that
needs to be removed from the system
because it is the wastewater and not the
contaminants to which the definition
refers.
b. Volume. One commenter stated that
the volume EPA used as a basis for
proposing to eliminate process
wastewater from primary lead
production was less than the actual
amount generated at its plants. The
commenter argued that this incorrect
determination was s result of artificial
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 13 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
limitations on ths actual amount of
water that could be reported as "process
wastewater" in the- National Survey of
Solid Wastes from Mineral Processing
Facilities, where EPA only solicited
information on processing units
associated with the generation of
process waters. According to the
commenter, EPA inappropriately
reduced the number of streams counted
toward the volume catoff by focusing on
only a few process water streams. The
commenter maintained that its internal
data indicate that the volumes of
process wastawater from primary lead
production generated by its plants
excsed the 1,000.000 metric ton
threshold. Another commenter was
dismayed by EPA's conclusion that
process wastewater from primary lead
procassing was low volume, because
there is no way to verify the numerical
data used to arrive at the average of
785.562 metric tons per year.
EPA responds that the- National
Survey requested data on the quantity of
wastewater generated by all mineral
processing operations at each facility
surveyed, and that ths responses
provided indicata that process
wastewater is not a large volume waste.
EPA is limited in the amount of
information it can present on the waste
generation calculations used to develop
the September 23 proposal because one
of the commenters has requested
Confidential Business Information status
for their information.
c. Hazard. Ons commenter objected to
EPA's on-site sampling methods. If. in
the survey, the Agency requests
information on process wastewaters,
other waste streams, such, as process
water from sintering, should not be
sampled for the hazard determination.
Because of the scheduling constraints
imposed by the Court of Appeals, EPA'a
waste sampling effort had to be
conducted before the final contours of
the benefication/processing boundary
had been established. Thus. EPA
sampled wastes that are, in hindsight,
outside the scope of the current
rulemaking. The analytical results for
wastes that are outside the scope of this
rulemaking (i.e., process water from
sintering) have not been used in
evaluating compliance, with the low
hazard criterion. Instead. EPA has used
results from samples of wastes that are
the subject of this rulemaking (i.e.. slag
granulation water] in determining that
(his is not a low hazard waste,
6. Sulfate Process Waste Acids From
Titanium Dioxide Production
a. Hazard One commenter stated that
sulfate process waste acids from its
facility meet EPA's low hazard criterion
and should therefore be retained in the
Bevill exclusion. The commenter
disputed the selenium concentrations
published In the proposed rule, stating
that if EPA asserts that the sample
exceeding the criterion comes from the
commenter's facility, then the Agency is
mistaken. The commenter notes that the
sulfate process waste acid sample was
essentially analysed three times: once
as is. once using the SPLP, and once for
EP toxicity. In the leaching procedures
(SPLP and EP Toxicity) the sample is
filtered and the filtrate analyzed. The
solids (if any) are leached and the
leachate is analyzed. Since there were
no solids, the three analyses should
have agreed. In actuality, the
concentration for selenium was below
the detectable limit for two of the
samples, while selenium showed up on
the SPLP sample at a level of 8.3 mg/1.
•The corsmenter retained a portion of the
sample that was collected for EPA and
had it analyzed for EP Toxicity.
Selenium concentrations were beiow
detectable limits. The commenter also
claimed to have made facility
improvements which have caused
sulfate process waste acids to become
less acidic. The overall average pH from
1984 through 1938 was 1.C2.
EPA agrees that the reported SPLP
selenium concentration that is
questioned by the commenter dees
appear to be anomalous, but believes
that the other data, including the pH
data, collected during EPA's sampling
visits are accurate and provide a
sufficient basis for applying the low
hazard criterion to this waste stream.
The average pH data provided by the
commenter are not relevant to this
rulemaking because average pH values
do not have meaning and are not
consistent with the data requirements
specified in the low hazard criterion for
the pH tsst,
7. Sulfate Process Waste Solids From
Titanium Dioxide Production
a. Volume. Two commenters urged
EPA to reconsider its preliminary
conclusion that sulfate prossaa waste
solids fail to meet the high voiujr.a
criterion. One commenter indicated that
sulfate process waste solids are
generated, in the form of a slurry, at a
rate of 86,300 short tons (73,723 metric
tons) per year as indicated in the
November 21.1988 comments and the
response to EPA's National Survey of
Solid Wastes from Mineral Processing.
Another industry commenter claimed
that EPA miscalculated the volume of
sulfate process waste solids generated
annually. The commenter stated that a
total of 49.900 metric tons are handled.
The values used for suspended solids
were from the commenter's quarto-ly
samples, which have been taken sir.Cd
1984. According to the commenter. these
volumes confirm those given, in
comments provided in rsspcr.se to the
October 10.1038 proposal of 85.0CG
tons/year, which included chlcriue
wastes. The commenter furthsr
indicated that these wastes, together
with the treatment residuals, w-.ll bring
the total solids handled to well ever
500.000 tons per year.
It is EPA's position that the waste of
interest is the dewatered waste solids
taken from the drum filter at one facility,
rather than the slurry frora the ciarifiar,
as suggested by the commenter, because
the available information indicates that
the primary purpose of the dewsterir.g
operation performed by the drum filter is
to return product solution to the
production process and, thus, it
resembles a processing operation more
closely than it does a waste treatment
operation. Accordingly, EPA has used
ths reported quantity of drum filter cake
rather than the quantity of slurry sent to
the drum filter in evaluating the
compliance of this waste stream with
the high volume criteria. After farther
analysis, the Agency has concluded that
the revised waste generation rates
reported by the second ccinmentsr are
reasonable, though the underlying data
are not readily apparent in the
commenter's response to the National
Survey. Revised (and nr.al) waste
generation estimates, which indicate
that this is not a high volume waste, are
presented in section ILL below,
D, Relationship of the Proposed Rule to
Subtitle CofRCRA
1. The Mixture Rule
a. General comments. In their
comments on the September 25
proposal, a number of commenters
objected to the Agency's interpretation
of the mixture rule in the September 1.
1989 final rule and questioned what the
impact of the mixture rule would be
upon the Bevill determinations
contained in the September 25 proposal.
Commenters requested that EPA
reconsider its interpretation of the
mixture rule as it applies to Bevill
excluded wastes that are mixed with
relatively small volumes of non-
excluded wastes. Commenters noted
that a mixture of a Bevill excluded
waste and a characteristically
hazardous waste would be considered a
non-excluded hazardous waste.
Particularly in the phosphate industry,
commenters objected to this
classification, arguing that if the non-
excluded waste in a mixture shares the
Reproduced from
bast availabls copy.
-------
2334 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
same hazardous characteristic as the
Bevill excluded waste, the Bevill status
of the resulting mixture should not be
withdrawn,
Cammenters also requested that the
Agency clanfy the mixture rale in a
number of ways. First, they suggested
that EPA clarify whether mineral
processing wastes that are temporarily
excluded from RCRA Subtitle C
requirements may be used (e.g., as air
pollution control scrubber water] in
production units that do not generate
Bevill wastes, and similarly whether
non-Bevill excluded wastes may be used
in production units that generate Bevill
excluded wastes. In particular,
eoraraenters requested clarification of
the status of a Bevill-excluded waste
that is used in a non-Bevill production
unit when the waste exhibits a
characteristic or hazardous waste after
use in the non-Bevill operation only
because the Bevill waste that is an input
to the non-Bevill process exhibits the
hazardous characteristic.
In addition, commenters argued that
the October 28,1989 supplement to the
proposed regulations for burning of
hazardous waste in boilers and
industrial furnaces (54 FR 43718)
conflicts with the interpretation of the
mixture rule established in the
September 1,1989 final rule. The
proposed rale on burning states that
residues would remain within the Bevill
exclusion if the character of the residual
is determined by. the Bevill material. In
contrast the September 1 final rule
states that any material burned with a
low volume, non-Bevill waste would be
regarded as hazardous even if the
characteristic exhibited is the same as
the characteristic of the Bevill waste,
Commenters requested that the Agency
reconcile these conflicting
interpretations of the mixture rule by
adopting the approach in the proposed
rule on burning,
b. Comments related to phosphoric
acid production. Commenters from the
phosphoric acid industry requested that
the Agency provide a supplementary
explanation of its mixture rule position
as it relates to phosphoric acid process
wastewaters, and allow for public
comment The ammoniated phosphate
fertilizer (APF) process utilizes process
wastewater as an influent and then
returns it to the originating phosphate
complex pond. One commenter
contended that APF process wastewater
does not exhibit hazardous
characteristics when generated
separately from a facility that produces
phosphoric acid. Therefore, the
ommenter argued APF wastewater
must not contribute the hazardous
characteristic found in phosphoric acid
process wastewater, and thus it should
not trigger the removal of phosphoric
acid process wastewater from the Bevill
exclusion. Phosphate industry
commenters urged the Agency to reject
any interpretation of the mixture rule
that would remove phosphate complex
pond water from the Bevill exemption
because it contained process
wastewater used in the APF process.
Commenters urged the Agency to
adopt an interpretation of the mixture
rule consistent with the position
advocated in the October 28,1989
proposal (54 FR 43718) on burning, and
allow small amounts of sulfuric acid
process wastewater to be combined in
the general process wastewater system
without the removal of the entire system
from the Bevill exclusion. Phosphate
industry commenters objected to the
mixture rule interpretation contained in
the September 1.1989 final rule in which
the addition of sulfuric acid process
wastewater to a phosphoric acid
complex's water recirculation system
would result in the entire system being
removed from the Bevill exclusion.
According to one commenter, although
sulfuric acid process wastewater
displays the same characteristic of
corroaivity as phosphoric acid process
wastewater, the addition of sulfuric acid
process wastewater may constitute less
than one percent of the daily
wastewater generated at an average
facility, and thus should not affect the
Bevill status of the entire waste stream.
c. Comments related to hydrofluoric
acid production. One commenter
requested clarification on the use of
hydrofluoric acid process wastewater in
an aluminum fluoride plant and asked
the Agency to address the use of Bevill
excluded characteristic wastes as a
source of influent to other processes.
The commenter argued that hazardous
characteristics displayed by water
existing the aluminum fluoride facility
art solely from hydrofluoric acid (HF)
process wastewater. Thus, the
commenter asserted, the Agency*!
interpretation of the mixture rule should
have no bearing on whether HF process
wastewater remains within the Bevill
exclusion. The commenter requested
that if the Agency interprets the mixture
rule such that the use of process
wastewater in the aluminum fluoride
plant results in all water in the pond
where that water is finally disposed
being removed from the Bevill exclusion,
EPA should supplement the proposed
rule with its rationale for such a
decision, and allow for additional public
comment
cf. Comments related to coal
gasification. One commenter objected to
the Agency's possible determination,
based upon the mixture rule, that
process wastewater from coal
gasification is hazardous. The
commenter asserted that if process
wastewater was disposed of
immediately rather than used in a
cooling tower, the waste stream would
not demonstrate hazardous
characteristics; however, important
water conservation and disposal
practices could not then be practiced.
Thus, the commenter concluded, the
Agency should not withdraw the Bevill
exclusion for coal gasification process
wastewaters based upon hazardous
characteristics when those
characteristics result from appropriate
water conservation and disposal
practices.
e. Response to comments. In response
to these questions and issues raised by
commenters regarding the mixture rule,
EPA makes the following observations.
First like the criteria established for
identifying wastes eligible for the Bevill
exemption, the Agency's position on the
mixture rule was finalized on September
1,1989 and is not open for comment as
part of this rulemaking. Second, the
Agency plans to add comments to the
docket for the October 28th notice
regarding the alleged contradiction
between the October 28,1989 (54 FR
43718) supplement to the proposed
regulations for burning of hazardous
waste in boilers and industrial furnaces
and the mixture rule in the September l.
1989 final rule. Third, wastes from
operations that are not mineral
processing operations based on the
definition of mineral processing
contained in the September 1 final rule
are not mineral processing wastes
regardless of the nature of any inputs
(including Bevill wastes) to that process.
Finally, the mixture rule is not a factor
in today's decision to retain the Bevill
exemption for process wastewater
because Bevill wastes arc being
evaluated, not mixtures.
2. Land Disposal Restrictions
Two commenters expressed concern
about the impact of Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs) on wastes newly
removed from the Bevill exclusion. One
commenter stated that the Agency
cannot accurately estimate the
economic impact of the proposed rule
until the "Third Third" rule is
promulgated.
The second commenter requested that
the Agency consider mineral processing
wastes removed from the Bevill
exclusion, "newly identified" wastes
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations £
under lho LDRs. Since "chloride-
ilmenite" wastes from titanium
production were not considered RCRA
hazardous wastes on November 9, 19B4.
the date of HSWA enactment, (he
commenter asserted that they must be
considered newly identified wastes. The
cnmmenter argued that without terming
these wastes newly identified, the
facility would unfairly have to meet tlie
hummer date of August 8,1990 for
California List wastes, Facilities ih.it
generated a waste stiltjpt-f ici Cniifoniiii
List restrictions on underground
injection were granted a two yenr
national capacity vwrinnce during which
they could either plan new capacity or
submit n "no-migrph'on" petition. The
commnntRr maintained that equal
opportunity muit be granted to mineral
processing facilities to develop new
capacity or submit no-migration
petitions.
In addition, the comments usiu-il [hat
the Agency delay the applicability of the
l.DRs to chloride-ilmetnte wantcs by
detennining that such wastes are
beneficial wastes and subject to further
study by EPA. This would allow !b/s
Agency, according to the eoinmimter.
additional time to evaluate Ihe
protectiveness of underground injnulion
far chloride-ilmenile wastes.
EPA responds that, ns explained hi
the September 1,1WW final rule and In
the proposed land dtsposnl restncti'jn.i
(IDRs) for the third third srheduls
wastes (54 FR 48372, 40.170; November
22,1089), the Agency believes the
wastes that are brought under Subtitte C
regulation by today's final rule to be
"newly identified" wastes for purposes
of establishing LDR standards under
section 3004(g)(4) of RCRA. {54 FR
36624J. Accordingly, EPA has proposed
that newly identified mineral processing
wastes not be subject to the BOAT
standards that the Agency proposed on
November 22,1909 (M FR 48372) fnr
characteristic hazardous wastes. As
required by RCRA section 3
-------
2338 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23. 1990 f Rules and Rcgulationa
Nonetheless, EPA has, In both the
September 25 proposed and today's final
rule, estimated the costs associated with
stabilizing residues from liquid waste
treatment so as to make them
amendable to land disposal. Therefore,
while it is not possible, at present, to
dnfine BDAT (and thus. LDR impact)
lor any wastes removed from the Bevill
exclusion, EPA has attempted to capture
some of the likely costs associated with
future waste disposal activities.
Prospective corrective action costs are
by nature site-specific and difficult to
estimate. Currently availnb't:
information does not allow EPA to
estimate these costs with confidence. To
the extent, therefore, that any additional
facilities are brought into the subtitle C
on-sits waste management system by
this rule, EPA may have underestimated
cost and economic impacts. The reader
la referred to section VII below fur
additional discussion of the specific
features of the methodology employed.
A commenter also indicated that the
Agency also should recognize that
commodity producers cannot pass
compliance costs on to product
consumers;
EPA responds that, in the Economic
Impact Analysis provided in the
September 25 NFRM, the Agency
considered, on a commodity specific
basis, the extent to which potential
compliance costs could be passed
through to consumers. As indicated in
this analysis (and restated in Section
VII. below) EPA believes thnt the
commenter's suggestion that all mineral
processors in ail commodity sectors are
"price takers," having no ability to pasa
through cost incre«fws and therefore
having to absorb them internally, is
demunstrably untrue.
One commenter maintained that in
order to accurately estimate the
economic and regulatory Impacts of the
proposed rule, EPA must first resolve
the issues of the "mixture rule,"
rctroactivity and regenerated wastes. In
particular, one commenter charged that
EPA has not considered, as required by
Executive Ordor 12291, the economic
impact of excluding chromium
contaminated fill from Bevill status.
Also, to truly identify the economic and
regulatory impacts of the proposed rule,
the Agency should obtain Information
from all Inactive facilities.
EPA responds '.hat these issues were
addressed in the September 1,1988 final
rule and' are not relevant to this
rulemaking. To briefly restate the
positions outlined in that final rule.
however, EPA maintains that Subtitle C
regulations will not be imposed
retroactively. However, •etiv«
management of an historical
accumulation of waste will subject a
facility to Subtitle C regulations if the
material exhibits one or more
characteristics of a hazardous waste.
3. Compliance Cost, Market, and
Economic Impact Estimates
a. Treated residue from roasting/
leaching of chrome am. According to
one commenter, if the Agency imposes
subtitle C requirements for chrome ore
processing waste used as fill, on-site
treatment of the fill will become
burdensome and expensive. Also, if
future excavated fill must be managed
as a hazardous waste, depending on the
amounts of hazardous waste involved, a
severe economic burden may result
without any commensurate gain in
health or environmental benefits. In
addition, loss of Bevill status for the
chromium-contaminated fill nt a City of
Baltimore wastewatnr treatment plant in
Patapsco, Maryland, may prematurely
interrupt the process of developing
treatment alternatives.
The Agency does not view this issue
as relevant to the status of the 20 waste
streams addressed in today's rule
because it is not clear that the fill
material is one of the mineral processing
wastes covered by today's rule.
Commenters contended that the cost
of compliance with RCRA subtitle C for
inactive facilities should be addressed
by EPA. A commenter maintained that
the docket should include information
on existing inactive waste sites as well
as the number of chrome ore "fill" sites
that will be affected by the proposed
rule,
EPA responds that inactive facilities
were not sampled because they are not
pertinent to this rulem.iking.
Several commenters disagreed with
the compliance cost estimate for residue
from roasting/leaching of chrome ore.
One commenter argued that the waste
should be retained in the Bevill
exemption because of the significant
costs that corrective action requirements
could impose. According to the
commenter. disposal and treatment
costs will be at least an additional $2
million over the Agency's estimate of
compliance costs. Another commenter,
however, claimed that because its waste
stream is treated on-site under the
facility's NPDES permit and the treated
•waste is non-hazardous, there is no need
for its facility to modify in any way
current treatment or disposal practices',
end thus there is no cost for compliance
if the waste stream is removed from the: .
Bevill exclusion.
One commenter contended that the
impact of the removal of residue from
roasting/leaching of chrome ore from
the Bevill exclusion was incorrectly
estimated because EPA did not fully
evaluate all of the information provided
in the National Survey of Mineral
Processors'. In addition, not all of the
samples taken from the facility by EPA
were analyzed.
EPA responds that it used available
Method 1312 data to evaluate
compliance with the low hazard
criterion. Because of time constraints,
the Agency annlyzed the samples
collected on an "as generated" basis
prior to analyzing those collected on an
"as managed" basis; the former are
directly pertinent to and necessary for
the Bevill rulesnakfng process while the
latter are primarily of use in preparing
the Report to Congress. Since
publication of the September 25
proposal, however, the Agency has had
an opportunity to analyze additional
samples. Based upon these new
analyses and analyses performed in
support of the September 25 proposal,
the Agency agrees that the treated
residue from roasting/leaching of
chrome ore does not exhibit hazardous
characteristics and hence, would not be
subject to new regulatory requirements
and associated costs if removed from
the Bevill exclusion. The treated waste
is, however, being retained under the
Bevill exemption because it is both low
hazard and high volume.
b. Process wastewater from coal
gasification, EPA received several
comments arguing that removing
process wastewnter from conl
gasification from the Bevill exemption
would impose severe economic impacts
and would not in any way enhance the
environment. The commenters
maintained that the additional $1 million
in annual compliance costs
(commenter's estimate) are
unreasonable and would accomplish
nothing except for increasing
compliance costs, in light of the reuse of
the fluids in the same industrial process,
EPA should not, they stated, impose
economic burdens upon the industry.
Also, one commenter asserted that
North Dakota will lose substantial
amounts of tax revenues and
employment opportunities if RCRA
subtitle C regulation makes it
economically infeasible to continue
operating the Great Plains facility.
Commenters representing the electric
utility industry claimed that additional
regulatory controls under RCRA over
wastewater discharges from coal
gasification are unnecessary and
burdensome to the electric utility
industry because tha wastewater
discharges are subject to NPDES permits
under the Clean Water Act,
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Regjgfer / Vol. 55, No, 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1890 / Rules and Regulations 23,17
As discussed in section Of, below,
based upon further dnta in the form of a
revised survey response provided by ths
facility in question, EPA now concludes
that the waste stream does satisfy the
high volume criterion and so will be
retained for furlhfjr study. Discussion of
the prospective economic imparts of
removing the wssta from Ihe Revill
exclusion as part of this rulemnking is,
therefore, moot.
c. Furnace off-$as solids from
elemental phosphorus arudtsctiim. One
coinmenter agreed thai due to the low
cost of compliance wilh subtitle C
regulations, iroalrneut of furnace off g:is
solids from elemental phosphors
production as hazardous wastes is
reasonable »nd practicable. One
elemental phosphorus industry
cotnmentfir assorted that this con)p:;ny's
waste stream is not hazardous, and
therefore, no compliance costs w>!i be
incurred, EPA was unable to confirm
this for the particular facility In
question, and the eopimenter- supplied
data WB8 insuffidnnt to confirm that the
facility's waste will not exhibit a
hazardous characteristic. Thi Agonry
has, accordingly, maintained ifs
cons>rviitive approach lo estimating
potential cost and economic impacts
associated with this rtt'p by a£stirftip!>
that the waste is hazardous ond Ih.if the
facilily wi'l be affcrfed by the rule n\tn
though this may not turn out to be !hn
case.
d. Process irfisiPirctprfrom
hydrofluoric acirtprcithn:ti(tn. On<»
commontcr r^pojifd that bewu?! ofth«
co-mingling of iluorogypsum nr>d
process waslewater al the Calvpit City,
Kentucky plant, the annuiil pslim^'ed
flowr would be 2,300,000 metric tons per
ycnr, and not 103,328 metric tons pnr
year aa assumed in the Technical
Background Document "Development of
the Cost and Economic Impacts of
Implementing the Bevill Mineral
Processing Waste Criteria." Because
those volumes differ by an ordwr of
magnitude, the affect on EPA'i
estimation of compliance costs for
hydrofluoric acid waste streams subject
to subtitle C at a Calvert City plan!
would be significant. As discussed
below In section III, based upon further
data In the form of a revised survey
provided by one of Ihe facilities in
question and detailed written comments
from the other, it app-wrs that the waste
stream meets the high volume criterion
and the compliance costs thai
commenter claimed would be significant
will In fact not be incurred.
e. Sulfate process waste solids frost
titanium dioxide production. Onn
commenter questioned EPA'» conclusion
thut the proposed rule would have no
economic impact on the commcnter'a
facility. The commenter understands
that under EPA's policy, non-excluded
wastes which are disposed prior to the
effective data of the rule which would
mnke them subject to Subtitle C
requirements would not be subject to
diier;t Subtitle C controls surh ep
closure and post-closure cera
requirements. In the commenter's case,
solid wastes from the sulfate and
chloride processes were accumulated in
surface impoundments until October of
10-38. Since that time, however, only
non-hazardous wastes have b^n added.
The commcn'er assumes th;il consistent
with EPA's policy, these impeundwnlg
will not be subject to closure and post-
closure requirements.
EPA responds that the commenter is
correct in his assumption as long as the
wastes previously placed In the surface
impoundments are not actively managed
after the effective data of today's rule.
As discussed In the September 1,1989
final rule, EPA will not be applying
Subtiile C requirement retroactively.
For further discussion of this issue fee
54 FR 36592.
/. Wastes from phosphoric cad
protection. Commcnters from the
phosphalerack processing industry
contended that the industry could not
competitively withstand the costs of
complying with Subtitle C or the LUR
requirements. They contended thnt it is
infeasible, if not impossible, to manage
process w astewasler from phosphoric
acid production in compliance with
subtitle C requirements, especiiilry in
view of the upcoming land disp-js.il
restrictions on characteristic wastes. II
is essential that the Agency retain
process wastcwater from pj.osphojsc
acid in the Bevill Amendment exclusion.
As discussed below, EPA believes
that process wastewa'er from
phosphoric acid production compiles
with the high volume and low hazard
criteria and therefors the waste steam Is
today retained within the Bevill
exclusion. The need for and technical
and economic feasibility of subjecting
this material to Subtitle C requirements
will be addressed in the Repoil to
Congress.
F. nsquestsfor Clarifications/Technical
Corrections on the September 1,1P89
Final Rule
One commenter brought to the
Agency's attention a difference between
the preamble and rule language in the
September t, 1989 flnal nilemaking. In
the preamble to the final rule, the
Agency states that "roasting and
autoclaving art considered oeneflciation
operations if they are used to remove
sulfur and/or other impurities in
preparing an ore or miners], or
beneficiatod ore or mineral, for
luaching," (54 FR 30818) In addition, t.ha
commenter indicated that the Agency
slates that
chlorination is iomeiimes used prior to go!J
leaching operations in a procedure
functionally identical to roasting and
nuiQclsving (I.e., to chans» a sulfiile w? lo a
chemical form more ••".nwisble to leachirg).
EPA recognizes Owl ibis type of pre'i'o»im'>nt
operation muy he an integral part of leaching
operations, and accordingly, conwdsn non-
destructive chioHMtion of ores, min<*ra's. or
hpnef?r,iatfld ores or minerals «vh>m MSP<»
renal ing (un»i/or aiitodavmg and/or
chlothiation)/leachtag * * *"
C. Concerns With Administrative
Procedures
Commentcra on the proposed rule
made • number of requests to the •
Agency regarding the procedures EPA
has followed for administering the j
mineral processing rulemakings. One '
commenter requested that EPA defer j
final action on the proposed rule !
pending: (1) Judicial review of the
September 1,1889 final rule; (2)
clarification of the applicability of the ;
rales to inactive processing facilities;
and (3) a review of the mixture re!e.
Another commenter requested that the
Agency publish its rationale and allow
for public comment if EPA decides that
process wastewater from the production
of animal feed, ammonia ted phosphate
fertilizer, and phosphate complex ponds
«re not within th« icopa of the Bevill
exclusion. The same commcnier asked
Reproduced Iran
best availablB copy.
-------
2330
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
that all documents used for previous
nilemakings be included in the current
docket (MW2P). One commenter asked
EPA to assess the analytical results of
the hazard sampling data and carefully
compare them with the eommenter's
own split samples. Finally, one
commenter sought additional time for
public review and comment on the
background documents for the high
volume criterion. The Rommentcr
clnimed that the documents were not
available for comment before the
September 25th proposed rule, yet
support the criterion made final in the
September 1st rule.
Because of court- imposed deadlines,
the Agency is compelled to promulgate
today's final rule on an accelerated
schedule {signature by January 15,1990).
In order to ensure that all information
compiled for previous rulemukings is
fully available to (ht public. Ihe Agency
has Incorporated by reference previous
mineral processing waste dockets*
except for the final rule reliating six
smelter wastes (53 FR 35412, September
13,1988), into the current docknl. EPA
believes that the public has been
provided an adequate opportunity to
comment on this rulemaking and,
therefore, an additionnl comment period
is not required. In addilion, EPA
believes clarification of the applicability
of the rules to inactive facilities and
review of the mixture rale are not
required or appropriate in the context of
this rulemaking because EPA's position
on these isouas was established in the
September 1,1989 fin^l rule.
III. Revised Application of the Final
Criteria for Defining Bnvill Mineral
Processing Waste*
Thii section of Ihe preamble presents
clarifications to the waste stream
definitions used in the proposal, revised
waste volume data and additional
discussion of selrcted da'a used in
evaluating compliance with the low
hazard criterion. Only those waste
streams for which noteworthy chnr«ges
have been made fo Ihe proposal nra
discussed in detail. A summary of the
Bevill status of the 20 mineral
processing wasted is also presented.
A. Clarification of Waste Stream
Definitions
Based on careful review of public
comments, and additional analysts of
previous EPA studies and company
responses to the 1989 National Survey of
Solid Wastes from Mineral Processing
Facilities, the Agency has made the
following decisions concerning the
definition of candidate Devill waste
streams, related process descriptions.
and the numbers of facilitiea generating'
each waste.
1. Treated Residue From Roasting/
Leaching of Chrome Ore
The residue from roasting/leaching of
chrome ore of concern in this rule is the
settled residue following treatment of
the slurried leaching waste. Both
facilities that reported generating
residue from roasting/leaching of
chrome ore pump their untreated waste
directly to an ensile treatment unit In
contrast to Ihe September 25 NPRM, this
final rule temporarily retains the
exclusion from hazardous waste
regulations for only those treated solids
which are entrained in the slurry as it
leaves the treatment facility and which
settle out in disposal impoundments.
Available data indicate that this mineral
processing waste is both low hazard and
high volume. As indicated in the
proposal, the untreated waste is not low
hazard.
2. Process Wastewnter From Coal
Gasification
The definition of process wastnwater
from the coal gasification operation has
been revised to clarify that process
wastewator from coal gasification is the
"stripped gas liquor" generated during
the gasification of the coal. This process
wastewater may be run through several
subsequent storage, treatment, and
reuse operations. This stripped gas
liquor was originally not nominated by
the facility because of a
misunderstanding about its status AS a
solid waste. In comments provided on
the September 25 proposal, however, the
company has requested that the entire
stripped gas liquor stream be considered
"process wa?tewater" rather than just
the portion reported previously. EPA
believes that the stripped gas liquor Is a
solid waste at the one facility that
generates the waste, and has evaluated
the extent to which the material
complies with the final Bevill criteria
accordingly. Because the facility's
response to the 1909 National Survey
indicates that the process stream, in
part, is stored in surface impoundments,
EPA does not consider its management
system to be closed-loop recycling,
meaning that for present purposes, the
Agency believes this material is not
eligible for the closed-loop exemption.
However, this does not affect the Bevill
status of the waste.
3. Slag Tailings From Primary Copper
Processing"
EPA has identified, as « result of
public comments, an additional facility
that processes slag from primary coppet
processing and thereby generates slag.
tailings. This Increases the number of
facilities known by EPA to generate slag
tailings to three.
4; Furnace Off-Gas Solids From
Elemental Phosphorus Production
This waste stream will continue to be
defined, depending on the facility in
question, as either the solid or semi-
solid material generated from the
phosphorus furnaces or BS the entrained
solids contained within scrubber waters
generated from cleaning furnace off-
gases. In no instance is the scrubber
water itself considered to be the
candidate Bevill waste because it is not
a high volume waste.
5. Process Wastewater Ftom Phosphoric
Acid Production
This wasle stream, for purposes of
determining Bevill status, includes the
following process streams resulting from
phosphoric acid plant operations: water
from phosphoric acid production
operations through concentration to
merchant grade acid; phosphogypsum
transport water; phosphogypsum stack
runoff: process wastewater generated
from the uranium recovery step of
phosphoric acid production; process
wastewater from animal feed production
operations that qualify as mineral
processing operations based on the
definition of mineral processing that the
Agency finalized on September 1: and
process wastewater from
superphosphate production. As
proposed on September 25, phosphoric
acid process waslewater is high volume
and low hazard waste and is, therefore.
retained in the exemption, although the
data used to arrive at this conclusion
have been modified in response to
public comments.
8. Chloride Process Waste Solids From
Titanium Tetrachloride Production
The "chloride-ilmeuite" process
reportedly employed by three titanium
tctrachloride production facilities, for
purposes of this rule, continues to be
considered a processing operation. Th«
primary reason for this determination it
the understanding that during this "two-
stage" process, the operation destroys
the identity of the mineral, produces
titanium tetrachloride gns (a mineral
product), and gewjutes wastes which
are functionally Identical to the wastes
generated by the chloride process at the
other six titanium tetrachloride
facilities. The fact that the ore being
utilized Is of a different type and grade
is not Justification for classifying the
operation as beneficiation. In addition,
by the company's own admission,
wastes from each part of the "two-step
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulation?
2339
bar.eficiation-dilorination" process are
not separable. Accordingly, the wastes
generated by this chlorination process
are subject to EPA's reinterpretation of
the Mining Waste Exclusion that was
finalized on September 1 and this
rulemaking. Assessments of volume and
hazard performed both for the
September 1 final rale and the
September 25 proposal included
"chioride-ilmenite" facilities as well as
other chloride process facilities. These
previous assessments, as well as
updates made in support of this final
rule, indicate that chloride process
waste solids from titanium tetrachioride
production are high volume and low
hazard and. therefore, ars retained in.
the exemption. Other wastes generated
by the chloride process (i.e., wastes
other than the chloride waste solid's}
were classified as non-Bevill mineral
processing wastes by the September 1
rule.
B. Compliance with the High Valaste
Criterion
Revised waste generation rate
estimates for the 20 conditionally
retained wastes are presented in Table
1. Many of these estimates have been
revised since publication of the
September 25 proposal, primarily
because of threa factors. First, revised
definitions or clarifications o£what
constitutes the individual waste streams
have led the Agency to in some cases
include, remove, or otherwise revise
data related to volume estimates for
particular waste streams.
Second, EPA has revised estimates Ins
a limited number of cases in direct
response to new data or other
information [e.g., clarification, ol surrey
responses) contained in public
comments on the proposal
Finally, EPA has, for this filal rule.
revised one average annual per-facility
waste volume presented in TaJble 1, not
because of new information, but
because the Agency has included
confidential business Information (CBI)
in the calculation, after determining that
ihe data could be aggregated and used
without disclosing proprietary
information. The Agency notes that this
estimate is essentially the same as that
used to make the high volume
determination for the proposed rule; the
average annual per-facility waste
volume presented ia Table 1 of the
proposal did not however, include data
from the CBI facilities. In cases where
proprietary information would be
revealed by presenting in Table 1 the
actual average based on CBI data, the-
Agency has either completely withheld
the data from the table (Le.. where the
only two/ facilities in the sector both
requested confidentiality, e.g., chrome
ore and titanium dioxide sulfate
process), has presented the solenon-CB!
facility volume [i.e., where only one of
several facilities is non-CBI, e.g., copper
calcium sulfate sludge and lead process
wastewater) or has published an
average based on the non-CBI data [i.e.,
where only ona of several facilities in
CBI. e.g., steel wastss).
The Agency wishes to reitsrate that
the fundamental source of data for
evaluating compliance with the high,
volume criterion has been, and
continues to be. the 1989 National
Survey, In order to account for market
fluctuations, EPA allowed facilities to
submit information in public comment
on the September 25 proposal
explaining, as necessary, that the
reported generation rates for 1988 did
not accurately reflect typical waste
generation rates at the facility. In
response, a small number of facilities
chose to revise their survey responses,
as noted above, but none claimed that
relying upon 1988 data per se would
produce an inaccurate result.
Accordingly, EPA has, for this final rule,
relied exclusively, with one exception
described below, on its own in-depth
analysis of written responses to the
National Survey to evaluate waste-by-
waste compliance with the high volume
criterion.
1, Trsatad Residue From Roasting/
Leaching of Chrome Ore
With the clarification that the waste
in question is the treated residue and
not the waste as it leaves the leach
operation, EPA has reviewed the CBI
data reported for the treated waste and
confirmed that the waste stream as
defined is, indeed, a high volume waste
solid. Both facilities generate the non-
liquid Bevill waste at rates in excess of
45,00 mt per year.
2. Process Wastewater From Coal
Gasification
With the determination that process
wastewater from coal gasification is
•tripped gas liquor, EPA has reviewed
the quantities of the total process water
generated at the facility and confirmed
that the waste stream as redefined is,
indsed, a high volume liquid waste.
3. Calcium Sulfate Wastewater
Treatment Plant Sludge From.Primary
Copper Processing
The Agency has reviewed its analysis
of the volume data provided foi this
waste stream in the National Survey.
EPA has determined that the waste
volume presented in the proposed rule
for the non-CBI facility is not
representative of the calcium sulfate
sludge, but of the sludge and the
combinsd transport liquid. The waste
volume used to evaluate the status of
the wasta, therefore, has been revised to
reflect the quantity of actual slucgs
generated. Thase revised numbers are
consistent with ft) the estimates made
for previous proposed and final rules
regarding the reinterprstation cf the
Bevill exclusion and (2) volume
estimates presented in the facility's
comments regarding those proposals.
EPA notes, that a review of the data from
the CBI facility leaves some doubt as lo
the point in the process at which the
residual waste stream is the Bevill
waste, and therefore which waste
volume should be used. The Agency,
however, has confirmed that evea a
conservative calculation using the
smallest volume reported still yields an
average which exceeds the 45,000 metric
ton threshold for the high volume
criterion. EPA concludes, therefore, that
the waste stream meets the high volume
criterion.
4. Slag Tailings From Primary Copper
Processing
With the addition of the third facility
to the group of facilities genera ting this
waste, the Agency reviewed the
available survey data and revised the
industry average generation rate for slag
tailings to take into account for all three
facilities that generate the waste. After
revision of the quantity estimates, the
waste stream continues to pass the high
volume criterion.
5. Furnace Off-Gas Solids From
Elemental Phosphorus Production
Confidential Business Information for
three elemental phosphorus facilities
was included in the recalculation of the
average waste volume presented in
Table 1 of today's rule, and this value
was used to evaluate compliance with
the high volume criterion. These CBI
data were also used to evaluate
compliance with the high volume
criterion for the September 25 proposal.
but were not presented in the NPRM in
an effort which upon closer
examination proves unnecessary, to
protect the confidentiality of the data.
The average waate volume in Table 1
represents- the actual solids generated
from cleaning the furnace off-gas: in
some cases, these solids may have beea
entrained in scrubber wattr.* For EPA's
calculations, however, the. quantities of
solids contained in these scrubber
waters as reported in the surveys [either
as percent solids in (he scrubber water
•tlw miliblt data indicat* (Jut th* icrubber
witw i» not * hi jh Tohnn* wut*.
-------
2340
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 15 f Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
or quantity of sludge generated from
scrubber water settling] were the
volumes ascribed to those facilities for
purposes of developing the sector-wide
annual waste generation rate. The
average per-facility volume of this waste
continues to be below the high volume
criterion.
6. Process Wastewater From
Hydrofluoric Acid Production
The Agency proposed to withdraw
this waste stream aa a low volume
waste due to the failure of the facilities
to provide waste generation data in the
comments in which the waste streams
were originally nominated or in their
responses to the National Survey. Both
facilities reportedly producing Bevill
waste from hydrofluoric acid production
have subsequently presented the
Agency with volume data in comments
and [in one case) a revised facility
survey. The Agency has reviewed these
industry comments and the additional
survey data and has concluded that
process wastewater from hydrofluoric
acid production satisfies the high
volume criterion for liquids. As the
waste stream has been determined to be
low-hazard, the process wastewater is
retained in the Bevill exclusion.
7. Process Wastewater from Primary
Lead Production
The Agency has reevaluated its -
methodology for volume estimation of
this waste stream, and has subsequently
removed from the analysis one facility
which was not operated on a consistent
basis (37 days in 1988). The Agency's
analysis indicates, however, that
although removal of this facility from
the analysis increases the average
annual per-facility waste volume, the
process wastewater is not generated on
a sector-wide basis in quantities
sufficient to meet the high volume
criterion. The waste stream, therefore,
has been withdrawn from the Bevill
exclusion. The value reported in Table 1
is the volume of process wastewater
from the remaining aon-CBI facility; this
is not the actual sector facility average
used to make the high volume
determination.
8. Air pollution control dust/sludge from
lightweight aggregate production
EPA has revised its estimate of the
volume of this waste stream based on
additional analysis of information
included in the surveys submitted by the
majority of the lightweight aggregate
facilities. Waste management data
submitted in the survey were analyzed
to determine raora accurately the actual
generation of solids, in lieu of basing the
estimates on solids entrained in
wastewaters. These revised estimates,
confirmed by data submitted by
commenters addressing the earlier
proposed reinterpretations, were used to
calculate a new sector average for the
waste stream. The Agency
acknowledges that the facilities that use
air pollution controls other than wet
scrubbers, a minority in the sector, have
not been represented in the analysis
because data are not available on the
quantities of APC dust that these
facilities may generate. Data collected in
the National Survey for the iron and
steel indusiry, however, indicates that
APC dust resulting from dry collection
methods is typically of lower volume
than sludges generated from wet
scrubbers. As a result EPA believes that
inclusion of APC dust volume data in
the analysis would not increase the
facility average, much less double the
average as would be needed to meet the
high volume criterion. Based on EPA's
revised estimate, air pollution control
dust/sludge from lightweight aggregate
production does not pass the high
volume criterion and ia hereby
withdrawn from the Bevill exclusion.
9. Sulfate Process Waste Solids from
Titanium Dioxide Production
Waste solids from the production of
titanium dioxide using the sulfate
process are removed from the
processing operations and managed in
multiple ways at the two facilities that
employ the sulfate process. In its
original response to the 1989 National
Survey, one facility reported an
aggregated volume of waste solids from
chloride and sulfate processing
operations. Because EPA was unable to
disaggregate the volume of wastes from
chloride v. suifate processing operations
at this facility, EPA used data provided
by the other sulfate process facility as
the basis for the average annual per
facility waste generation rate in the
proposal. In comments on the proposed
rule, the facility that had previously
reported aggregated volume data
provided separate volume data for
ehcride and sulfate process waste
solids. As a result, for today's proposal.
EPA has developed a revised per-facility
average annual waste generation rate
that is based on data from both
facilities. However, as in the proposal,
the waste is not high volume. The waste
stream, therefore, has been withdrawn
from the Bevill exclusion.
TABLE 1.—RESULTS OF APPLYING THI HIGH VOLUME CRITERION TO TWENTY CONDITIONALLY RETAINED PROCESSING ,VASTES*
ComnxxJHy MCtor
Conditionally retained watt*
Solid or Hquid
faowy
gtngration
jmt/yn
Notes
NO, at
faotitaj
reportng
Passes high
volume
cntsnon
Coal gas
Iron._
Sodium ctvomata/Uctt
SIM)..
ProcM* wtstM«Mr.
Calcium suKata wastawaiar traatnwnt plant
Kudo*.
Sag tailing
Air poWutxxi eoWrol duat/«udga_.
Blast fumaoa ilag
Procata *a»ta»ataf.—
SoBd ......
Solid —
Solid
Sofey ™—.
liquid—
Air pollution control dutt/ttudg*..
Anhydrous preott «ra*MMtar._
Trtatad raskkM
crirorfM ore.
Basic oxygan fumac* and open rwanti far-
naca air poNutkm comrel dutt/akidga.
DMttC OJty9^fl RjtflVKM WO OpSO nflttral nyp*
Liquid
Titarnum i
240,000
4.830,000
78,000
503.91S
11,044
268.780
4.300.000
$1,662
724,506
858,000
15,813
2.46S.OOO
87,402,600
W/H
60.892
553,844
W/H
8
C
A.8, D
C
A.C
C
C
a. c
a
A.C.D
ac
8
A.C,f
A.»
A. a
2
24
28
S
17
1
18
2
25
26
2
Yam,
YM.
Y*a.
No.
Ym.
YM.
YM.
YM.
No.
No.
-------
DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Raster / Vol. 55, No. IS / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
2341
TABLE f.—RESULTS OF Apptviwa THE HIGH VOLUME CRITERION TO TWENTY CONDITIONALLY RETAINED PROCESSING WASTES*—
Continued
Commodity sector
Titan
Titan
/:•*-
Total
Total
number of wastes meeting high volume
number of wastes failing fugh volume en
Conditionally ratified waste
Sulfate
Ghlori*
Slag ....
criterion
tenon ....
SOM If feud
Solid
! Solid
Avaragn par
facility
generation
(mt/yr)
W'H
89,349
157.000
Moles
A. C
A. 3
3
No. o»
reporting
2
t
Passes hijrt
volume
cntenon
No.
Yes,
Yes.
19
4
"Data are from 1989 National Survay of SaM Wastes from Mineral Processing Faoliies, Bates?1, as noted.
W/H—wrttweid to svod sscicsinf sonftderwaJ bysnass inftymaton (C3l).
A. The aata tcf one 01 mora ol ;na generating facuues era C3I.
8. Generation dan are sotainad oirsctty from the suivey,
C. Calculated or imeroretea 6y SPA oased on inforraoon arovidsd in the survey ard subfe comments.
0. Oa;a prasomea i» rrom orie facility; one or mow of !«« generating faoinies are CBI. Heconed numeer was not used to make 3«viil determination: average
lccing C8I taciiifles does not crwrge 9evill status.
E. Generation data was oCtairvad from the survey for 12 facilities; data for 13 faalties was reported by AiSI.
C. Compliance with the Low Hazard
Criterion
Consistent with the low hazard
criterion established on September 1,
1S89, the Agency has used only waste
analysis data derived using EPA Method
1312 because there was no compelling
evidence that any of the 20 mineral
processing wastes "is generated at five
or more facilities; and substantial
additional relevant data are available
and the preponderance of these
additional data indicate that the waste
should be considered low hazard." (See
54 FR 38630.) The majority of the
Method 1312 data used are the result of
EPA sampling at selected facilities, but
some results aie for split samples or
other sample analysis results provided
by operating facilities.
fa addition, for today's final rare, the
Agency has utilized newly available
data from EPA'a 1989 waste sampling
effort to make low hazard determination
for certain waste streams or components
of waste streams that may have been
included by redefinition or clarification
of the waste stream or the operation's
process in today's final rule. Final
results of EPA's application of the low
hazard criterion are presented in Table
2.
1. Treated Residue from Roasting/
Leaching of Chrome Ore
With the clarification that the waste
in question is the treated residua from
roasting/leaching of chrome ore and not
the waste as it leaves the leaching
operation, EPA has reviewed its waste
sampling data of the treated residue,
and has confirmed that the treated
residue passes the low hazard criterion.
2. Process wastewater from coal
gasification
With the determination that process
wastewater from ccal gasification is
"stripped gas liquor," EPA has reviewed
the sampling data for the stripped gas
liquor generated at the facility, and
established that the waste stream as
redefined is a low hazard liquid waste.
3. Process wastewater from primary
lead production
The Agency has responded to
concerns from one commenter that a
composite wastewater sample taken at
one facility was not a sample of their
process wastswater, but included
additional process waste streams. In
response, EPA analyzed non-composited
samples of slag granulation water,
which reportedly accounts for more than
90 percent of the process wastewater at
this facility. This sample was found to
exceed the low hazard criterion-
Because the process wastewater also
exceeded the criterion at a second
facility, EPA concludes that this waste
stream is not low hazard.
TABLE 2.— R ESULTS OF APPIYINQ THE Low HAZARD CRITERION TO TWENTY CONOITIONAU.Y
WASTES
iNED MINERAL PROCESSING
ComrxxlJty Mctor
CondrwaiJy retaimd waata
Nofac.
rlQ.
No. ol fac.
iat2 dam
Reason tor
raHurw
MitflM
' treatmart plant
Eiofiwnxt pr^ospftoru9».
Ryofo^ypsum ,.«...MM..
PFOCMI wasttwawr-
aod.
Proc»s« w««»wtter.....
Air pollution control dust/tiudga..
Amiyrjrout procxt wutiwtiM w
Proc«n w«at*waMf
residue from roatana/Laactv^ o(
1
t
Z
a
s
3
30
30
5
28
f
2»
Z
-------
2342 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—RESULTS OF APPLYING THE Low HAZARD CRITERION TO TWENTY CONDITIONALLY RETAINED MINERAL PROCESSING
WASTES—Continued
Commodity sector
Start .„ „
Steel _...„ .... ....
"ntantum dioxide ,— ...
Titanium tetracfitonde * ..
Zinc
Total number of wastes meeting low hazard c
Total numoer of wastes failing low hazard critc
Conditionally retained waste
Basic oxygen furnace and open hearth fur-
nace air pollution control dust'aludqe.
Basic oxygen rumace and open hearth fur-
nace slag.
Sulfate process waste solids —
Slag
iteiioFi ....
No. of fto.
believed to
generate
waste
27
27
2
2
9
^
No. of fae.
sampled by
EPA
3
3
2
2
3
1
No. of lac.
submitting
(named
13t 2 data
0
0
0
0
0
0
Passes low
hazard
cntanon
Yes ...
Yes
No
Ye»
Yes
Yes
Hion..... „ „ „ . . ,. ...
Reason lor
taiiura
N/A
N/A
PH. Cr
N/A
N/A
N/A
18
2
D. Bevill Status of Conditionally
Retained Mineral Processing Wastes
The Bevill status of the 20
conditionally retained mineral
processing wastes is presented in Table
3. Fifteen of the 20 wastes have been
retained and will be studied in the
Report to Congress and addressed by
the subsequent Regulatory
Determination. The other five wastes.
will, as of the effective date of this rule.
become subject to regulation as
hazardous wastes under subtitle C of
RCRA if they exhibit hazardous
characteristics.
TABLE 3,—RESULTS OF APPLYING BOTH BEVILL CfliTEHiA TO TWENTY CONDITIONALLY RETAINED MINERAL PROCESSING WASTES
Commodity sector
Conditionally retained wast*
No. oJ
(•«.
believed
to
generate
waste
Passe* hign
volume
cnMnon
Paseee kjw
hazard
criterion
Coal Gas...
Elemental Phosphorus..
Calcium sulfate wastewater treatment plant slug*.
off-gas solids...
Iron.,
Iron.,
Air pollution control dust/sludge..
Process wastewater
Steel..
Anfiydrous process wastewater _—_
rnxeii wastewater.,„ ~-~. « ~~ ...™.™.~™
Treated residue from roasting/lead-wig of dvome
ore,
Basic oxygen fumtnce and open hearth fur.iaca air
pollution control dust/sludge.
Sorfate process waste i
Sutftte process waste toba*,
1 Yes
1
2
2
5
3
3
30
30
5
28
1
28
2 Yet
27
27
2
2
9
1
Yet-
Yet..
Yet-
Ye«
Total number of wutet retained wttiin Bev* i
du
Total number of waste* withdrawn from Sevil excki
IV. Analysis of and RosponM to
Comments on Clarificatioa to the
Definition of "Designated Facility" and
Modification of tho Standardt
Applicable to Generators of Hazardous
Waste
In the proposed rule of September 25,
1989, EPA proposed a clarification to the..
definition of designated facility
regarding waste shipments from a state
where a waste is subject to the
hazardous waste regulations to a state
where the waste is not yet regulated as-
hazardous. This circumstance can arise
when EPA lists or identifies a new
waste as hazardous under its pre-
HSWA authority. In such a case, the
waste is subject to RCRA hazardous
waste regulations only in those states
that do not have interim or final
authorization to operate the RCRA
program. In a state authorized by EPA to
operate a hazardous waste program in
lieu of the federal program (under the
authority of section 3008 of RCRA), the
waste would not be subject to RCRA
requirements until the state revises its
program to classify the waste as
hazardous and receives EPA
authorization for these requirements.
This set of circumstances results from
the fact that RCRA allows states a
specified time to adopt new regulations
in order to minimize disruptions to the
implementation of authorized state
programs. In contrast, that situation
does not occur when the wastes are
mewly listed or identified pursuant to
the HSWA authorities since Congress
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 2343
specified that IISWA provisions are lo
be implemented by EPA In all slates
until such time as states are authorized
to implement the new regulations,
EPA's generator regulations require a
generator of hazardous waste to
"designate on the manifest one facility
which is permitted to handle the w«Bte
described on the manifest.' (See 40 CFR
202.20). The regulations clearly state
that the facility designated on the
manifest is the "designated facility"* as
defined in § 2(30.10 (See the direct
reference in the definition of
"designated facility" to the manifest
requirement in | 282.20). A designated
facility as currently defined in 40 CFR
260,10 must either (1)nnv* nn EPA
permit (or interim status) in accordance
with parts 270 and 124, (2) have a permit
from a state authorized in accordance
wilh part 271, or (3) be a recycling
facility that is regulated under
§ 261.tj(cj(2) or subpart F of part 2(50, and
must also be designated on the manifest
by thn generator pursuant lo § 262,20.
It has become apparent that when
promulgated in 19UO, the definition of
"designated facility" did not
contemplate the above situation wh!<*h
has potentially brond impacts on the?
RCRA program. EPA's current
interpretation of the statute in that the
manifest requirement sod thn definition
do not apply Jo materials lhat are not
officially identified as RCRA hazardous
wastes in the state thnt is receiving the
wastes. Today's clarification amends
the definition of "designated facility"
and the standards applicable to
generators of hazardous waste in 40
CFR 262.23, in order to make Ibis
Interpretation clear to the public and the
regulated community.
A. General Comments on iJic Pwpnsed
Definition
A number of conrpenters supported
EPA'a effort to clarify the existing
regulations so that the parties affected
by non-HSWA waste identifications and
listings know the status of these wastes
and the management standards ihat
apply to them when they sra shipped
across state borders. These eonimenfers
indicated that the proposed revision to
the definition of "designated facility" in
§ 260.10 offers additional clarity and an
appropriate level of flexibility to assist
both the regulatory agencies and the
regulated community. Several
commenters also supported the
proposed change to § 202.23 by adding
paragraph (e) to clarify the requirement
that the generator must ensure that the
designaied facility returns the manifest
to the generator to complete the waste
tracking procedures as required by
RCRA regulations.
Two commenters argued that the
statute prohibits EPA from making this
change to the definition of designated
facility. These commenlers pointed out
th;it RCRA Section 3002 (a)(5), which
sets out standards applying to
hazardous waste generatois, requires
use of a manifest system
* * * to assure tlint all such hazardous waste
if designated for Irealment, stw?glber Ihnn fnciiitl'si on
the premise* where the waale is generated)
for which a permit hns been issued an
provided in the subtitle * * * (emphasis
ndtled).
Section 3003(a)(4), pertaining to
transporters, contains substantially
similar language.
The commenter argue* that these
provisions require materials that
officially have the status of RCRA
hazardous waste to go to facilities
holding Subtitle C permits. EPA
generally agrees with this view. El1 A,
however, notes that the mining wastes
lhal become hazardous wastes as a
result of this federal rule will not have
official status as RCRA Subtitle C
wostes in ell slates at the same time.
New RCRA rules—including new waste
identification mlos—that are
promulgated ucing statutory authorities
in effect before the 19841ISWA
amendments take effect only in states
thnt are not yet authorized to implement
the pre-1984 RCRA hazardous waste
program. Currently, only 7 states Ifiek
nutJjorizRtion for tho pre-1384 program.
Consequently, today's rule will take
effect only in those states. In all other
states, Subtitle C regulation of these
wastes must wait for the states to
promulgate parallel regulations or
statutory changes, and obtain EPA
approval to implement these new
additions to their Subtitle C programs,
This process can take many monthn. See
generally 50 FR 28729-28730 (July 15,
1905), describing RCRA Section 3008.
See nlao the state authorization section
to today's notice.
Consequently, EPA believes that the
"permitted facility" requirements of
section* 3002(a)(5) and 3003(a)(4) apply
only within the boundaries of those
states where the relevant mining wastes
have officially attained the status of
RCRA-regulated subtitle C "hazardous
wastes," Status as a "hazardous wnsts"
is, indeed, the basic prerequisite for the
exercise of any subtitle C jurisdiction. If
a material It not yet a hazardous waste
In tht state to which it Is sent for
treatment, storage, or disposal, no
subtitle C regulations apply. A manifest
is not legally required, and the facility
that accepts the waste need not have «
subtitle C permit. EPA, in fact, would be
unable to enforce manifest and
permitting requirements in a state where
a material is not yet a subtitle C
hazardous waste.
Since at least two interpretations of
the statute are possible, EPA may
exercise its discretion to choose the
view that best promotes the overall
policy goals of RCRA. EPA believes that
there are sound policy considerations
favoring the "jurisdictional" view, which
considers the materials RCRA
hazardous wnste status to be a
jurisdictional prerequisite.
The commenters' interpretation of
RCRA sections 3002(a)(5) and 3003(a)[4)
would force newly regulated wastes that
are generated in unauthorized states to
he managed in those states. Essentially,
these wastes would be "trapped" In
these unauthorized states, and they
could only be managed in avoidance
with the treatment, storage, and disposal
alternatives that are available In thono
states (which could be limited). This is
primarily because TSD facilities in
authorized states would not be able to
obtain the necessary permit
modification or change in interim status,
Since the wastes are not yet hazardous
in these states. One problem which con
nrise from this situation is that the
facilities best suited to the management
of wastes which are newly listed or
identified may not be located in the
states where the rulemaking is in effect
The Agency believes that such facilities
should not be precluded from accepting
wastes from states whore the rule is in
effect while the state in which they ore
located is seeking authorization for the
waste stream.
One example of particular interstate
concern involves a mixed waste strenm
(i.e., a waste stream that contains both
hazardous waste and radioactive waste)
called scintillation cocktails.
Scintillation cocktnils are commonly
generated by approximately 10,000
hospitals and universities across tlirt
country. This waste stream became
regulated pursuant to non-HSWA
authority as described in the July 3,
1988, Federal legister notice, and
therefore were Initially regulated under
the RCRA program only in the
unauthorized states. Approximately 80
percent of the national capacity for
treatment of these particular wastes
resides with one facility. The Agency
understands that this facility is in
compliance with state standards that
are equivalent to the federal RCRA
requirements. However, the facility Is
located In a state that has not yet
received mixed waste authorization, and
therefore the facility does not have a
4'
I.,- f
-------
2344
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
RCRA permit or interim status. If all
these scintillation cocktails were
required to go to RCRA permitted
facilities as suggested by these
commenters, a significant number of
waste shipments from thousands of
generators would be disrupted. In fact.
in this case the Agency believes that
such a restriction would generally result
in less protective waste management
since it is doubtful that ihe wastes
would be treated and recovered to the
same degree as is presently occurring at
this large facility.
The Agency would also like to point
out that, tvithout the flexibility provided
by today's rule, there would likely be a
significant disincentive for states to
adopt new waste listings unless they
were confident that adequate treatment,
storage, or disposal capacity exists for
wastes within the state. This is because
generators In the first few states to
adopt the waste listing would not be
able to send their wastes to facilities in
other authorized states (which are the
vast majority of states) that have not
adopted the listing because the TSD
facilities in these states would not be
able to obtain the necessary RCRA
permit modifications or changes in
interim status. EPA believes that this
disincentive would not be desirable.
The same two commenters, in arfjuing
that EPA's proposal should be
withdrawn, contended that there is no
firm evidence that the problem
hypothetieally facing the regulated
community actually exists. The
commenters stated that the problem is
miniscule, if not completely illusory. The
commenters indicated that the problem
that EPA attempts to address In thn
rulcmaking could only arise if EPA lists
or identifies a waste as hazardous
pursuant to non-HSWA authorities: the
generator needs to send the waste off-
sile and Ihe only available off site waste
facilities capable of managing the waste
are located in authorized state*. The
commenters indicated this scenario
would occur in only a very limited
number of circumstances, end therefore
does not warrant any change to the
definition of designated facility. The
commenters go on to say that EPA can
only identify three non-HSWA
rulemakings resulting in newly listed or
identified wastes,
EPA strongly disagrees wilh the
statement that this Is an illusory
problem for the following reasons. In the
September 25 proposal, EPA Identified
three recent non-HSWA rules only as
illustrative'examples of situations writ-re
interstate-shipments could be a proMom.
However, there have been other non-
HSWA rulei that list or bring in new
waste streams, namely: Redefinition of
solid waste'(January 4,1985); and mixed
waste (July 3,1986). Furthermore, the
Agency recently proposed additional
non-HSWA listings for wood preserving
wastes, and may in the future consider
the regulation of other waste streams
under the Agency's pre-HSVVA
authority. Furthermore, as discussed in
the mixed waste scintillation cocktail
example above, the Agency has already
encountered situations of interstate
shipments affecting thousands of
generators, indicating that the problem
being addressed in today's rule is a real
one and deserves clarification.
The same two commenters argued
that EPA's proposal could create a
disincentive for waste generators to ship
their wastes to licensed hazardous
waste facilities. This disincentive could
result from allowing the generator to
choose to ship its hazardous waste to
either a hazardous waste facility or •
nonhazardous waste facility. Given the
alternatives, a generator may simply
choose the least cost option.
The Agency acknowledges that this
approach to interstate shipments may
appear to be a disincentive to the
management of these hazardous wastes
in subtitle C facilities. However, the
Agnncy believes that there are other
circumstances that mitigate this
apparent disincentive. First, this
situation is temporary. States are
required to adopt federal RCRA waste
listings or identifications within
specified deadlines. Second, until that
regulatory adoption, these wnstns will
be regulated under subtitle D of RCRA
and any other applicable requirements
of the receiving state. Last, some
generators will elect to send their
wastes to subtitle C facilities or other
facilities that perform equivalent
treatment in order to minimize any
potential future liability resulting from
the management of their wastes.
Tha two commenters also noted that
the practice of shipping newly listed or
identified wastes to facilities in states,
where the waste is unregulated would
be limited to the period of time an
authorized state requires to promulgate
the new listing or characteristic.
However, the cornmenteri maintained
that while such a period is finite, it is
not necessarily short and can take up to
three and a half years, assuming that
authorized states comply with EPA
regulations for revising state programs.
The commenter further indicated thai
there are no Immediate consequences
for Ihe state or th* regulated community
in that state if tho state fail* to meet
these deadlines.
It ahould be recognized that the three
and a half year period is the maximum
allowed by the state authorization
regulations. Generally, states are
required to adopt federal program
changes within two years (or three years
if the state needs to amend its statute).
Some extensions of these deadlines are
available. However, EPA. recognizes
that while some states have been able to
meet the authorization deadlines, others
have not due to the number and
complexity of the changes to RCRA
regulations in the past few years. Tho
Agency intends to place increased
emphasis on prompt state adoption of
new waste listings to ensure uniform,
national coverage of newly listed or
identified wastes, !t should also be
noted that there is a lag time between
state adoption of a requirement and the
official EPA action to authorize that
stale to implement the regulation under
RCRA authority. Therefore, in many
cases states are regulating these new
activities in a manner equivalent to the
RCRA program well before they have
receiverf authorization.
B. Relationship Between Today's
Clarification and Non-RCRA State
Hazardous Wastes
One commenter was concerned about
the situation where a waste is generated
in a state which, as a matter of state law
only, regulates the waste as hazardous,
but is transported to a receiving state
that does not. In this case, the receiving
state is under no federal compulsion to
amend its regulations to add that waste
to its list of hazardous wastes, since the
listing of the non-RCRA waste is a
matter of state law. EPA has no
jurisdiction over this situation. Thus,
this clarification of the definition of
designated facility does not apply to
state listed non-RCRA hazardous waste.
A second commenter shared the
above concern but also stated that
EPA's proposed clarification does not
distinguish between state and federally
classified hazardous waste. The
commenter contended that the Agency
should stipulate that this clarification
only applies to federally regulated
wastes, that the Agency did not intend
to preclude the receiving state from
designating the type of facility which
can manage such state-classified
hazardous waste, and that federal
authorization is irrelevant to the
Interstate transportation of state-
classified wastes.
The Agency recognizes tht issue
presented by the commenten however,
EPA believes that this is not a comment
on the clarification to the definition of
the term "designated facility" 09
-------
Federal Register / Vn!. r«G, Ho. 15 / Tuesday, far-.ia-y
DIR. No. 9541.00-14
19(10 / Rutes and Regulations 2345
proposed on September 25,1f?B9.
the Issue raised by this commenter
confirms the requirements cf Ibe currnnl
doffnition, Indeed, the current defirjtion
does not apply to non-ECRA harqrdrms
wastes since it only applies lo the
hazardous wastes that the Federal
gcwernmeiit has authority to regulate
(i.e., federally listed or identified
hazardous wastes). If a s'.-ile chnosrd lo
be more stringent nnd rpjjuls'e
njdilional wastes nut reyihifed unt!(!r
RCRA, that stole must nd.-ipt it's RCRA
regulations with regard to Ihe definition
of designated facility to uccomroodn!*;
these new wastes. K;ich sta^a must
ds'-enninc, Sherpfore, hm•»>
the otit-of-st»te shipment of state-listed
wastes. Furthermore, ihn Ag?nry decs
not, under (he original def'niljrin -ir this
subsequent claniiaiiion, intend to
specify to authorized states (he types of
facilities that can manage $Wn-
elnssified hazardous wastes. Finally,
EPA nlr,o does not, wish this ciariiicaliun
or the original rule, s the
treifnwnt, storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste, rather than the
standards of the receiving state berac.se
il would ba extremely burdensome for
the generator of a hazardous waste lo
Icwp track of the continuously evolving
hnsurdous waste regulations of a!) fif!y
Hf»fl»S.
The Agency disagrees w i!h this
r.'imrn enter. A state can only apply its
laws and regulations to farilii'ps over
which Ihfy have jurisdiction (i.e.,
facilities within the stated boundaries).
Therefore, if a generator is sending
wastes to a facility out-of-staJi, the
treatment, storage, or disposal
standards that apply are those of the
stale wheie the TSD facility is lotwtrtd.
It is incumbent on the generator to knoiv
the reijuirenients of the stales where ihe
wastes will be managed. However,
much of the responsibility for complying
with the receiving state's regulation1?
fads on the TSD facility. In most cap eg,
the generator simply has to ask a
potential receiving TSD facility if i) is
«i!c3wed to manage the generator's
wnstes by its state government. The
Agency does not believe that this is
particularly burdensome lo the
pen»:rslor.
E. Other Comments
A minor technical correction is ;I!TO
included in the rule language of
"designated facility" to clarify that nn
interim status facility in an au'honzfid
state may be a designated facility. EPA
believes that it is universally understood
Ihot these interim status fucitiiiea can
nctiept hazardous waste shipments, and
this was" the original intent of the
provision. Therefore, in the first
sentence of the role n parenthetical
clause is added with the words "or
interim status'1,
The Agency has noted nn»J entrrefed
Ihc typographical error that appeared in
the proposed rule as follows: Under
proposed f 280.10(4), the generator Is
designated on the manifest pursuant to
8 202.20, not { 260.20.
F, Manifesting requirements
Today's clarification will not alter the
requirement that a generator offer his
waste only to transporters who have
EPA identification numbers. (See WCHR
202,12}c)). Thus, if a newly listed waste
is trnnsfered between transporters in a
state where the waste Is not yet
hazardous, both transporters should be
identified on the manifest. The initial
transporter Is still required to keep the
copy of the manifest on file.
fa order to ensure that the wosle
reaches the designated facility, EPA i»
requiring the generator to arrange lh.it
thp designated facility owner or
operator sign and return the manifest to
the generator, and that out-of-ntatn
tiansporters sign and forward the
manifest to the designated facility. The
return of the manifest to the generator
will "close the loop" on the disposition
of the generated waste and allow Ihe
generator to attempt to resolve any
discrepancies in the manifest, as
required by 40 CFR 262.42. This ne»v
requirement parallels She requirements
in 40 CFR 204,71 3rd 263.71. However,
as opposed to those acctiorra, which,
require the receiving facility to return
the manifest, § 262.2,)(e) puts the burden
on the generator to ensure the return of
the manifest when the waste is sent Jo a
facility in a state not yet authorized to
treat the waste as hazardous. EPA
believes that this approach is
appropriate, since the facility receiving
the waste aad any out-of-state
transporters may not be subject to
subtitle C regulation, if they do not
otherwise handle any RCRA hazardous
wastes. It should be noted that with this
approach the designated facility and
out-of-state transporters are not
i squired to obtain F.PA identification
numbers since the waste is not
hazardous in their state. (Of couis;;,
once the state becomes authorized to
regulate the particular waste as
hazardous, the facility would n«id a
RCRA Subtitle C permit (or inlen'm
status) to continue managing the waste
and all transporters would need EPA
identification numbers.)
V. Regulatory Implementation and
Effective Dates of the Final Ruin
EPA is finalizing this rule in
accordance with the March 14,198f)
order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit (see Enrirovmen/al
Defense Fund v. EPA, 852 F.2d 1310
(D.C, Cir. 1900) cat denied, 109 S.Ct.
1120 (1989)). As of the effective dole of
this final rule (i.e., six months after
today or July 23,1900, the five mineral
processing wastes for which the
temporary exemption from subtitle C
regulations (previously provided by
RCRA section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii)) is being
removed by today's rulemaking may be
subject to subtitle C requirements in
those states that do not have
authorization to administer their own
hazardous waste programs in lieu of
EPA. Generators, transporters, end
treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD)
facilities that manage any of these five
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
2346
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
wastes In authorized slates will be
subject to RCRA requirements imposed
as a result of this final rule only after the
state revises its program to adopt
equivalent requirements and EPA
authorizes the revision.
The requirements imposed as a result
of removing the temporary exemption
include: Determining whether the solid
waste(s) exhibit hazardous
characteristics (40 CFR 262.11) and, for
those wastes that are hazardous,
obtaining an EPA identification number
for managing hazardous wastes (40 CFR
262.34); complying wilh recordkeeping
and reporting requirements (40 CFR
262.40-282,43); and obtaining interim
status and seeking a permit (or
modifying interim status. Including
permit applications or modifying a
permit, as appropriate) (40 CFR Part
270).
A, Section 3010 Notification
When EPA published its September 1,
1989 Final rule (54 FR 30,192), the Agency
removed the temporary exemption from
subtitle C regulations for ail but twenty-
five mineral processing wastos. In that
rulemaking, the Agency indie-tied 'hat
all persona generalint;, t> nnsporting,
treating, storing, or disposing of one or
more of those wastes were to notify
either EPA or an authorized slate within
90 days (I.e., by November 30,1989) of
such activities, pursuant to section 3010
of RCRA, if those wastes are
characteristically hazardous under 40
CFR part 281, subpart C. (see 51 FR
30032.] Following the publication of the
September rule, however, a number of
facilities expressed confusion regarding
the notification requirement because
section VII of the preamble to the
September 1,1989 final rule also stales
that "the final rule is not effective in
authorized states because its
requirements are not bfiing imposed
pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984." (See 54 FR
30033). This statement was correct in
regard to the requirement to file a part A
permit application and TSD standards.
it was not correct in regard to section
3010 notification, which was intended to.
apply to all persons generating,
transporting, treating, storing or
disposing of hazardous wastes identified
by characteristics regardless of whether
in an authorized state or not. Because
the September 1.1989 finnl rule removed
a temporary exemption and thus
identified as characteristically
hazardous some wastes, section 3010
required notification wllhin 90 days.
Because some potentially affected
facilities may have been confused by th»
September 1 premable and because the
Agency has not yet published a
clarification, EPA is today eliminating
the notification requirement established
by the September l final rule for
facilities in authorized states. For
facilities in unauthorized states, the
deadline for compliance with the
notification requirement established by
the September 1 rule is being extended
until 90 days following today's
publication (i.e., April 23,1990). EPA has
concluded that it is appropriate to waive
the notification requirement in
authorized states because (1) the
universe of newly regulated activities
will be identified when state regulations
are revised, as they must be for the
states to retain authorization; and (2)
RCRA identification numbers provided
to notifiers in authorized states are
obtained by the state from EPA, so in
this way EPA is informed of the
notifications that authorized states
receive.
Accordingly, not later than 90 days
following today's publication (i.e., April
23,1090), all persons in unauthorized
states who generate, transport, treat,
store, or dispose of wastes that (1) are
removed from the Bevill exemption by
this final nils, and (2) are
characteristically hazardous under 40
CFR part 281, subpart C, must notify
EPA of such activities pursuant to
Section 3010 of RCRA. Notification
instructions are set forth in 45 FR 12748.
Persons who previously have notified
EPA or an authorized state of their
activities pursuant to section 3010 of
RCRA, (i.e., persons who previously
have notified EPA or an authorized state
that they generate, transport, treat, store
or dispose of hazardous waste and have
received an identification number—see
40 CFR 282.12, 263.11 and 285.1) need not
re-notify." Persons without EPA
identification numbers are prohibited
from transporting, offering for transport,
treating, staring, or disposing of
hazardous wastes.
For the same reasons discussed
above, facilities managing wastes
removed from the exclusion in
authorized states need not notify EPA or
an authorized state within 90 days of
today's rule. Section 3010 Notification
will be required of such facilities after
the state receives authorization or
otherwise amends its program to
regulate these or require such
notification.
B. Compliance Dates for Today's Rule
1. Interim Status and Permit
Modifications in Unauthorized Slatus
Facilities In unauthorized states that
currently treat, store, or dispose of
wastes that have been removed from
temporary Bevill exclusion and are
characteristically hazardous under 40
CFR Part 261, Subpart C. but have not
received a permit pursuant to Section
3005 of RCRA and are not operating
pursuant to interim status, may be
eligible for interim status (see Section
3005(e)(l)(A)(ii) of RCRA, as amended).
In order to operate pursuant to ir-.jRrim
status, such facilities m;is« submit a
Section 3010 notice pursuant to 40 CFR
270.70(a) within 90 day? of today's final
rule (i.e., by April 23,1990, * and must
submit a part A permit application
within six months of today's final rule
(i.e., by July 23,1990). Under section
3005(e)(3), land disposal facilities
qualifying for interim status under
section 3005(e)(lJ(A)(ii) must also
submit a part B application and certify
that the facility is in compliance with all
applicable ground-water monitoring and
financial responsibility requirements
within 18 months of todey's final rule
(I.e., by July 23,1991). If the facility fails
to do so; interim status will terminate on
that date.
Completion of final permit application
will require individual facilities to
develop and compile information on
their on-site waste management
operations including, but not limited to,
the following activities: Ground-water
monitoring (if waste management on
land is involved); manifest systems,
recordkeeping, and reporting; closure
and, if appropriate, post-closure
requirements; and financial
responsibility requirements. The permit
applications may also require
development of engineering plans to
upgrade existing facilities. In addition,.
many of these facilities will, in the
future, be subject to land disposal
restrictions (LDRj standards. As
explained in the September 1,1989 final
rule and in the proposed LDRs for third
scheduled wastes (54 FR 48372, 48192;
November 22,1989) EPA considers
wastes that are brought under Subtitle C
regulation by today's,final rule to be
"newly identified" wastes for purposes
of establishing LOR standards under
section 3004(g)(4) of RCRA. (54 FR
36624). Accordingly, EPA has proposed
that newly identified mineral processing
* Under Ihe Solid Waste Dispwal Amendments of
1980. (Pub. L. 89-482) EPA was given the option of
waiving the notification requirement under section
3010 of RCRA following revision of the wctlon 3001'
refiulntioni, at the dixcrotlon of the Administrator.
* Except persons who previotiiljr have notified
EPA or an authorized itate that they generate,
Iramport treat, fiord or dlspoia of hazardous wntle
and have received an Identification number.
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 2347
wastes not be subject to the BDAT
standards that the Agency proposed on
November 22,1909 for characteristic
hazardous wastes. As required by
RCRA section 3Q04(gH4){C), EPA plans
to study the mineral processing wastes
removed from the temporary exemption
to determine BDAT for ones that exhibit
one or more characteristic of a
hnzardous waste.
All existing hazardous waste
management facilities (as defined in 40
CFR 270.2) that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes covered by today's
final rule, and that are currently
operating pursuant to interim status
under Section 3005(e) of RCRA, must file
with EPA an amended Part A permit
application within six months of today's
publication (i.e., by July 23, 1990), in
accordance with § 270.72(a).
Under current regulations, a
hazardous waste management facility
that has received a" permit pursuant 1o
Section 3005 may not treat, store, or
dispose of the wastes removed from the
temporary exclusion by today's final
rule, if those wastes are
characteristically hazardous under Id
CFR Part 261, Subpart C. when the find
rule becomes effective {i.e., July 23.1990)
unless and until a permit modification
allowing such activity has occurred in
accordance with 8 270.42. Consequently,
owners and operators of such facilities
will want to file any necessary
modification applications with EPA
before the effective date of today's final
rule. EPA has recently amended its
permit modification procedures for
newly listed or identified wastes. (See
40 CFR 270.42(g),) For more details on
the permit modification procedures, see
53 FR 37912, September 28,19B8.
2. Interim Status and Permit
Modifications in Authorized States
Until the state is authorized to
regulate the wastes that are being
removed from temporary exclusion by
today's final rule mid that are hazardous
under 40 CFR part 281, subpart C, no
permit requirements apply. Facilities
lacking a permit, therefore, need not
seek interim status until state
authorization is granted. Any facility
treating, storing, or disposing of these
wastes on the effective date of state
authorization may qualify for interim
status under applicable state law. Note
that in order to be no less stringent than
the Federal program, the state "in
existence" date for determining interim
status eligibility may not be later than
the effective date of EPA'i authorization
of the state to regulate them wastes.
These facilities must provide the state's
equivalent of a part A permit
application as required by authorized
state law.
Finally, RCRA section 3005(e) (interim
status) or any authorized state analog
apply to waste management facilities
qualifying for state interim status. For
those facilities managing wastes under
an existing state RCRA permit, state
permit modification procedures apply.
VI. Eifect on State Authorizations
Because the requirements in today's
final rule are not being imposed
pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984, they will
not be effective in RCRA authorized
states until the siste program
amendments are efffective. Thus, the
removal of the temporary exclusion will
be applicable six months after today's
publication (i.e., on July 23,1890) only in
those few states that do not have final
authorization to operate their own
hazardous waste programs in lieu of the
Federal program. In authorized states,
the reinterpretation of the regulation of
non-excluded processing wastes will not
be applicable until the state revises Its
program to adopt equivalent
requirements under state law and
receives authorization for these new
requirements. (Of course, the
requirements will be applicable as state
law if the state law is effective prior to
authorization).
Based on the scope of today's final
rule, states that have final authorization
(40 CFR 271.21{eJ) must revise their
programs to adopt equivalent standards
regulating non-Bevill mineral processing
wastes that exhibit hazardous
characteristics as hazardous by July 1,
1901 if regulctory changes only are
necessary, or by July 1,1992 if statutory
changes are necessary. These deadlines
can be extended by up to six months
(i.e., until January 1,1992 and January 1,
1993, respectively) in exceptional cases
(40 CFR 271.21(e)(3)). Once EPA
approves the revision, the state
requirements become RCRA Subtitle C
requirements in that state. States are not
authorized to regulate any wastes
subject to today's final rule until EPA
approves their regulations. Of course,
states with existing standards that
address these wastes may continue to
administer and enforce their regulations '
as a matter of state law.
Currently unauthorized states that
submit an official application for final
authorization less than 12 months after
the effectiva date of today's final rule
{i.e., before January 23.1991) may be
approved without including an
equivalent provision {i.e., to addresi
non-Bevill mineral processing wastes) in
the application. However, once
authorized, a state must revise its
program to include an equivalent
provision according to the requirements
and deadlines provided at 40 CFR
271.21 (e).
VII. Economic Impact Screening
Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order
12291
Sections 2 and 3 of Executive Order
12291 (46 FR 13193) require that a
regulatory agency determine whether a
new regulation will be "major" and, if
so, that a Regulafory Impact Analysis
(RIA) be conducted. A major rule is
defined as a regulation that is likely to
result in one or more of the following
Impacts:
(1) An annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more;
(2) A major increase in costs or prices
for consumers, individuals, industries,
Federal, State, and local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
(3) Significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity. Innovation, or on tho
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
Today's final rule completes the
Agency's revised interpretation of the
Bevill Mining Waste Exclusion for
mineral processing wastes. The first part
of this reinterpretation, dealing wilh the
vast majority of individual mineral
processing waste streams, was made
final on September 1.1989, The
preamble to the September 1 rule
presented the results of the Agency's
economic impact screening analysis,
covering scores of small volume mineral
processing wastes, and examining cost
impacts associated with 39 potentially
hazardous low volume wastes in detail.
This analysis indicated a total annual
compliance cost for subtitle C waste
management of about $54 million. As
indicated in section III of this preamble.
today's final rule removes five
additional processing wastes from the
Bevill exclusion and subjects them to
regulation under subtitle C of RCRA if
they exhibit hazardous characteristics.
Consistent with Executive Order
12291, the Agency has completed a
revised economic impact screening
analysis for the five mineral processing
wastes removed from the Bevill
exclusion by today's rule. These
revisions account for changes in the
Bevill status of certain wastes since the
September 25,1989, NPRM and
comments received on the original
analysis. Results of this revised analysis
suggest that three of the five waste
streams are likely to exhibit hazardous
characteristics at some or ill of the
• I • ;•
'
-------
23-13 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23. tano /Rules and Regulations
facilities that generate them. One
additional waste stream (air pollution
control solids from lightweight aggregate
production) may be regulated at some
facilities under the subtitle C "derived-
from" rule. As a consequence, as tnony
as eleven mineral processing facilities in
four different commodity pectoi s may
incur compliance COR!S dre to this rnli.
The Agency estimates that lo'nl annual
compliance costs nre not likely to
exceed $15.5 million and (hnro'oro
concludes that today's final rule is nol a
"tnnjor rule" according lo the first
criterion of E.0.122!?l!7
With respect to the other E Q.12291
criteria, the Agency does not predict a
substantial increase in costs or prices
for consumers or a significant effect on
international trade or employment in
connection with today's final nile. Soma
individual mineral proueRsing facilities
in the lightweight aggregate and
titanium dioxide seclois may experience
significant compliance costs which
would affect their abilily to compete in
tl'eir respectix'e commodity seniors. On
balance, however, the Agency concludes
that today's rule does not constitute n
major rule ni defined by P.O. 122.11.
The following paragraphs of this
section briefly restate s!-e Agency's
economic impact sero'imna appnwrh
and assumptions, and f.fuvkJp revised
results,
'A. Approach
"I. Methodology and Asstimpfio«<5
The revised screonmq snaljsjs
prepared for today's firol rule used
essentially the same irethni4fili>ay
employed for and described fn She
September 25,1909, NPRM {54 F8 39.112-
10) snd accompanying l> -rlf.grwjnd
documents, to which the render is
referred for details.
Substantial differences behveim the
scope and results of the nnaljsis
described in the proposed rule and those
reported here primarily reflect a shift in
the Bevill status of several key waste
streams based on new information on
w.isle generation rates and chemical
characteristic/?, »?s described above in
section III. Specifically, the final rale
restores the Bovill status for two wastes
for which the Agency bus previously
estimated compliance coat impacts in
the September 25 NPRM (ro-ist leach ore
residue from chromitc processing and
process waslewater from hydrofluoric
7 Th«s Preamble lo the SfplmnVr ^j, !«<»,
proposed ntlo presented an sniiiinl rmmpl!ani» nwl.
natinwte of $5.2 million for 8 «!T*cl0d hcilitfci !n 5
commodity lector*. The net increase to $18,5 ml!!!or>
in attributable entirely to thr addition of !igli'we Uit of »fTi!nt,«»l
add production), thus obviating the
predicted Impacts for these two sectors.
On the other hand, APC d'jsi/s''jrfga
from lightweight aggregate production
(proposed for retention within t!»«
exclusion based upon preliminary
review of EPA survey datn) has now
be»»n removed from the Bevill ejHiiiion
following a closer examination of Ihr
d:t'\!>, which indicates that average
scrubber solid volumes nre well bnlow
the high volume criterion.
Because EPA waste samnling i'si;i
iind information subnn'tted both in
response to the Agsncy's RCRA section
3007 lotler and in public comment
indicate that APC solids from
lightweight aggregate are unlik"!;, ki
exhibit hazardous waste chcsr.'jctojiiilica,
the Agency believes that removing this
material from the Devill exclusion wMl
not impose any cost or economic
impacts on most of the 30 or so facilities
thiit generate it. Nonetheless, if is well
known that several lightweight
nwgregale production facilities ciirrf-ntly
burn listed hazardous wastes 09 a
primary fuel end would hence
«>.perionce subtitle C regulatory
compliance costs as a consequence ol
(he "d»:rived-from" rule {"?ee 40 CFR
20U-Hb)(2MiJ).
EPA has not substantially modified ils
i's'.imatns of the distribution ynd
of the costs or itnpncls fur- the
four affected waste strums
whose stntus remained unchanged from
the September 25 NPRM (elemental
phosphorus off-gas solids, primary lead
process waslewater, titanium dioxide
sulf.ite process waste acids, and
titanium dioxide sulfate process waste
solids).
Of the five waste streams reviewed
for potential hazard charactei istirs. the
proliminsiry screening assessment
svggesM that two—lightweight
og^re^nte APC scrubber solids and
sutfa'e process waste solids front
titanium dioxide production—are nol
likely to exhibit hazardous
characteristic* under current FCRA
hazardous waste test procedures.
Therefore, EPA has assumed in ils
economic impact screening analysis that
facilities generating these was'cs will
experience no compliance cost impacts
associated with potential subtitle C
regulation of these wastes. The piimwrji
exception relates to five (out of 30)
lightweight aggregate producers that
currently burn listed hazardous was'oa
an fuel. EPA's Information Indicates that
five facilities operated by the Solite
Corporation and one facility operated
by the Norlite Corporation bum
hoznrdous waste as fuel: one of the
Solite facilities apparently dons nol
generate any solid wastes. With fsnv
specific exceptions (based on waste
sampling data), the remaining throe
waste streams ware considered
hazardous at all facilities, for Lhe
characteristics specified, as follow t:
» Elemental phosphorus off-g.is s
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
2313
pollution control (APC) scrubber solids
will face economic impacts due to the
removal of this waste stream from the
Bevill exclusion by today's final rule.
because they burn listed hazardous
waste as fuel. Because this sector was
not e%'aluated in the original screening
analysis for the NPRM, the following
paragraphs present the Agency's costing
approach and engineering design
assumptions for evaluating compliance
options and estimating costs.
In general, there are a ir.ultitude of
possible compliance options available to
lightweight aggregate producers, varying
from conversion to fossil fuels to various
possible waste reduction methods io
possible delisting petition options.
Because of lack of data necessary to
perform quantitative cost estimates for
most of these alternatives (as well as
time constraints on this final court-
ordered rule), the Agency's screening
analysis has been forced to focus only
on the extremely high-cost option of
managing the APC scrubber solids
(generated as wet sludges) as Subtitle C
hazardous wastes. The Agency's cost
estimates are thus based on the
difference in disposal costs between
managing the reported sludge volumes
in unlined impoundments or waste piles
versus disposal in a permitted subtitle C
landfill. For these and other reasons
outlined below, the Agency's cost
estimates for this sector should be
regarded as upper-bound estimates.
The waste quantities potentially
subject to subtitle C landfill disposal
have been estimated using responses to
the industry survey and, in one case,
written public comments. Methods for
developing these estimates are
described in a supplemental technical
background document that may be
found in the docket for today's rule.*
The Agency has assumed that the waste
quantities reported by the facilities
represent relatively dry material and
that dewatering would not be feasible as
a volume reduction method prior to land
disposal. If dewatering would be
possible, then the quantity of waste for
subtitle C landfill disposal has been
overestimated and, to this extent. EPA
has, accordingly overestimated
compliance costs, which are directly
related to the mass of waste that must
be disposed.
The Agency has also conservatively
assumed that all lightweight aggregate
kilns at each affected facility (most
* Addendum to t/i« Technical Bat£ground
Doaaamt: Development aftha Co*! and Economic
impocw of tmpJfSMntias tfit S»vill Mineral
Processing WatUl Criteria. Economic Analyiii
Staff. Offka of Solid Wntt*. USKPA. January 12,
1WO.
facilities operate three to five kilns) do
and will continue to burn listed
hazardous wastes as fuel Consequently,
in this analysis the entire scrubber
solids stream for all facilities is assumed
to be affected by the derived-from rule
and therefore subject to subtitle C. To -
the extent chat some or all facilities do
not burn listed hazardous wastes in all
of their kilns and/or do (or could)
segregate listed and non-listed
(characteristic) hazardous wastes prior
to their use aa fuel, EPA has further
overestimated costs and impacts,
In addition, the Agency has some
concsras about the waste volume data
reported by one of the two affected
firms, the Solite Corporation, Soiite's
facilities report waste generation rates
that are substantially higher than any
other lightweight aggregate producer,
even when corrected for differences in
plant size and production rate. The
waste-to-product ratio calculated by
EPA for Soiite's facilities ranges from 13
percent to more than 25 percent. This is
from two and one half to 230 times the
ratio calculated for the other reporting
facilities generating the same waste.
Nonetheless, the data reported in the
National Survey and used in this
analysis are consistent with information
previously submitted to EPA by the
company. This may or may not be
related to the issue of moisture content
discussed above. It should be noted.
however, that these very high reported
waste generation rates lead directly to
significant compliance cost estimates. If
actual waste generation rates are lower,
actual compliance costs and associated
impacts will be less than those predicted
here.
Another conservative assumption that
the Agency has made in conducting this
analysis is that affected firms would
continue using current air pollution
control methods and. therefore, continue
to generate wet APC scrubber solids.
Nearly one half of the lightweight
aggregate industry currenty uses dry
collection methods, including one of the
facilities operated by Solite that bums
hazardous waste fuel Waste generation
rates using dry collection methods are
generally significantly lower than those
using wet collection methods. In
addition, information submitted to EPA
indicates that at some facilities, the APC
dust is recycled into the lightweight
aggregate kilos from which it is
generated, such that the process docs
not generate any substantial quantity of
solid wastes. To the extent that the
facilities examined in this analysis could
install dry dust collection systems and
recycle the solids rather than continue
to use wet collection systems, costi and
related impacts could be reduced even If
the facilities continued to utilize listed
hazardous wastes as fuel supplements.
Finally, the affected firms. Solite acd
Norlite. could potentially avoid subtitle
C regulation altogether by either (1)
converting entirely to other fuels and
discontinuing use of listed hazardous
wastes as fuel, or (2) having their wiste
streams de-iisted on a site-specific
basis, EPA notes here that Solite has
indicated in its public comments oil the
September 25,1989, and previous
proposed rules that it would not
continue to accept and burn hazardous
waste fuels if the Beviil exemption were
to be removed froTi its wastas. While
the Agency recognizes that this course
of action is a distinct possibility and
perhaps the least cost compliance
alternative, the Agency was not able In
the present screening analysis to
evaluate the available fuel conversion
option due to a lack of factual
information about such factors as
retrofitting costs, thermal value of
currently used hazardous waste fuels,
and the revenues accruing to the two
firms for accepting the hazardous
wastes from individual generators. For
the same reasons, i.e., insufficient data,
it has also not been possible to predict
the outcome of any attempt by the firms
to have the APC scrubber wastes in
question officially delisted (withdrawn
from subtitle C regulation) by the
Agency.
Similarly, while EPA acknowledges
that intermediate alternatives may be
available, such as burning only
characteristic rather than listed
hazardous wastes in at least seme kilns,
currently available information is
insufficient to assess the feasibility or
cost implications of this type of
operational change.
Consequently, EPA's compliance cost
analysis has been conducted using the
best currently available information to
develop what are essentially worst-case
compliance cost estimates for the
lightweight aggregate commodity sector.
To the extent that the affected facilities
can (1) avoid subtitle C regulation by
fuel changes and/or equipment
modifications or successful deiisting
petition!, or (2) employ waste-reduction
technique! to generate lesser quantities
of APC scrubber solids subject to th«
derived-from rule, the costs and impacts
reported here may represent a
substantial overestimate.
B. Aggregate and Sector Compliance
Costa
. The impact screening analysis
projects that eleven facilities in four
different mineral processing commodity
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
23SO Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 19W / Rules and Regulations
sectors will be affected directly by
today's final rule. Thirty-Five facilities in
these four sectors are expected to be
unaffected by today's role because they
either (1) do not generate the processing
waste in question, (2) routinely recycle
the material as a proces« input, or (3)
produce a woste thai apparently do««s
not fail standard EPA hazardous waste
test criteria. Another 3LE 4.—SUMMARY OF PRODUCTION, VALUE OF SHIPMENTS, AND COMPUAMCE COSTS
Commodity s«clor '
E,°m*ntil Phosphonw
Fntfro Sector .. ... .. ~... . .
Facilities Evaluated .......~.~ -. „„
FMC— PoceteHo ID
Occidental — ColwnWa TN .
Le»d
Efitfra Sector ............ . ... . ..„.
Facilities Evaluated . . „.
Asarco— East Hotena WT •-
ASMCO— Glovef MO "... „„_ _.,. .
Asgrco—"Orneh« NE * . ..._._.„ ....
Do« Run— Bufck MO .........
Do« Run — Mefcylaneufs MO ««.«.
lightweight Aggregate
Entire Sector • „..
Facilities Evaluated.
Carotin* SolBa— Norwood MC * _
Fitxida Softs — Green Cov« Fi. •
Kantucky Soiite — Brooki KV *
VIrgWa Sofitt— Arvonta VA * _..,....
NortHs— Cohoes NY •
Titanium Dioxide
En8r« Sector.,.,, „.„
Facilitiss Evaluated
Ken*a Oy— Sava^reh G', '
SCM— Sultimoro MO '
Nurolwr o*
pto'tti
producing
commodity
5
2
5
5
30
Q
9
2
Prtttettm * CMT/
YR)
341 950
174 150
122 449
51,701
374 833
374 633
52,169
52,189
52 189
82762
125304
4 140612
911 458
220454
112491
175083
221 S89
181,437
893 878
114286
64422
68.864
Unit vfllus •
(S/MT)
16°8
1688
1C9S
1688
724
72*
72 1
72-1
734
724
724
275
275
2? 5
275
275
275
275
169t
1691
1891
1891
Value of
•hipwnts ($/YR)
5772S6155
293592312
200,713,345
87,278 S68
271 1S2781
271,132781
37.775 038
37,775.038
37 775 038
67141 706
90 695 963
11:1973910
25 QBS 493
6,068,143
3098390
4819,414
6 1 to 373
4,934,174
1 890X82 634
216,134,768
1C2921 317
113.213.4*9
Cofflpllanca costs
<$/YR>
179 OCO
179,000
8,003
173,000
276000
278,000
41,000
0
0
34.WO
201,000
16,206.000
18206000
3,810.000
2518000
2,907,000
4553,000
2,528,000
1 817,0"0
1.817,000
0
1.8»7,000
Costs per
mefo ton
ol proJuct *
($/MT)
0.5
1.0
<0.1
3.3
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.4
1,8
39
17.B
18.4
22.4
17.1
20.1
13.8
2.0
15.9
00
30.4
Costd/val'.,*
of
shipments *
(pafcent)
«rO,1
0.1
<0.1
0.2
01
01
0.1
00
0.0
0.1
02
142
64.6
59.5
81 3
K>2
745
50.8
0 1
0.8
00
10
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
2351
TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF PRODUCTION, VALUE OF SHIPMENTS, AND COMPLIANCE COSTS—Continued
Commodity sector '
Combined total — all four sectors
All Facilities , _ .... .
Affected Facilities Only * _....„...._.
Number of
plants
producing
commodity
49
11
.— — . — ~-
Production « (MTV
YR|
5.751.103
1,415,728
Unit value >
(S/MT)
481
444
Value o(
shipments (S/Yfi)
2,652 885 481
627306964
Compliance ccsts
(S/YH)
1 8 478 000
1 8 478 000
—
Costs par
mewc ton
of product '
-------
yS2 Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 15 /Tuesday. January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Energy costs are an important
component of production costs for the
lightweight aggregate industry. Kilns are
reported to requke 2.0 to 8,1 million
BTUs of fuel per MT of lightweight
aggregate produced.17 Residual oil (the
fuel used in most kilns) costs
approximately S2.39 per million BTUs in
1988.l* Assuming this fsel cost, the cost
of fuel per MT lightweight aggregate is
at least S4.SQ, and could possibly be as
high as S14.60 (though the higher fuel
consumption rate might apply at plants
cor.figursd to use less expensive fuels).
- It is therefore apparent that energy
costs account for a substantial portion
of the margin between the raw material
cost of clay ($10 per MT) and the price
of finished lightweight aggregate (as low
as S24 per MT). Consequently, facilities
that can, achieve fuel cost savings by
using hazardous wastes as fuel
supplements are lilcely to have a
substantial current cost advantage over
facilities relying solely upon other fuels,
such as oil or coal, especially since they
can generally charge a disposal fee to
waste generators. Compliance costs
associated with today's rule would
reduce this cost advantage, though if a
facility elected to continue using listed
hazardous wastes its total production
costs would rise above industry norms
only to the extent that the incremental
compliance costs exceeded the fuel cost
savings that it currently enjoys.
Alternatively, if the facility elected to
stop using the listed hazardous wastes,
it would (after any necessary
retrofitting} have fuel costa comparable
to the majority of other facilities in the
industry.
In summary and for several reasons.
EPA believes that the lightweight
aggregate producers affected by today's
rule will not suffer the calamitous
economic impacts that might be
" Cohen. S.M. uid T.S. Uwall "Fluid Bed Makes
Lighter Product" Rock Products, July 1968, page 44.
" VS. Department of Energy. Energy Information
Administration. Monthly Energy Hr»itw. Drc«&b*r
1308. Tabl* 9-10.
suggested by the Agency's incremental
cost estimates, even if one assumes that
these upper limit cost impacts will
actually be incurred. First, facilities that
currently bum hazardous waste as fuel
enjoy a potentially significant cost
advantage with respect to their
competitors. This advantage may
mitigate, perhaps to a considerable
extent, the cost impacts of today's rule.
In addition, because of the special
physical characterictics offered by
lightweight aggregate in comparison
with conventional aggregates, affected
producers may have some ability to
pass through compliance costs to local
industrial and public sector markets in
the form of higher prices, though to an
uncertain extent. Finally, high
transportation costs and a widely
dispersed domestic industry suggest that
moderate price increases could be
sustained, at least for lightweight
aggregate applications that require the
low density and high strength offered by
this material.
b. Titanium Dioxldn. Titanium dioxide
is used in pigments for patats and
surface coatings, paper manufachuing,
and plastics. Half of titanium dioxide
production is consumed in pigments,
where its competitive position is strong.
Demand for high-quality paper also
favors titanium dioxide.
The domestic industry supplies most
of the titanium dioxide used in tha U.S.,
with imports exceeding exports by only
a moderate degree. As a result, ti:anium
dioxide is in a relatively strong domestic
market position. Producers using the
sulfate process, however, are in a
minority and account for only one eighth
of domestic production. It is not likely
that the one affected producer could
establish a premium for its product and
would therefore be limited in the extent
to which it could recover cost increases.
2. Effects on Consumer Prices
For several reasons, EPA believes that
this rale will not create any appreciable
changes in consumer prices. The first
and principal reason is the generally low
overall percentage of compliance costs
to product value, which does not exceed
one percent for any affected commodity
except lightweight aggregate. Combined
with this is the fact that not all
producers in these sectors are affected
equally (many domestic competitors are
not affected at all) and that other
domestic or foreign ftompetitors could
fill production shortfalls, either with
identical or substitutable products.
Finally, since all the affected
commodities are primary intermediate
raw material inputs to the production of
other finished products, their relative
contribution to final consumer goods
prices is, in any case, typically quite
small.
3. Foreign Trade Impacts
Trade is substantial in many of the
mineral commodities covered by today's
rule, but is probably only likely to be a
factor with respect to titanium dioxide.
Basic import and export data for the
sectors that generate potentially
hazardous wastes are presented in
Table 5. Import and export figures for
lightweight aggregate (expanded shale)
ate not available, although international
trade is not thought to be a significant
factor for this sector. Because imports of
titanium dioxide are significant, the
ability of the affected domestic producer
to raise prices to recover compliance
costs, is, as discussed above, runner
limited, and there may be a modest
stimulus towards import expansion.
In view of the above, it is unlikely that
the overall trade balance in the
domestic minerals industry will be
significantly affected by today's rule,
though in one sector regulatory cost
impacts may increase already positive
net imports to a small degree.
T*Hte 5.—IMPORTS AND E*PCSTS OP MINERALS, 1987
Commodity
MOOT
Elemental
PflOSpriOruS*
1 mm*) t _ ^
Ugfttwejgm
Aggregate.
Titanium Dioxide.
Commocirty formes)
Pigs and &WB (COPteiTtJ * «_..,_
Qays (an types) • ...
THaniur* OtowJe PigmeiiHi (con-'
MM).
Domestic production
Quantity (MT)
341,950
374,633
> 4,140,642
833,878
VaJm (SOOO)
577 .238
271.153
"113.374
1,890,433
imports
Quantity (MT)
4,483
185,873
34,191
162.739
ViruelSXXJI
8,609
123, 1ST
9.392
236.945
Exports
Quantity (MT)
20.302
10.118
3,023,593
99,731
value (SOOQ)
30,798
11.945
512,964
181.707
Sourc*: Bureau of Mine*. Minerals Yearbook 1987. pp. 61. 94, 221, 223, 25*. 260. 262. 377, 664, 889, 803, and 894.
> Exports include cathode* and sheets.
< Import/export data lor HgMweigM aggregate an unavailatile.
* data reflect figfnweignt aggregate production only.
rt<
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
2353
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
of 1980 (Pub. L 98-354), which amends
the Administrative Procedures Act
requires Federal regulatory agencies to
consider "small entitles" throughout the
regulatory process. The RFA requires, in
section 603, an initial screening analysis
to be performed to determine whether a
substantial number of small entities will
be significantly affected by a regulation.
If so, regulatory alternatives that
eliminate or mitigate the impacts must
be considered.
In the preamble to the September 25
proposed rule, the Agency presented
documentation of and the rules from a
screening analysis to determine the
potential for significant small business
impacts imposed by the proposed
reinterpretation of the Mining Waste
Exclusion (see 54 FR 39316-7). At that
time it was determined that no small
business enterprises would be adversely
affected by the rule, as proposed.
The changes that have occurred in
today's final rule, as distinct from the
September 25,1989, proposal, have
served to reduce the number of
potentially affected sectors while
increasing slightly the number of
potentially affected facilities. Based
upon the revised cost and economic
impact analysis presented above, and
further data collection and analysis by
the Agency, EPA has concluded that
only one small business enterprise,
Norlite Corporation, with approximately
75 employees,1* might be adversely
affected by today's final rule. Therefore,
EPA concludes that just as in the
September 25 proposal, there will not be
a significant adverse impact on a
substantial number of small mineral
processing companies, because among
the affected sectors there is only one
small business that is expected to
experience impacts from today's final
rule.
IX. List of Subjects in 40 CFR 260, 211
and 262
Designated facility, Hazardous waste.
Waste treatment and disposal.
Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Manifests.
Dated: January 12.1990.
William K. ReUJy.
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, parts 260, 281 and 282 of title
" Sourc*: Dura Miriml Identifier*, Dialog
Information Servian. Inc. 1968.
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 260— HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL.
1. The authority citation for Part 260
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 8912(a). 6921.
6927, 6930, 3934. 693S, 6937. 6938, 8939, and
6974.
2. Section 260.10 is amended by
revising the definition "designated
facility" to read as follows:
§ 260.10 Definitions.
*****
"Designated facility" means a
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or
disposal facility which (1) has received
a permit (or interim status) in
accordance with the requirements of
parts 270 and 124 of this chapter, (2) has
received a permit (or interim status)
from a State authorized in accordance
with part 271 of this chapter, or (3) is
regulated under § 281.6(c)(2) or subpart
F of part 268 of this chapter, and (4) that
has been designated on the manifest by
the generator pursuant to § 260,20, If a
waste is destined to a facility in an
authorized State which has not yet
obtained authorization to regulate that
particular waste as hazardous, then the
designated facility must be a facility
allowed by the receiving State to accept
such waste.
PART 2S1—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
3. The authority citation for Part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 6095, S912(a), 6921, and
6922.
4. Section 261.4 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(7), to read as
follows:
§ 261.4 Exclusion*.
* * * * »
(b) • • •
(7) Solid waste from the extraction,
beneficiation, and processing of ores
and minerals (including coal), including
phosphate rock and overburden from the
mining of uranium on. For purposes of
i 2B1.4(b)(7), beneficiation of ores and
minerals is restricted to the following
activities: Crushing; grinding: washing;
dissolution; crystallization: filtration;
sorting; sizing; drying: sintering;
palletizing; briquetting; calcining to
remove water and/or carbon dioxide;
roasting, autoclaving, and/or
chloririation in preparation for leaching
(except where the roasting (end/cr
autoclaving and/or chlorination)/
leaching sequence produces a final or
intermediate product that does not
undergo further beneficiation or
processing); gravity concentration;
magnetic separation; electrostatic
separation; flotation; ion exchange;
solvent extraction: electrowinning;
precipitation: amalgamation: and heap,
dump, vat tank, and in situ leaching. For
-the purposes of $ 261,4(b)(7], solid waste
from the processing of ores and minerals
will include only the following wastes,
until EPA completes a report to
Congress and a regulatory
determination on their ultimata
regulatory status:
(i) Slag from primary copper
processing;
(ii) Slag from primary lead processing;
(iii) Red and brown muds from
bauxite refining;
(iv) Phosphogypsum from phosphoric
acid production;
(v) Slag from elemental phosphorus
production;
(vi) Gasifier ash from coal
gasification;
(vii) Process wastewater from coal
gasification;
(viii) Calcium sulfate wastewater
treatment plant sludge from primary
copper processing;
(ix) Slag tailings from primary copper
processing;
(x) Fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric
acid production;
(xi) Process wastewater from
hydrofluoric acid production;
(xii) Air pollution control dust/sludge
from iron blast furnaces;
(xiii) Iron blast furnace slag;
(xiv) Treated residue from roasting/
leaching of chrome ore;
(xv) Process wastewatar from primary
magnesium processing by the anhydrous
process;
(xvi) Process wastewater from
phosphoric acid production;
(xvii) Basic oxygen furnace and open
hearth furnace air pollution control
dust/sludge from carbon steel
production;
(xviii) Basic oxygen furnace and open
hearth furnace slag from carbon steel
production;
(xix) Chloride process waste solids
from titanium tetrachloride production;
(xx) Slag from primary zinc
processing.
-------
2354 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 15 / Tuesday. January 23. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
PART 262—STANDARDS APPLICABLE 8. Section 262,23 is amended by waste as hazardous, the generator must
TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: assure that the designated facility
WASTE agrees to sign and return the manifest to
§ 262.23 U«* of «h« martfwt. the generator, and that any out-of-stata
5. The authority citation for Part 262 ..... transporter signs and forwards the
continues to read as follows: (e) For shipments of hazardous waste manifest to the designated facility,
to a designated facility in an authorized
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6908, 6912. 6922.6923. State which has not yet obtained [FR Doc. 90-1102 Filed 1-22-90: 8:45 am]
6S24.8825, and 8937. authorization to regulate that particular WUJNG coos «$«O-M
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 72
Modification of F019 Usting
55 FR 5340-5342
February 14, 1990
(Non-HSWA Cluster Vt)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
TSSulv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
t HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
revise entry
"F019"
261.31
Industry and EPA hazardous
waste No. Hazardous waste
Hazard
code
F019...
Wastewater treatment sludges from the
chemical conversion coating of aluminum
except from zirconium phosphating in
aluminum can washing when such phosphating
is an exclusive conversion coating process.
(T)
February 14, 1990 - Page 1 of 1
DCL72.9 - 12W91
-------
-------
e
3340
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 1§90 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261 and 302
IFBL-3S80-8I
RIN 20SO-AC78
Hazardous Waste Management
Systems; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Reportable Quantity
Adjustment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today amending the list
of hazardous wastes from non-specific
sources under 40 CFR 261.31 by
modifying the scope of the EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F019. The Agency
is amending the F019 listing to exclude
wastewater treatment sludges from the
zirconium phosphating step, when such
phosphating is an exclusive process in
the aluminum can washing process,
because the Agency believes that such
sludges do not pose a substantial hazard
to human health or ihe environment and
should not be regulated as a listed
hazardous waste. The Agency also is
removing these zirconium phosphating
sludges from the list of hazardous
substances under Pnrt 302.4, This
modification to the F019 listing does not
affect any other wastcwater treatment
sludges from the chemical conversion
coating of aluminum.
DATS: This regulation becomes effective
on February 14,1990.
ADDRESSES: Copies of materials
relevant to this final rulemaking are
located at the RCRA docket at the U.S.
EPA, 401 M Street, SW,, Washington,
DC 20460. The RCRA docket is located
in Room SE 2427 and is open from 9 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays; the public must
make an appointment in order to review
materials by calling (202) 475-9327.
Refer to "Docket number F-69-F19P-
FFFFF" when making appointments to
review materials relevant to this
rulemakirig. The public may copy 100
pages from the docket at no charge;
additional copies are $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA/CERCLA Hotline at (000}
424-9340 or, in the Washington, DC
area, (202) 382-3000. For technical
information on the RCRA portion of the
rule, contact Ms. Denise A, Wright,
Listing Section, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-333J at (202) 245-3819. For technical
information on the CERCLA portion of
the rule, contact Ms. Ivette Vega,
Response Standards and Criteria
Branch. Emergency Response Division
(OS-210) at (202) 475-7369. Both are
available at U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,,
Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline:
1. Background
II. Response to Comments
I!!. Relationship (o Other Regulatory
Authorities
IV. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
B. Effect on State Authorizations
V. Effective Date
VI. Regulatory Impact
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Background
On August 4,1909, EPA proposed to
amend its regulations under RCRA to
modify the scope of the F019 hazardous
waste listing to exclude wastewater
treatment sludges from zirconium
phosphating in aluminum cnn washing
when such phosphating is an exclusive
conversion coating process (54 FR
32320). The Agency proposed to exclude
these wastes because they do not pose a
substantial hazard to human health and
the environment and should not be
regulated.
EPA originally listed wastewater
treatment sludges from the chemical
conversion coating of aluminum as F019
due to its belief that these processes
used complexed cyanides and chromium
and typically resulted in hazardous
sludges. The Agency later learned,
however, that one of the chemical
conversion coating processes—-
zirconium phosphating performed during
the washing of aluminum cans—is not
expected to result in hazardous
wastewater treatment sludges.
After reviewing the process chemistry,
typical conversion coating solutions
used, and analytical data, the Agency
concluded that, although the sludge
currently meets the F019 listing
description, this sludge should not have
been included in the F019 listing
because it is not hazardous. No
hazardous constituents (listed in
appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 281) are
. contained or used in this conversion
coating step, except for hydrofluoric
acid. The zirconium phosphate solution
typically used includes flt'orozirconie
acid (as a source of zirconium), nitric
and hydrofluoric acids, and phosphoric
acid. The hydrofluoric acid, which is
present in the can washing wastewater
in low concentrations that are readily
treated, is chemically converted in the
wastewater treatment process into
calcium fluoride or calcium aluminum
fluoride, which is non-hazardous. Thus,
the slightly alkaline sludge would not be
expected to contain any hazardous
constituents, nor exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste. The
Agency's review of analytical data on
these wastewater treatment sludges did
not indicate the presence of significant
concentrations of Appendix VIII
constituents. Additionally, the data
showed that these sludges do not exhibit
any hazardous waste characteristics.
The Agency is, therefore, amending the
F019 listing to exclude the wastewater
treatment sludges from the zirconium
phosphating step of the aluminum can
washing process.
This final exclusion applies only to
sludges from processes that exclusively
Use zirconium phosphating solutions
that do not contain chromium or
cyanides. Further, these processes are
not associated with electroplating or
conversion coating steps whore
hazardous constituents are used. For
example, if a can maker employs a
chromating step, separately or in
conjunction with auch zirconium
phosphating, the wastewater treatment
sludges would meet the F019 listing and
would not be excluded under this
rulemaking.
As a result of this final exclusion, two
delisting petitions that have been filed
under 40 CFR 260.20 and 200.22 are
unnecessary, since the wastes described
in the petitions are not the F019 wastes.
The two petition? are #0742 and *0743,
which were filed by Continental Can
Company for their Glendale, Wisconsin
and LaCresse, Wisconsin facilities,
respectively. The Agency intends,
therefore, to take no further action on
these petitions.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received eight comments on the
Agency's proposal to exclude
wastewater treatment sludges from
zirconium phosphating in aluminum rain
washing when suuh phosphating is an
exclusive conversion coating process.
All commenters supported the Agency's
proposal. Two commenters, however,
requested that EPA modify the proposed
wording to exclude other zirconium-
based conversion conting processes. The
commenters claimed that these other
zirconium processes do not contain
hazardous constituents but did not
provide any data to support their
contention that the sludges from these
processes are substantially equivalent
to those covered by today's rule.
As stated in our proposal, the Agency
recognizes lhat there may be other
a-1
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
Federal Register / Vol 55, No, 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 5341
wastewater treatment sludges from
conversion coating processes falling
within the scope of FOli which may not,
in fact, contain or produce hazardous
constituents. Because EPA does not
have data on such wastes, the Agency
did not propose to exclude them from
the F019 listing. Thus, today's final rula
does not address such wastes.
III. Relationship to Other Regulatory
Authorities
All hazardous wastes listed pursuant
to 40 CFR 261.31 through 261.33, as well
as any solid waste that meets one or
more of the characteristics of a RCRA
hazardous waste (as defined in 40 CFR
261.21 through 261.24), are hazardous
substances as defined at section 101(14)
of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980. The CERCLA
hazardous substances are listed at 40
CFR 302.4 along with their reportable
quantities (RQs). CERCLA section I03(a)
requires that persons in charge of
vessels or facilities from which a
hazardous substance has been released
in a quantity that is equal to or greater
than its RQ shall immediately notify the
National Response Center of the release.
In addition, section 304 of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1988 (SARA) requires the owner or
operator of a facility to report the
release of a hazardous substance or an
extremely hazardous substance to the
appropriate state emergency response
commission (SERC) and to the local
emergency planning committee (LEPC)
when the amount released equals or
exceeds the RQ for the substance, or
one pound when no RQ has been set.
Effective today, the description of
hazardous waste stream F019 in Table
302.4 is amended to exclude wastewater
treatment sludges from zirconium
phosphating in aluminum can washing
when such phosphating is an exclusive
conversion coating process. These
zirconium phosphating sludges are no
longer listed hazardous substances
under CERCLA sections 101(14) and
102(a). Reporting of releases of sludge
from the zirconium phosphating of
aluminum cans process is no longer
required, except as indicated below,
under either section 103 of CERCLA or
section 304 of SARA. Although the
Agency has no reason to believe that
releases of zirconium phosphating
sludges will contain hazardous
constituents subject to reporting under
section 103 of CERCLA or section 304 of
SARA, the Agency reminds the
regulated community that reporting of
releases of such sludges is required if a
hazardous substance (which is
contained as a constituent of the sludge)
is released to the environment above its
RQ. Reporting also is required when the
wastewater treatment sludge meets one
or more of the characteristics of unlisted
hazardous waste for ignitabilily,
corrosivity, reactivity, or EP Toxicity
and 100 pounds or more is released to
the environment (50 FR 13456, April 4,
1985).
The existing 10-pound RQ of waste
stream F019 is not affected by this rule,
except for the exclusion of sludges from
processes that use only zirconium
phosphating. Releases of wastewater
treatment sludges from the chemical
conversion coating of aluminum (other
than from exclusive zirconium
phosphating) remain subject to the
reporting requirements of section 103 of
CERCLA and section 304 of SARA when
a RQ or more is released to the
environment
IV. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3008 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. (See 40 CFR
part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization, EPA retains
inspection authority under section 3007
and enforcement authority under
sections 3008, 7003, and 3013 of RCRA,
although authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility,
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (IISWA), a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program entirely in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State, The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State,
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities in the State which the State
was authorized to permit. When new,
more stringent Federal requirements
were promulgated or enacted, the State
was obliged to enact equivalent
authority within specified time frames.
New Federal requirements did not take
effect in an authorized State until the
State adopted the requirements as State
law.
In contrast, under section 3008(g) of
RCRA. 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1084 (HSWA) take
effect in authorized States at the same
time that they take effect in non-
authorized States. The rulemaking
promulgated today is not imposed
pursuant to HSWA.
D. Effect on State Authorizations
Today's final rule is not effective in
authorized States since the regulations
are not being imposed pursuant to
HSWA. Thus, the regulation is
applicable only in those States thai do
not have interim or final authorization.
In authorized States, the regulations will
not be applicable until the Stale revises
its program to adopt equivalent
regulations under State law.
40 CFR 271.21(e)(2) requires that
States that have final authorization must
modify their programs to include
equivalent regulations within a year of
promulgation of these regulations if only
regulatory changes are necessary, or
within two years of promulgation if
statutory changes are necessary. These
deadlines can be extended in
exceptional cases (40 CFR 27l.21(e)(3)J.
Once EPA approves the modification,
the State requirements become Subtitle
C RCRA requirements.
It should be noted that authorized
States are only required to modify their
programs when EPA promulgates
Federal regulations that are more
stringent or broader in scope than the
existing Federal regulations. For those
Federal program changes that are less
stringent or reduce the scope of the
Federal program, States are not required
to modify their programs. This is a result
of section 3009 or RCRA, which allows
States to impose regulations in addition
to those in the Federal program. The
regulations promulgated today at 40 CFR
261.31 are considered to be less
stringent or to reduce the scope of the
existing Federal regulations. Therefore,
authorized Stales are not required to
modify their programs to adopt
regulations equivalent or substantially
equivalent to the provisions listed
above.
V. Effective Dale
This rule is effective February 14,
1990. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 amended section
3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become
effective in less than six months when
the regulated community does not need
the six month period to come into
compliance. This is the case here since
this rule reduces, rather than increases,
the existing requirements for persons
generating hazardous wastes. In light of
the unnecessary hardship and expense
which would be imposed on the
regulated community by an effective
dale six months after promulgation and
the fact that such a deadline is not
necessary to uchieve the purpose of
section 3010, this rule is effective
Ftibruary 14.1900, This modification lo
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 1990 / Kales ana
the listing is retroactive with regard to
the above described previously
generated zirconium wastes, because
these particular wastes should not have
been included within the scope of the
1980 listing Thus, where this rule
tipplies, EPA does not consider such
wastes, whenever they were generated,
to be F019. EPA's decision, however,
does not affect authorized State
regulation of such waste if a State's
regulation is more stringent or broader
in scope.
VI. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This final rule reduces the
regulatory requirements applicable to
the regulated community. It is not major
because it will not result in an effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, nor
will it result in a major increase in costs
or prices to individual industries,
consumers. Federal, State or local
government agencies, or geographic
regions. Finally, there will be no adverse
impact on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
in domestic or export markets.
Accordingly, this final amendment is not
a major regulation, and no Regulatory
Impact Analysis has been conducted.
This final amendment was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by
Executive Order 12291.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, S U.S.C. 601-612, whenever an
agency is required to publish a general
notice of rulemaking, for any proposed
or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis which
describes the impact of the rule on small
entities (i.e.. small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). The Administrator may
certify, however, that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This final amendment will not have a
significant economic impact on small
entities since it reduces regulatory
requirements. Accordingly, I certify that
this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This
regulation, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule does not contain any
information collection requirements
subject to OMB review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous wastes. Recycling.
40 CFR Part 302
Air pollution control. Chemicals,
Hazardous materials, Hazardous
substances, Hazardous wastes.
Intergovernmental relations, Natural
resources, Nuclear materials, Pesticides
and pests, Radioactive materials, and
Recycling.
Dated: February 1.1900.
William K. Reilly,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal
regulations is amended as follows:
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
3002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C 6no5.8912(n).
6921 and 6922).
2. Section 261.31 is amended by
revising entry "F019" to read as follows:
f 261.31 Hazardous waste from non-
specific sources.
Industry and EPA
Hazardous Waste
No.
Hazardous Waste
F019 Wastewater treatment (T)
sludges from the
chemical conversion
coating ol aluminum
except trom
zirconium
phoophating in
aluminum can
washing wfien such
phosprattng le an
exclusive conversion
coating process.
PART 302—DESIGNATION,
REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND
NOTIFICATION
3. The authority citation for part 302
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 102 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42
U.S.C. 9602; sections 311 and 501(a) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 33
U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.
4. Table 302.4 of \ 302.4 is amended by
revising the description of Hazardous
waste stream F019 under the heading
"Hazardous Substance" to read as
follows:
TABLE 302.4—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES
tS-s* footnotes at orwj of Table 302.4]
Statutory
Final RQ
Hazardous Substance
CASRN
Roiiiilatory
Synonyms
RO
Code
RCRA
Waste
Number
Category Pounds (kg)
roi9: Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conver-
sion coating of afcjrninurri except from zfrconiurn pnosphating
in aluminum car) washing when such phospnatlnQ ie an exdu*
sive conversion coating proc**r «
[PR Doc. 90-3253 Filed 2-13-90; 8:45 am)
BtLUNQ COM (MO-M-M
U'.V
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 73
Testing and Monitoring Activities; Technical Corrections
55 FR 8948-8950
March 9, 1990
(Non-HSWA Cluster VI)
Note: This checklist contains technical corrections to the final rule addressed by Revision
Checklist 67 (54 FR 40260; September 29, 1989). States are encouraged to adopt the corrections
addressed by this present checklist at the same time that the Revision Checklist 67 provisions are
adopted.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STAT1 ANALOG" IS:"
EQUK^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 260 - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
SUBPART B - DEFINITIONS
REFERENCES
add a list of the
47 analytical testing
methods incorporated
by reference
260.11 (a)
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
APPENDIX III TO PART 261
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS TEST METHODS
revise Footnote "a"
of Table 2
revise Methods 7081
and 7420 in Table 3
revise Footnote "a"
of Table 3
Appendix Ill/Table 2
Appendix Ill/Table 3
Appendix Ill/Table 3
March 9, 1990 - Page 1 of 1
DCL73.9 - 129/91
-------
-------
8948
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 47 / Friday, March 9, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Special Analyses
As noted in the preceding paragraph,
it hen been determined that these
regulations are not major regulations as
defined in Executive Order 12291.
Therefore, a Regulatory Impact Analysis
is not required. It has also been
determined that section 553(b) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
chapter 5) and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C, chapter 8) do not apply to
these regulations and. therefore, a final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
required. Pursuant to section 780S(f) of
the Internal Revenue Code, a copy of
these regulations have been submitted
to the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration for comment on
their impact on small business.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these final
regulations is Prank Boland, Office of
Assistant Chief Counsel (Passthroughs
and Special Industries), Internal
Revenue Service, However, personnel
from other offices of the Internal
Revenue Service and the Treasury
Department participated in developing
the regulations, both on matters of
substance and style.
List of Subjects
28 CFR 1.0-1 through 1.58-8
Income taxes, Tax liability, Tax rates,
Credits.
Adoption of Amendments to the
Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is
amended as follows:
PART 1—INCOME TAX
Paragraph 1. The authority for part 1
continues to read in part:
Authority: 28 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 2, Section 1.40-1 is revised to
read as follows:
§ 1.40-1 Question* ami answers retatfng.
to th* meaning of the term "qualified
mixture" In section «0(bXl).
CM. What is a "qualified mixture"
within the meaning of section 40(b)(l)?
A-l. A "qualified mixture" Is a
mixture of alcohol and gasoline or of
alcohol and special fuel which (1) is sold
by the taxpayer producing such mixture
to any person for use as a fuel, or (2) is
used as a fuel by the taxpayer producing
such mixture.
Q-Z. Must alcohol be present in a
product in order for that product to be
considered a mixture of alcohol and
either gasoline or a special fuel?
A-2, No. A product is considered to be-
a mixture of alcohol and gasoline or of
alcohol and a special fuel if the product
is derived from alcohol and either
gasoline or a special fuel even if the
alcohol is chemically transformed in
producing the product so that the
alcohol is no longer present as a
separate chemical in the final product,
provided that there is no significant loss
in the energy content of the alcohol.
Thus, a product may be considered to be
"mixture of alcohol and gasoline or of
alcohol and a special fuel" within the
meaning of section 40(b)(l)(B) if such
product is produced in a chemical
reaction between alcohol and either
gasoline or a special fuel. Similarly a
product may be considered to be a
"mixture of alcohol and gasoline or of
alcohol and a special fuel" if such
product is produced by blending a
chemical compound derived from
alcohol with either gasoline or a special
fuel.
Thus, for example, a blend of gasoline
and ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE). a
compound derived from ethanol (a ,"
qualified alcohol), in a chemical reaction
in which there is no significant loss in
the energy content of the ethanol, is
considered for purposes of section
40(b)(l)(B) to be a mixture of gasoline
and the ethanol used to produce the
ETBE, even though the ethanol is
chemically transformed in the
production of ETBE and is not present in
the final product.
Fred T. Goldberg, jr.^
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Approved: February 23,1990.
Kenneth W. Gideon,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 90-5063 Filed 3-6-90; 8:45 amj
BILUNQ COOf 4HO-01-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141
IFRL-3731-7]
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations; Monitoring Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA),
ACTION; Notice of public meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
time and place for a public meeting to
discuss a framework for standardizing
monitoring requirements for most
drinking water contaminants regulated '
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This
framework would establish three-, six-,
and nine-year compliance monitoring
cycles and include, at a minimum.
inorganic, synthetic organic, and
radionuclide contaminants.
DATES: EPA will hold a public meeting
to discuss the framework on April 6,
1990. The meeting will run from 9 a.m.
until approximately 12 p.m.
AOORESSes: The meeting will be held at
EPA's Washington Information
Conference Center, room #3 North, 401
M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Al Havinga, (202) 382-5555.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies
of the proposed framework and further
information with respect to this notice
are available through (1) the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline, telephone (800)
428-4791 or (202) 382-5533 in Alaska and
the Washington, DC metropolitan area;
or by contacting Al Havinga, Criteria
and Standards Division, Office of
Drinking Water (WH-550D),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460,
telephone (202) 382-5558.
Dated: March 2,1990. . ,.
Robert H. Wayland 01,
A cling A ssistant A dministratarfor Water,
[FH Doc. 90-5453 Filed 3-0-80; 8:45 am)
•ILUNa COOl (SM-M-M
40 CFR Parts 260 and 281
[FflL-3731-81
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Testing and Monitoring
Activities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Technical corrections.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today making
corrective amendments to a final rule
adopting 47 analytical testing methods
for use in meeting the regulatory
requirements under subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), published on September 29,
1989 (54 FR 40260-40269). These new
methods are found in the Third Edition
of 'Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods",
Office of Solid Waste Publications SW-
IMS, and its Revision I. Today's
correction adds a list of the 47 analytical
testing methods to the section of the
regulations that incorporates these
methods by reference, 40 CFR 260.11(a),
This amendment is necessary since
language incorporating these methods
was inadvertently left out of the final
rule. This amendment also corrects
Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix III to 40 CFR
part 281.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 47 _/_ Friday. March 9, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 8949
EFFECTIVE DATE: This amendment
becomes effective on March 9,1990. The
incorporation by reference of portions of
the publication listed in the regulation is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of March 9,1990.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
rulemaking (Docket No. F-84-ATMP-
FFFFF) is available for review at the
EPA RCRA Docket, Room M-2427, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington. DC 20460. and
is available for viewing from 9:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. The public
must make an appointment to review
docket materials by calling (202) 475-
9327. The public may copy 100 pages of
material from any one regulatory docket
at no cost; additional copies cost $0.15
per page.
Copies of the Third Edition of SW-846
and its Revision I are available from the
Government Printing Office,
Superintendent of Documents,
Washington, DC 20402, (202) 783-3238.
The document number is 955-001-00000-
1 and the cost is $110.00 for the four-
volume set plus updates. Update
packages are automatically mailed to all
subscribers.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information contact the
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll
free) or (202) 382-3000. For information
on the technical aspects of this rule
contact Charles Sellers, Office of Solid
Waste, 05-331, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 382-4781,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION!
I. Background and Rationale
On September 29,1989, the Agency
published a Final Rule in the Federal
Register (54 FR 40260-40269), adopting
47 analytical testing methods for use in
meeting regulatory requirements under
subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). The 47
methods are found in the Third Edition
of SW-846 and its Revision I. AH 47
methods were originally proposed on
October 1,1984 (49 FR 33788-33812).
When methods are adopted, as they
were in the September 1989 notice of
final rulemaking, they are incorporated
by reference in 40 CFR 260.11. While the
final rule did amend 1260.11, no specific
reference was made to the 47 analytical
testing methods, where they were
published, or how to obtain copies.
Therefore, the Agency is amending the
final rule, published on September 29,
1989, by including in J 260.11 a list of the
47 analytical testing methods, a
description of where they are published,
and directions on how to obtain copies.
The Agency is also amending the
footnote to Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix
III of 40 CFR part 261 (54 FR 40266,
40287) to clarify that the 47 analytical
testing methods are found in the Third
Edition of SW-846 and its Revision I.
In addition, Table 3 of Appendix III,
"Sampling And Analysis Methods
Contained in SW-848," has two
typographical errors in the Second
Edition column under "Method No."
Method 7881 (Barium, Furnace AAS)
should be changed to Method 7081, and
Method 7470 (Lead, Flame AAS) should
be changed to Method 7420. The Agency
is amending Table 3 to incorporate the
above changes.
Since this notice involves only
technical corrections and clarification,
no public comment period will be
necessary. Any correspondence
regarding corrections to Appendix III of
part 261 should be sent to Mr. Charles
Sellers at the address shown in the "FOB
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT"
section of this notice. Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), a rule is exempt from notice
and public comment requirements
"when the Agency for good cause finds
(and incorporates the finding and a brief
statement of reasons therefore in the
rules issued) that notice and public
procedures thereon are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
immediately. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d) and 42
U.S.C. 6930(b),
II. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and, therefore, subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. Due to the nature of this
regulation (technical correction), the
amendment is not "major"; therefore, no
Regulatory Impact Analysis is required.
Ill, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 260
and 211
Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
incorporation by reference.
Dated: March 2,1990.
Mary A. Cade,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1. The authority citation for part 260
continues to read as followsr
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 8912(a). 6921
through 8927, 8930, 8934,6835, 6937, 6938,
8939, and 6974.
Subpart B—Definitions
2. Section 260.11 is amended by
adding a fifth reference in paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
§280.11 References.
(a)' * '
The following 47 analytical testing
methods are contained in the Third
Edition of "Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods" EPA Publication SW-846
(November 1986) and its Revision I
(December 1987), which are available
for the cost of $110.00 from the
Government Printing Office,
Superintendent of Documents,
Washington, DC 20402, (202) 783-3238
(document number 955-001-00000-1): *
0010 Modified Method S Sampling Train
0020 Source Assessment Sampling System
(SASS)
0030 Volatile Organic Sampling Train
1320 Multiple Extraction Procedure
1330 Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes
.3611 Alumina Column Geanup and
Separation of Petroleum Waatei
5040 Protocol for Analysis of Sorbent
Cartridges from Volatile Organic
Sampling Train
6010 Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic
Emission Spectroscopy
7090 Beryllium (AA, Direct Aspiration) -
7091 Beryllium (AA, Furnace Technique)
7198 Chromium, Hexavalent (Differential
Pulse Polarography)
7210 Copper (AA, Direct Aspiration)
7211 Copper (AA, Furnace Technique)
7380 iron (AA, Direct Aspiration)
7381 Iron (AA, Furnace Technique)
7460 Manganese (AA. Direct Aspiration)
7461 Manganese (AA. Furnace Technique]
7550 Osmium (AA. Direct Aspiration)
7770 Sodium (AA, Direct Aspiration)
7840 Thallium (AA, Direct Aspiration)
7841 Thallium (AA, Furnace Technique)
7910 Vanadium (AA, Direct Aspiration)
7911 Vanadium (AA. Furnace Technique)
7950 Zinc (AA, Direct Aspiration)
7951 Zinc (AA, Furnace Technique)
9022 Total Organic Halides (TOX) by
Neutron Activation Analysis
9035 Sulfate (Colorimettic, Automated,
Chloranilate)
9038 Sulfate (Colorlmelric, Automated,
Methylthymol Blue, AA H)
9038 Sulfate (Turbidimetric)
9060 Total Organic Carbon
9065 Phenolict (Spectrophotometric, Manual
4-AAP with Distillation)
9066* Phenolict (Colorlmelric, Automated
4-AAP with Distillation)
9087 Phenolic* (Spectrophotometric, MBTH
with Distillation)
1 The Agency notts Ihil, for guidance purpoitt,
the Third Edition end lit Rcvliion 1 itipenede the
Second Edition and its Update* I *nd II. However,
for regulatory purposes, the Second Edition ind
Updates I and II remain in effect together with the
V method! of the Third Edition end ill Reviiion 1
cited above. SttS4fK 4O260-W2M). September 29,
1988.
-------
8950
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 47 / Friday, March 9, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
9070 Total Recoverable Oil and Grease
• (Gravimetric Separator? Funnel
Extraction)
9071 Oil and Crease Extraction Method for
Sludge Samples
9080 Calion-Exchange Capacity of Soils
(Ammonium Acetate)
9081 Cation-Exchange Capacity of Soils
(Sodium Acetate)
9100 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity,
Saturated Leachate Conductivity, and
Intrinsic Permeability
9131 Tottl Coliform: Multiple Tube
Fermentation Technique
9132 Total Coliforra: Membrane Filter
Technique
9200 Nitrate
9250 Chloride (Colorimetric, Automated
Ferricyanide AAI)
9231 Chloride {Colorimetric, Automated
Ferricyanide AAH)
9252 Chloride (Titrimetric, Mercuric Nitrate}
9310 Gross Alpha and Gross Beta
9315 Alpha-Emitting Radium Isotopes
9320 Radium-228
*When Method 9066 is used it must be
preceded by the manual distillation specified
in procedure 7.1 of Method 9065. fust prior to
distillation in Method 9065, adjust the sulfuric
odd-preserved sample to pH 4 with 1 + 9
NsOH. After the manual distillation ia
completed, the autosnalyzer manifold is
simplified by connecting the re-sample line
directly to the sampler.
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
3. The authority citation for part 281
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6812{a). 6921, and
6922.
Appendix III—Chemical Analysis Test
Methods
4. Footnote "a" of Table 2 is revised
with the following:
• The Third Edition of SW-848 and its
Revision I are available from the Government
Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington, DC 20402, (202) 783-3238,
document number 955-001-00000-1.
5, Methods 7081 and 7420 in Table 3
are revised to read as follows:
TABLE 3.—SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
METHODS CONTAINED IN SW-846
Titta
Barium, Fumac*
AAS
Lead, Flams AAS...
Third miSon
See-
Son
No.
3.3
3.3
Meth-
od
No.
7081
7420
Second
Sec-
tion
No.
7.0
7.0
Meth-
od
No.
7081
7420
6, Footnote "a" of Table 3 is revised
with the following:
* The Third Edition of SW-846 and its
Revision I are available from the Government
Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington, DC 20402. (202) 783-3238,
document number 955-001-00000-1.
* # • * *
(FR Doc. 90-5454 Filed 3-8-90; 8:45 amj
BILLING COM I5W-W-M
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 65
[Docket NO. FEMA-6971]
Changes In Flood Elevation
Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
ACTION: Interim rule; correction.
SUMMARY: This document corrects a
Notice of Changes in Flood Elevation
Determinations of modified base (100-
year) flood elevations previously '
published at 54 FR 43179 on October 23,
1989. This correction notice provides a
more accurate representation of the
Flood Insurance Rate Map in effect for
the City of Atlanta, Fulton ud De Kalb
Counties, Georgia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John L, Matticks, Chief, Risk Studies
Division, Federal Insurance
Administration, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC
20472, (202) 648-2787.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Federal Emergency Management
Agency gives notice of the correction to
the Notice of Changes in Flood
Elevation Determinations of modified
base (100-year] flood elevations for
selected locations in the City of Atlanta,
previously published at 54 FR 43179 on
October 23. 1989, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L 93-234),
87 Stat. 980, which added section 1363 to
the National Flood Insurance Act of
1906 (title XIII of the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1968 (Pub. L 90-
448)), 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 44 CFR '
part 65.4.
List of Subjects In 44 CFR Part 65
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
PART 65— {AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 85
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 4001 et teq.,
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, E.Q. 12127.
J65.4
2. Section 85.4 is amended by adding
in alphabetical sequence new entries to
the table.
Slate and county
Oat* ind name of
location newspaper wrwr* notfc*
w««pub«sr»d
ChM mociriM officer of community
Effective date
Comnuntty No.
ge Fulton and Da City of Atlanta..
Kalb.
Octet** 19, 1969, October
26, 1989. AttMflt* Jouf-
Trw HonortbM Andraw Young, Mayor, City October 23,
of Afenta, 55 Trinity AvtntM SW., ADM- 1089
t«.G*x*l 30335-0325.
135157
Issued: March 1,1990.
Harold T.Dury**,
Administrator, Federal Insurance
Administration.
[FR Doc, 90-5464 Filed 3-440; 8:45 am)
MLUNQ COCK I7t»-0j-*t
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 74
Toxicity Characteristic Revisions
55 FR 11798-11877
March 29, 1990
as amended on June 29, 1990, at 55 FR 26986-26998
(RCRA Cluster II)
Note: 1) A correction to the preamble of the March 29, 1990 rule was published on August 2,
1990 {55 FR 31387). This notice corrected an implementation timetable and extended the period
of time within which affected small quantity generators must comply with the new modification
requirements. An August 10, 1990 (55 FR 32733) notice corrected the August 2, 1990 notice.
On September 27, 1990, a clarification to the March 29 final rule was published in the Federal
Register (55 FR 39409) regarding four implementation issues. The clarification did not affect the
Federal code addressed by this checklist An interim final rule promulgated on October 5, 1990
(55 FR 40834) did affect the Federal code relevant to the Toxicity Characteristic. A separate
revision checklist (Revision Checklist 80) was developed to address those changes effected by the
interim final rule.
2) Two interim final rules (55 FR 40834; October 5, 1990 and 56 FR 3978; February 1, 1991) '
and a final rule (56 FR 13406; April 2, 1991) extended the compliance date of the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) rule for certain hydrocarbon recovery and remediation operations. This
extension is addressed by Revision Checklist 80. Because a less stringent requirement than that
imposed by the TC rule is in effect until January 23, 1993, that Revision Checklist is optional.
3) States are strongly encouraged to adopt the Permit Modifications rule (53 FR 37912;
September 28, 1988; Revision Checklist 54) and the "Christmas Tree Rule" (54 FR 9596; March
7, 1989; Revision Checklist 61) to ease implementation of the Toxicity Characteristic Rule and
future waste listings. While both of these rules are optional, they will greatly reduce the
immediate permit burden resulting from the TC rule.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EBTJlv^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
EXCLUSIONS
replace "characteristic
of EP toxicity" with
"Toxicity Characteristic"
replace "characteristic
of EP toxicity" with
"Toxicity Characteristic
solely for arsenic"
261.4{b)(6)(i)
261.4(b)(9)
March 29, 1990 - Page 1 of 6
OCL74.9 - 12/13/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 74; Toxicity Characteristic Revisions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
1 add new paragraph
regulating petroleum-
contaminated media
and debris that fail the
261.24 Toxicity Char-
acteristic test and
are subject to Part 280
corrective action
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.4(b)(10)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ESUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PCS WASTES REGULATED UNDER TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL ACT
exemption for PCB-
containing wastes,
already regulated
under Part 761
(TSCA), that fail the
261.24 Toxicity Char-
acteristic test (D018
through D043 only)
»
261,8
i
SUBPART C - CHARACTERISTICS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC
remove "EP" before
"toxicity"; insert "using
the methodology
outlined in Appendix II"
after "after filtering";
change "purposes" to
"purpose"
remove "EP" before
"toxicity"; add D018
through D043 to
Table 1; add new
column with CAS
numbers
261 .24(a)
261.24(b)
March 29, 1990 - Page 2 of 6
DCL74.9 - 12/13/91
-------
DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 74; Toxicity Characteristic Revisions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL55 IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORg
STHINOENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TABLE 1.—MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION OF
CONTAMINANTS FOB THE Toxicrrv
CHARACTERISTIC
EPA
HW
NO.'
0004
X05
D018
D008
D019
0020
0021
D022
0007
0023
0024
0025
0026
0018
3C27
0028
0029
0030
10 > 2
3031
Contiminant
Arsenic
Benzene
Camon
tetracnloride.
Cfitordane
ChlorcOenzsne
Chloroform
Cnromsuni
c-Cresol
m-Cresal
p-Cresol
Cresoi *~
24-0
1,4-
OicMoroben-
zene.
1.2-
OicNoroeth-
arm.
1,1-
Oichloroethy-
tene.
2.4-
Oinitrcjtoluefle,
Endnn
HeWactikx (and
CAS No.'
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
71-43-2
7440-43-9
56-23-5
57-74-9
103-90-7
67-66-3
7440-47-3
95-4fl-7
108-39-1
•Qe-44-5
94-75-7
106-46-7
107-06-2
75-35-4
121-14-2
72-2O-8
73-44-3
Regula-
tory
Level
!mg/U
5.0
1000
0.5
1.0
0.5
C.03
1000
6.0
5.0.
* 200.0
• 200.0
' £00.0
« 200.0
10.0
7.5
0.5
0.7
* 0.13
0.02
O.CC8
0032
0033
0034
0008
0013
0009
0014
0035
0038
0037
oosa
0010
0011
0039
0015
0040
C04I
D042
0017
0043
Hcxacniorotoen-
isrm.
Hexacworoeuta-
d:en«.
HexacWoroe in-
ane.
Lead
Undans
Mercury
Metfioxycnlor
Metnyt etnyl
ketone..
Nilroeertzene
Pentraeniora.
pranoi.
Pyndjn*
Selenium ..............
Stver
Tetracfteoeutyt-
9T6.
Toxapnane
Tncfiloroethyl-
2,4.5-
Tncntom--"
phenol
2,4.6-
TnchlorO"
phsnol.
2.4,5-TP (Sitvex),..
Vinyl cWonds
118-T4-1
87-68-3
67-72-1
7439-92-1
58-89-9
7439-97-6
72-43-5
78-93-3
98-95-3
87-86-5
110-86-t
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
127-18-4
SCO t -35-2
79-01-6
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
75-01-4
»0 '3
0.5
3.0
50
0.4
0.2
10.0
2000
2.0
100.0
1 5.0
1 0
5.0
0-7
0.5
0,5
4COO
2.0
10
0.2
1 Hazardous waste number.
1 GwnicaJ aostfacts some* nun*«r.
* Quanwation limit * greater tfisn tne calculated
requiaWfV l«v«t Td« ouanutauon limit therefot* 6«-
comes ine regulatorf leva).
• || o, TV, and p^>8sot concentralksns cannot be
ddwonnated, am total cresol (0026) concentration
is us«d. Th« regulatory l*vel ol total cresol is ^00
mg/l.
SU8PART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
GENERAL
replace "EP Toxic
Waste" in the hazard
codes and in the text
following the hazard
codes with Toxieity
Characteristic Waste"
261,30(b)
March 29, 1990 - Page 3 of 6
DCL74.9 - 12/13/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 74: Toxicity Characteristic Revisions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
"~ STATE ANAL66 IS:
CoTJK?-
ALiNT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX II TO PART 261
METHOD 1311 TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE (TCLP)
EP toxicity test PRO-
eedures are replaced
by Method 1311
Toxicity Character-
istic Leaching
Procedures (TCLP)
Appendix II
PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART N - LANDFILLS
DESIGN AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
replace "EP Toxicity
Characteristics" with
"Toxicity Character-
istics"; insert "with
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers D004
through D017"
after "chapter"
264.301 (e)(1)
PART 265 - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART K - SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
replace "EP Toxietty
Characteristics" with
"Toxicity Character-
istics"; insert "with EPA
Hazardous Waste
Numbers D004 through
D01 7" after "chapter"
265.221 (d)(1)
March 29, 1990 - Page 4 of 6
OCL74.9 - 12/13/91
ot
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 74: Toxicity Characteristic Revisions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
1 STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART M - LAND TREATMENT
WASTE ANALYSIS
replace "exceed" with
"equal or exceed";
replace "EP Toxicity
Characteristic"
with "Toxicity
Characteristic"
265.273(a)
PART 268 - LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
APPENDIX I TO PART 268
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE (TCLP)
replace Appendix with
note stating the TCLP
is located in
Appendix II of
Part 261
Appendix 1
Also see technical corrections to the rule at 55 FR 26986 (June 29, 1990).
2-
Ds*f***i ie»« *Hrt li in** OQ •! QQA (KR CO O£3QQ£*\ rmti/>£* m**Ar\ s\%s*s*rt**iiss% f*t^rrr\s***t\r\r* **% A*tn^*%«4!u 11
Part 261, the Appendix in that notice should be used instead of the one in the March 29, 1990
(55 FR 11798) notice.
As background, the TCLP was originally promulgated in 268, Appendix I, on November 7, 1986
(51 FR 40572; Revision Checklist 34) for use in the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program
to determine whether certain wastes require treatment prior to land disposal and to determine
whether certain treated wastes meet the applicable treatment standards. The TC rule and its
June 29, 1990 modification promulgated a revised TCLP at 261, Appendix II, with modifications
based on the Agency's own research and public comment. This TCLP is to be used in both
the TC and the LDR programs. The objective of the above footnoted revision to 268, Appendix
I, is to assure that the TCLP entered into the code by the November 7, 1986 notice (51 FR
40572; Revision Checklist 34) is removed and replaced by the TCLP entered into the code and
amended by the final rules (55 FR 11798 and 55 FR 26986) addressed by Revision Checklist
74. The actual placement of the TCLP within a State's code is not that important, per se; what
is important is that a State's code contains only the Revision Checklist 74 TCLP. States that
have not yet adopted Revision Checklist 34 (the first of the LDR restrictions) need not make
this particular revision to 268, Appendix I, as they would not yet have entered the original Part
268 TCLP into their code. Also, the change on page 2 of this checklist for 261, Appendix II,
March 29, 1990 - Page 5 of 6
DCL74.9 - 12/13/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 74: Toxicity Characteristic Revisions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
assures that they add the Revision Checklist 74 TCLP to their code. However, such States
must be careful when adding the LDR restrictions to their code, i.e., the Revision Checklist 34
TCLP should not be added at that time-rather, the Revision Checklist 74 TCLP should remain
the only TCLP in their code. States using the Consolidated LDR Checklist should be sure to
read Footnote 40 on that checklist regarding this issue.
March 29, 1990 - Page 6 of 6
OCL74.9 - 12/13/91
-------
DIE.-NO. 9541.00-14
Thursday
March 29, 1990
Part II
««~y|»ri« f
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 261 et al. -s ,-,.
-.--•r . ..»«;V.;r.{,
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Identification and Usting of Hazardous
Waste; Toxiclty Characteristics Revisions;
Final Rule
-------
11793 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265, 268, 271,
and 302
[SWH-FBL-3601-1; EPA/OSW-FH-33-026]
RIM 2050-AA78
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing ef
Hazardous Waste; Toxicity
Characteristics Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
Y: On June 13, 1986, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed to revise the existing toxicity
characteristics, which are used to
identify those wastes defined as
hazardous and which are subject to
regulation under subtitle C of the
Resourcs Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) due to their potential ta
leach significant concentrations of
specific toxic constituents. The proposed
rule was designed to refine and broaden
the scope of the hazardous waste
regulatory program and to fulfill specific
statutory mandates under the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
EPA is today promulgating the
Toxicity Characteristics (TC). Today's
rule retains many of the features of the
original proposal: It replaces the
Extraction Procedure (EPJ leach test
with the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP); it adds 25
organic chemicals to the list of toxic
constituents of concern; and it
establishes regulatory levels for these
organic chemicals based on health-
based concentration .thresholds and a
dilution/attenuation factor that was
developed using a subsurface fate and
transport model. In response to
comments received on the proposed rule
and related notices, the final rule
incorporates a number of modifications
in the leaching procedure, the list of
toxicants, the chronic toxicity reference
levels, and the fate and transport model.
The overall effect of today's action
will be to subject additional wastes to
regulatory control under subtitle C of
RCRA, thereby providing for further
protection of human health and the
environment,
DATES: Effective Date: September 25,
1990.
Compliance Dates: Large quantity
generators: September 25, 1990. Small
quantity generators (SQGs): March 29,
1991. Any person that would like to use
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) before the effective
date may do so in order to determine
whether the eight heavy metals and six
pesticides that are currently regulated
under the Extraction Procedure (EP)
Toxicity Characteristic leach at levels of
regulatory concern.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
rolemaking (Docket Number F-90-TCF-
FFFFF) is located in the EPA RCIA
Docket (Second Floor, Em 2427), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The
docket is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
federal holidays. Ths public must make
fin appointment to review docket
materials by calling (202) 475-9327. The
public may copy material at a cost of
$0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information about this
rulemakingi contact the RCRA/
Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-9348 (toll
free) or (202) 382-3000 in the
Washington, DC metropolitan area. For
information on specific aspects of this
rule, contact Steve Cochran, Office of
Solid Waste (OS-332), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 4G1M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20480, (202)
475-8551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Preamble Outline
L Authority
II. Background
A. Definition of Hazardous Waste
B. Existing Extraction Procedure Toxicity
Characteristic
C. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984
D. Previous Federal Register Notices
E, Other Notice* Relating to the Proposal
F. Pollution Prevention
G. Summary of Final Rule
Hi Response to Major Comments and
Analysts of Issues
A. General Approach
1. Expanded Use of Hazardous Waste
Characteristics
2. Mismanagement Scenario
a. Extent to Which Scenario is Reasonable
b. Worst-Case Scenario Selection
c. Extent to Which the Mismanagement
Scenario for Wastes Managed in Surface
Impoundments is Appropriate
3. Targeted Risks
4. Accuracy
S. Solvent Override
B. Constituents of Concern
1. Final List of Constituents
2. Toxicants Versus Indicator Parameters
3. Method for Selecting Constituents
4, Specific Organic Constituents
a. Vinyl Chloride
b. Bis(2-chloroethyl) Ether
c. Toxaphena
d. Phenol
e. Pentachlorophenol
5. Specific Inorganic Constituents
a. Silver
b. Chromium
c. Nickel and Thallium
C. Chronic Toxicity Reference Levels
1. Maximum Contaminant Levels
2. Risk-Specific Doses for Carcinogenic
Constituents
3. Apportionment of Health Limits
D. Use of Generic Dilution/Attenuation
Factors (DAFs)
E. Application of a Subsurface Fate and
Transport Model
1. Introduction
a. Juna 13,1886, Proposed Rule (51 FR
21648)
b. August 1,1983, Notice of Data
Availab;li!y and Request for Comments:
Supplement io Proposed Rule (52 FX
28892)
2. Modifications of the Subsurface Fate and
Transport Model (HPASMOD) in
Response to Comments
a. General Modifications
1. Unsaturated Zone
ii. Sourca Characterization
iii. Treatment of Dilution from Recharge
iv. Location of the Receptor Well
v. Dispersivity Values
vi. Hydraulic Conductivity
vii. Hydrolysis
viii. Steady-State Assumption
ix. Biodegradation
x. Summary of General Modifications
b. Use of the EPACML for Surface
Impoundments
3. Newly Acquired Data
a. Landfill Data
b. Chemical-Specific Parameters
4. DAF Evaluation
«. Selection of an Appropriate Percentile
b. Resulting DAFs for Landfills
c. Resulting DAFs for Surface
Impoundments
d. Final DAF Selection
F, Toxicity Characteristic Leachiiif
Procedure {TCLP) {Method 1311)
1. Introduction
2. Adoption in the LDR Rulemaking and
Modification from the Proposed Rule
3. Applicability of TCLP to Solidified
Waste
4. Analytical Methods
C. Testing and Recordkeeping
Requirements
1. Existing Requirements for Generators
2. Changes Considered
H. Applicability to Wastes Managed in
Surface Impoundments
1. Sampling Point
2. Multiple Surface Impoundments
1. Relationship to Other RCRA Regulations
1. Hazardous Waste Identification
Regulations
a. Hazardous Waste Listings
b. "Mixture" and "Derived From" Rules
c. Mixture Rule Exemption
4 Delistlng
2. Land Disposal Restrictions
a. Risk Levels and Frequency Interval
b. Treatment Standards for TC Wastes
c. Schedule for LDR Determinations
3. RCRA Corrective Action and Closure
Requirements
4. Minimum Technology Requirements
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, Mo. 61 / Thursday. March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11799
a. Applicability
b. Scope of Minimum Technology
Requirements
1. Permitted Facilities
2. Interim Status Facilities
c. Compliance with Minimum Technology
Requirements
5. RCRA Subtitle D (Solid Wastes)
a. Municipal Waste Combustion Ash
b. Impact on Wastes Excluded from
Subtitle C Regulation
8. RCRA Subtitle I (Underground Storage
Tanks)
a. Scope of tha Underground Storage Tank
Program
b. Deferral for Petroleum-Contaminated
Media and Debris Subject to Pert 280
Corrective Action Requirements
7. RCRA Section 3004(n) Air Regulations
J, Relationship to Other Regulatory
"Authorities
1, Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act (CEBCLA)
2. Clean Water Act
a. Conflict with NPDES Effluent Guidelines
and Pretreatment Standards
b. Permit Requirements for Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
c. Sludges from Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW)
3. Safe Drinking Water Act
4. Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRAJ
a. Pesticide Wastes
b. Treated Wood Wastes
5. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCAJ
a. Pood Wastes
b. Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Wastes
6. Used Oil Recycling Act
7. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCAJ
(C Implementation Issues
1, Notification
2. Effective Date
3. Permitting
IV. Regulatory Levels
A. List of Constituents
1. Proposed List
2. Constituents for Which Final Regulatory
Levels Are Not Now Being Promulgated
3. Final List of Constituents
a. Organic Constituents
b. Inorganic Constituents '
B. Selection of DAFs
C. Analytical Constraints
D. Final Regulatory Levels
V. Implementation
A. State Authority
1. Applicability of Final Rule in Authorized
States
2. Effect on State Authorization
B. Integration of Today's Final Role with
Existing EPTC
1. Facilities Located in Authorized States
2. Facilities Located in Unauthorized States
C. Notification
D. Permitting
E. Compliance Date
VI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Introduction
B, Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Executive Order No. 122il
2. Basic Approach
3. Methodology
a. Determination of Affected Wastes and
Facilities
b. Cost Methodology
1. Social Costs
2. Compliance Costs
c. Economic Impact Methodology
d. Benefits Methodology
1. Human Health Risk Reduction
2. Resource Damage Avoided
3. Cleanup Costs Avoided
i. Used Oil Methodology
4. Results
a. Affected Wastes and Facilities
1, Affected Wastes
2. Affected Facilities
3. Sensitivity Analysis of Affected Wastes
and Facilities
b. Cost Results
1, Social Costs and Compliance Costs
2. Sensitivity Analysis of Costs
c. Economic Impact Results
1. Significantly Affected Facilities
2. Effects on Product and Capital Markets
3. Sensitivity Analysis of Economic
Impacts
d. Benefits Results
1. MEI Risk
2. Population Risk
3, Resource Damage
4. Cleanup Costa Avoided
5. Sensitivity Analysis of Benefits
e. Cost Effectiveness
f. Used Oil Results
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1, Approach
2. Results
D. Response to Comments on RIA for June
13.1986, Proposal
1. Industries Included in the Analysis
2. Estimation of Costs and Economic
Impacts
3. Estimation of Benefits
4. Cost-Benefit Comparisons
S. Snail Business Analysis
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
VII. References
I. Authority
The amendments to the hazardous
waste regulations in 40 CFR parts 281
and 271 are being promulgated under the
authority of sections 1006, 2002(a), 3001,
3002, and 3006 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, as amended {42 U.S.C. 6305,
6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6928). The
amendments to the list of hazardous
substances and reportable quantities in
40 CFR part 302 are being promulgated
under the authority of section 102 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9602), as
amended, and sections 311 and 501(a) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1381).
II. Background
A, Definition of Hazardous Waste
Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), as amended, establishes a
federal program for the comprehensive
regulation of hazardous waste. Section
1004(5) of RCRA defines hazardous
waste, among other things, as solid
waste that may ". , . pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human
health and the environment when
improperly treated, stored, transported,
disposed, or otherwise managed." Under
RCRA Section 3001, EPA is charged with
defining which solid wastes are
hazardous by either identifying the
characteristics of hazardous waste or
listing particular hazardous wastes.
Identifying characteristics of hazardous
waste and Listing hazardous wastes are
distinct and fundamentally different
mechanisms for defining hazardous
wastes.
The hazardous waste characteristics
promulgated by EPA designate broad
classes of wastes which are clearly
hazardous by virtue of an inherent
property. In the May 18,1880 final ruie
(45 FR 3~3084) that instituted EPA's
general framework for identifying
hazardous waste, the Agency
established two basic criteria for
identifying hazardous waste
characteristics: (1) The characteristic
should be capable of being defined in
terms of physical, chemical, or other
properties which cause the waste to
meet the statutory definition of
hazardous waste; and (2) the properties
defining the characteristic must be
measurable by standardized and
available testing protocols or
reasonably detected by generators
through their knowledge of the waste (40
CFR 281.10). fa the May 13,1980 final
rule. EPA stated that it adopted the
second criterion in recognition that the
primary responsibility for determining
whether wastes exhibit hazardous
characteristics rests with generators, for
whom standardization and availability
of testing protocols are essential.
The approach EPA uses to establish
hazardous waste characteristics is to.
• determine which properties of a waste
would result in harm to human health or
the environment if a waste is
mismanaged. The Agency then
establishes test methods and regulatory
levels for each characteristic property;
solid waste that exceeds the regulatory
level for any characteristic property is a
hazardous waste.
The regulatory levels for
characteristics that have been
established provide a high degree of
certainty that wastes exceeding those
regulatory levels would pose hazards to
human health and the environment if
improperly managed and therefore
require regulation under subtitle C.
Wastes that do not exhibit hazardous
waste characteristics are not necessarily
nonhszardous. The Agency may
-------
11800 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
evaluate wastes from either specific or
nonspecific sources and decide to list
them as hazardous wastes based on
criteria defined in 40 CFR 281.11.
To list a waste as hazardous, EPA
conducts a detailed industry or process
study involving literature reviews,
engineering analyses, surveys and
questionnaires, site visits, and waste
sampling. For listing, the Agency places
particular emphasis on hazardous
constituents contained in specific
wastes generated by the industry or
process being studied (See 40 CFR
261.11(aJ(3)). However, EPA uses a
comparatively flexible approach when
•deciding to list wastes as hazardous; the
•approach includes consideration of
factors such as type of threat posed,
plausible ways that the waste might be
mismanaged, migration potential and
persistence in the environment, wasta
quantity, and actions of other regulatory
programs. The Agency also promulgated
two other rules for identifying solid
wastes as hazardous wastes — the
mixture and derived-from rules. The
mixture rule says that any mixture of a
listed hazardous waste and a solid
waste is the listed hazardous waste (40
CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iiiHiv)); the derived-
from rule says that any solid waste
derived from the treatment, storage, or
disposal of a listed hazardous waste is
considered the listed hazardous waste
(40 CFR 261 J
B. Existing Extraction Procedure
Toxicity Characteristic
The Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity
characteristic is one of four existing
hazardous waste characteristics (along
with ignitability, corrosivity, and
reactivity) that EPA has identified and
promulgated (40 CFR 261.24). The
Extraction Procedure Toxicity
Characteristic (EPTC) defines the
toxicity of a waste by measuring the
potential for the toxic constituents in the
waste not subject to subtitle C controls
to leach out and contaminate ground
water at levels of health or
environmental concern. To determine if
a waste exhibits the EPTC, constituents
are extracted in a procedure that
simulates the leaching action that occurs
in municipal landfills. Because a
"hazardous waste" is defined as a waste
that may pose a substantial hazard
"when mismanaged," the EP was
designed based on the assumption that
wastes not subject to subtitle C controls
would be co-disposed with municipal
waste in an actively decomposing
landfill that overlies an aquifer. Thus,
the EP identifies wastes that are likely
to leach hazardous concentrations of
particular toxic constituents to ground
water under conditions of improper
management.
The Agency recognized that not all
wastes are managed according to the
mismanagement scenario postulated for
the EP. However, it is necessary to make
assumptions about management
practices for unregulated wastes in
order to determine whether a waste
poses a threat to human health and the
environment and thus meets the
statutory definition of hazardous waste.
In addition, the Agency believed that a
reasonably conservative
mismanagement scenario was
warranted in light of the statutory
mandate to protect human health and
the environment.
Under the existing EPTC, the liquid
waste extract obtained from the EP is
analyzed to determine whether It
possesses any of 14 toxic contaminants
that were identified in the National
Interim Primary Drinking Water
Standards (NIPDWS): eight metals
(arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium,
lead, mercury, selenium, and silver), four
insecticides (endrin, lindane,
methoxychlor, and toxaphene), and two
herbicides (2,4-D and 2,4,5-TP).
NIPDWS levels are used as health-
based concentration limits. At the time
of promulgation of the EPTC, the
NIPDWS were the only available
benchmarks for toxicity that were
scientifically recognized and that also
addressed chronic exposure.
The regulatory levels established for
the EPTC were 100 times the NIPDWS.
The 100-fold factor is a dilution and
attenuation factor (DAF) that estimates
the dilution and attenuation of the toxic
constituents in a waste as they travel
through the subsurface from the point of
leachate generation (i.e., the landfill) to
the point of human or environmental
exposure (i.e., at a drinking-water well).
The Agency had originally proposed a
DAF of 10 for use in the EP. In .light of
the fact that there were few empirical
data on which to base the DAF and
other considerations, the Agency
adopted a DAF of 100 in the final rule
(45 FR 33084, May 19,1980). EPA was
confident that any waste which
exhibited the EPTC using the 100-fold
factor would have the potential to
present a substantial hazard regardless
of the actual site-specific attenuation
mechanisms. The Agency also noted
that it would adjust the DAF if future
studies indicated that another DAF was
more appropriate.
C, The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984
On November 8,1984, the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA) were enacted: these
amendments have had far-reaching
ramifications for EPA's hazardous waste (
regulatory program. RCRA sections 3001
(g) and (h), which were among the many
provisions added by HSWA, direct EPA
to examine and revise the EP Toxicity
Characteristic and to identify additional
hazardous waste characteristics,
including measures of toxicity. Today's
rule fulfills these mandates by
promulgating an improved leaching
procedure that better predicts leaching
and an expansion of the Toxicity
Characteristics (TC) list to include
additional toxicants.
RCRA section 3001 (g) specifically
directs EPA to examine the EP leach
procedure as a predictor of the teaching
potential of waste and to make changes
necessary to ensure that it accurately
predicts the leaching potential of wastes
that may pose a threat to human health
and the environment when mismanaged.
The legislative history for this provision
indicates that Congress was specifically
concerned about the EP's ability to
accurately represent the mobility of
toxicants under a wide variety of
conditions. The legislative history also
suggests that Congress intended for EPA
to develop a more aggressive leaching
medium for the test and noted that the
EP only evaluated the mobility of
elemental toxicants and not the mobility
of organic toxicants.
Concerned that some wastes posing a
threat to human health and the
environment were not being brought into
the hazardous waste system. Congress
adopted RCRA section 3001(h). which
directs EPA to promulgate additional
characteristics. Of specific concern to
Congress was the fact that the existing
characteristics did not identify wastes
that were hazardous due to toxic levels
of organic constituents. Although
Congress recognized that the
development of such a characteristic
would entail technical problems.
Congress urged the Agency to make
reasonable assumptions for purposes of
regulation, rather than await definitive
technical answers. In response to the
3001(g) and 3001(h) mandates, EPA
issued a proposed rule to revise and
expand the TC (51 FR 21648, June 13,
1988) which is discussed below in
Section H.D.
D. Previous Federal Register Notices
As indicated above, EPA published a
Federal Register notice (June 13,1986)
proposing to expand the existing TC.
The proposal specifically identified 52
compounds that could cause a waste to
be hazardous via toxicity, including the
existing 14 EPTC compounds and 38
additional organic compounds. In
Ot-
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11201
addition, it described the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP), a new version of the EP. The
TCLP is designed to more accurately
address the leaching of organic
compounds and to improve upon
technical aspects of the testing protocol.
The June 13 proposal used a
subsurface fate and transport model to
determine compound-specific dilution
and attenuation factors (DATs) as a
basis for establishing the regulatory
levels. (As mentioned above, the
existing TC used a generic DAF of ICO
which was not derived from modeling,
but rather was an estimated factor
indicating the potential for substantial
hazard.) The extract frcrn the second-
generation extraction procedure, the
TCLP, was analyzed for the presence of
the 52 constituents at the proposed
regulatory levels. In choosing the 38 new
toxicants, the Agency identified those
Appendix VIII constituents for which
appropriate chronic toxidty reference
levels were available and for which
there existed adequate fate and
transport data to establish a compound-
specific DAF. (Appendix VIII of 40 CFR
part 261 is the list of hazardous
constituents that the Agency considers
in evaluating the potential hazard posed
by wastes; these constituents have been
shown to have toxic, carcinogenic,
mutagenic, or teratogenic effects.)
Chronic toxicity reference levels are
those levels below which chronic
exposure for individual toxicants in
drinking water is considered safe or
considered to pose minimal risk (in the
case of carcinogens). The Agency
decided to use, when possible, human
health criteria and standards that have
been proposed or promulgated for
substances in particular media, because
these have already received Agency and
public review and evaluation. EPA
proposed-the continued use of the
Drinking Water Standards (DWS) for
the 14 existing EP toxicants and use of
Recommended Maximum Contaminant
Levels (RMCLs) for eight of the
constituents being added to the TC list
For the remaining newly added
constituents, EPA proposed to establish
chronic toxicity reference levels using
Reference Doses (RfDs) for non-
carcinogens and Risk-Specific Doses
(RSDs) for carcinogens.
The RfD is an estimate of the daily
dose of a substance that will result in no
adverse effect even after a lifetime of
exposure to the substance at that dose.
In order to account for toxicant
exposure from sources other than water
(i.e., air and food), the Agenay proposed
to apportion the RfD based on
proportionate compound-specific
exposure routes, as is done in
developing drinking water standards.
The RSD is the daily dose of a
carcinogen over a lifetime that will
result in an incidence of cancer equal to
a specific risk level. EPA proposed a
weight-of-evidence approach, which
involves categorizing carcinogens
according to the quality and adequacy
of the supporting lexicological studies,
to establish the risk levels most
appropriate for setting chronic toxicity
reference levels for carcinogens. •
The Agency proposed using a
subsurface fate and transport model to
calculate constituent-specific DAFs,
This model incorporated compound-
specific hydrolysis and soil adsorption
data, coupled with parameters
describing an underground environment
(e.g., ground water flow rate, soil
porosity, ground water pH). Values for
parameters were selected based on
review of geological conditions at
existing landfills. Since the model was
specifically developed to simulate
transport of organics and a model for
inorganics could not be completed in
time for the Jane 13 proposal. EPA
proposed to retain the existing EP levels
for the eight inorganic toxicants.
Tlie proposed rule introduced the
TCLP as a second-generation leaching
procedure to replace the existing EP.
The main impetus behind the
development of the TCLP was the need
to address the leaching of organic
compounds. However, the Agency also
recognized that the EP protocol could be
unproved in certain ways. The TCLP
was described in detail as a proposed
revision to Appendix II of part 281.
Further supporting information on the
TCLP tvas provided through notices of
availability of reports on July 9,1908 [51
FR 24856} and September 19.1388 (51 FR
33297). After the TC proposal, the Land
Disposal Restrictions final rule (51 FR
40572, November 7,1988) promulgated
the TCLP for monitoring compliance
with treatment standards for certain
spent solvent wastes and dioxin-
cor.taminated wastes. See Section II.E
below for further discussion of these
notices.
E. Other Notices Relating to tlm
Proposal
Today's rule is based on three
fundamental analytic components that
were set forth in the original June 13
proposal: a set of chronic toxicity
reference levels, a subsurface fate and
transport model, and the TCLP. in
addition to the June 13,1986 proposed
rule described in the preceding section
of this oreamble, EPA has published
several other notices in the Federal
Register dealing with these three
components. These notices are iis<«d in
Table 11.1 and are summarized in this
section. A more detailed discussion is
presented on several of these notices in
other sections of this pre-amble, a*
identified in Table II.1.
TABLE IL1—RELATED FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES DISCUSSING ONE OR MORE OF THE ANALYTICAL COMPONENTS OF THE REVISED
TC
Jan. 14. 1986. St FR 1602 (Proposed LOR framework)-... .
Nov. 7, t986, 51 FR 40572 (Final LDR approach) _. ...
May 18. 1987, 52 FR 18583 (Consideration <* separata wastewatar TC)
May 19. 1988, 53 FR 18024 (CTRU updated, two-tiered DAF alternative
proposed).
May 24, 1988, 53 FR 18792 (Proposal to replace panicle reduction) i
Aug. 1 1968 S3 FR 23892 (Proposed modifications to ground water
model).
CTRU1
._.
Analytic Component
Modal'
X
X
X
x
TCLP*
X
X
X
X
Rstevanl presmow
section of tcoays iwe
me. IB.I
HI.F
IIIA III.H
me, ui.t>
llf.p
ill.E
' Chronic Taxicity Reference Levels.
* Ground water tew and transport model.
* Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure,
-------
11802 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
EPA's first discussion of the
development of regulatory levels
through the use of chronic toxicity
> reference levels in combination with a
subsurface fate and transport model
was in the proposed rule governing land
disposal restrictions for solvents and
dioxins {51 FR 1602, January 14,1986).
This proposal introduced the concept
involved in "back-calculating"
regulatory levels (i.e., multiplying
chronic toxicity reference levels by
dilution/ attenuation factors) and also
discussed the Agency's plan for revising
the EP. In the final rule on land disposal
restrictions for solvents and dioxins (51
FR 40572, November ~, 1988), EPA
decided not to use the "back-calculation
approach" for the LDR program in favor
of an engineering determination based
on the best demonstrated available
technology (BDAT), However, the
Agency did promulgate the revised
TCLP as the leaching procedure to be
used in the land disposal restrictions
program. Specifically, the TCLP is used
to demonstrate that certain wastes meet
the best demonstrated available
technology standards, '
On May 18,1987. EPA published a
Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (52 FR 18583) in response to
numerous comments on the June 1986
proposal concerning the application of
the revised TC to wastewaters. The
commenters' main concern was that it
may be inappropriate to apply the TC
mismanagement scenario (co-disposal of
wastes with municipal wastes in an
unlined landfill) to wastewaters
managed in surface impoundments. The
commenters believe that such an
approach would result in
inappropriately low regulatory levels.
The Supplemental Notice outlined
several alternatives for the application
of the TC to wastewaters that would
result in a separate set of regulatory,
levels for these wastes. The alternative
scenario for wastewaters assumed that
subject wastes are managed in an
unlined impoundment instead of being
co-disposed in a municipal landfill.
Sections III.A.2, III.E., and IH.H provide
further discussion of the Supplemental
Notice for wastewaters and related
issues.
The Agency then published a Notice
of Data Availability and Request for
Comments on May li, 1988 (53 FR
18024), as a result of its concern about
uncertainties and technical difficulties .
involved with developing sufficiently
representative dilution/attenuation
factors (DAFs) for specific constituents.
In that notice, the Agency proposed an
alternative to the constituent-specific
DAFs in the proposed TC. The Agency
presented a two-phased approach to
implementing DAFs for the TC. In the
first phase, the Agency would use
generic DAFs for all 38 new TC organic
constituents while the development of
constituent-specific DAFs proceeded;
once the development of the constituent-
specific DAFs was completed, these
DAFs would be implemented in the
second phase. The Agency specifically
requested comment on the use of a
generic DAF that would initially bring
into the hazardous waste regulatory
system the most toxic of the wastes
subject to the June 1986 proposal, The
Agency also updated the chronic
toxicity reference levels for a number of
constituents based on newly available
information. Section III.C discusses the
incorporation of the new information
into the chronic toxicity reference levels
for specific constituents and Section
IIJ.D describes in more detail the two-
tiered DAF approach.
lit response to numerous comments
expressing concern as to whether the
particle reduction requirement in the
TCLP was appropriate, EPA published a
proposal (53 FR 18792, May 24,1988)
requesting comment on modifications to
the TCLP as promulgated on November
7,1986. Based on further experimental
evaluation of the original testing
methodology, the Agency proposed to
modify the TCLP to include a cage insert
requirement in place of the particle
reduction step for certain materials. The
specific revisions discussed in the
proposal are presented in detail in
section 1II.F of this preamble, and the
TCLP protocol is presented in Section
VIII of today's final rule. Today's rule
does not include a cage requirement but
rather retains the particle reduction step
for monolithic or fixated wastes.
In addition to the above-mentioned
modifications, on August 1.1988, the
Agency published a Supplemental
Notice (53 FR 28892) Introducing.
potential modifications to the
subsurface fate and transport model
used to calculate constituent-specific
DAFs in the proposed TC. In addition,
the Agency presented currently
available hydrogeological data on
municipal waste landfills and proposed
to modify the subsurface fate and
transport model to more accurately
reflect conditions in the universe of
municipal waste landfills. Section III.E
presents a more detailed description of
the subsurface fate and transport model
and the modifications made during its
development
F. Pollution Prevention
In section 1003(b) of RCRA, Congress
declared waste minimization to be a
national policy. Similarly, EPA has
made pollution prevention an Agency
objective, in both regulatory and
nonregulatory programs. (See EPA's
policy statement emphasizing the
importance of pollution prevention (54
FR 3845, January 28,1989).) This policy
places highest priority on source
reduction (i.e., reducing the volume or
toxicity of wastes generated) and use of
all pollutants for all sectors of society. A
reduction in the amount of waste which
must be managed (i.e., by source
reduction and recycling) provides direct
benefits related to protecting human
health and the environment from the
mismanagement of hazardous wastes.
Pollution prevention measures can also
reduce waste treatment and disposal
costs, decrease costs for raw materials,
minimize liability and regulatory
burdens for waste generators, and may
enhance efficiency, product quality, and
public image. The Agency encourages
industries affected by this rule to
consider achieving compliance through
pollution prevention.
The Agency has taken several steps to
create pollution prevention incentives,
First, EPA is developing institutional
structures within each of its offices to
ensure that the pollution prevention
philosophy is incorporated into every
feasible aspect of internal EPA planning
and decision-making.- Second, EPA is
making technical information available
to help firms reduce waste generation.
EPA is developing the Pollution
Prevention Information Clearinghouse
(PPIC), a network of people and
resources throughout the United States
that have direct experience in many
industries. PPIC includes the Electronic
Information Exchange System (EIES),
and a database of bulletins, programs,
contacts, and reports related to pollution
prevention. Third, the Agency is
supporting the development of state
programs to assist generators in their
waste reduction efforts. Many states are
already providing such help. For
example, the Alaska Health Project has
published technical assistance packets
for specific industries; North Carolina
has a pollution prevention bibliography;
and Oregon conducts a hazardous waste
reduction program. Finally, EPA has
initiated specific regulatory
requirements addressing waste
minimization. Under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
regulations, hazardous waste generators
are required to certify on their
hazardous waste manifests and annual
permit reports that they have a program
in place to reduce the volume or
quantity and toxicity of their hazardous
wastes as much as economically
practical, RCRA regulations also require
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11803
generators to describe on their RCRA
biennial reports the efforts they have
undertaken during the year to reduce the.
volume and toxicity of their hazardous
waste and to compare these efforts to
previous years,
As important as the efforts just
described is the Agency's commitment
to ensuring that regulations under
development encourage pollution
prevention, whenever possible. The TC
(TC), we believe, provides significant
incentives for pollution prevention.
Currently, there is little incentive for
industries to implement pollution
prevention efforts for unregulated solid
wastes. In particular, there are few
controls on units handling solid wastes
that have the potential for releases of
hazardous constituents to ground'vater. •
Large quantities of solid wastes
containing TC constituents currently are
managed in unregulated land-based
units, such as surface impoundments
and landfills. Many of these units are in
states that are either highly dependent
on groundwater for public water supply
or where grcundwater is hydraulically
connected to surface water, or both. By
subjecting management of TC wastes to
subtitle C regulation, EPA is in effect
requiring that waste managers rethink
their practices for solid wastes that
contain hazardous constituents. EPA's
experience has been that hazardous
waste regulations provide significant
incentives for pollution prevention. For
example, some listed wastestreams (e.g.,
bottoms from tetrachloroethylene
production) are now completely
recycled.
The characteristic mechanism used by
EPA to identify hazardous waste is
especially effective in encouraging
pollution prevention because it sets a
concentration level or criteria (e.g. test)
that determines the point at which the
waste is no longer regulated as
characteristically hazardous. Because of
the high cost of compliance with RCRA
subtitle C requirements, members of the
rsgulated community will have
significant new incentives to reduce TC
waste generation as a result of today's
rule. Industries will consider substitutes
for the specific chemicals on the TC list
of toxicants of concern. Where
substitutes are not used, there will be
incentive to reduce the use of hazardous
substances or otherwise limit their
concentrations in wastes, in order to
keep concentrations of hazardous
chemicals below regulatory levels.
Pollution prevention options range
from simple good housekeeping
practices, e.g., keeping solvents and oils
separate to facilitate racycling of each,
to more extensive process
reconfigurations and/or raw material
substitutions. Even in cases where •
pollution prevention can not eliminate
the need for treatment or disposal of
hazardous wastes, it may reduce the
generation of waste. For example, tank
capacity is constrained by land area,
engineering considerations, and cost.
Managers of TC wastewaten that
-switch from surface impoundments to
exempt tanks will almost certainly have
to reduce volumes of hazardous waste
generated, or segregate hazardous
portions of their wastestreams.
In order to enhance the pollution
preventions effects of this rule. EPA is
incorporating pollution prevention into
the communication strategy for the TC
regulation. EPA will provide information
targeted to small businesses specifically
and industry in general through
pamphlets, industry publications and
conferences, on the mechanisms
described above. We have found that
many small businesses are turning to
pollution prevention as a result of
implementation of the small quantity
generator regulations (see 51FR10146,
March 24,1986). For example, PPIC
documents relate how one drycleaning
operation reduced its solvent wastes to
a level well below national industry
standards by regularly checking for and
sealing any system leaks, and installing
a conditioning system and a carbon
adsorption unit to recover additional
solvent. With the new setup, the plant
can clean four times as many clothes per
drum of solvent. The Agency believes
that other industries may have the
potential to substitute less toxic source
materials in their processes. EPA will
consider whether any technical
assistance could aid industry in these
efforts. EPA would also be interested in
suggestions from industries affected by
the TC in ways that the Agency might
facilitate these efforts. Inquiries should
be directed to the Pollution Prevention
Office, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC 20450.
In summary, the TC will alter the
management of wastes that contain
toxicant at hazardous levels by ending
management in unregulated land-based
units. As industries reassess their waste
generation and management practices,
many are likely to seriously consider
pollution prevention options, and EPA
will take steps to facilitate such efforts.
G. Summary of Final Rule
Today's rule retains many of the
features of the June 1988 proposal: it
replaces the EP with the TCLP; it adds
25 new organic constituents to the list of
toxic constituents of concern; and it
establishes regulatory levels for the
organic constituents based on health-
based concentration limits and a DAF
developed using the subsurface fate and
transport model. In response to
comments received on the proposed rule
and related notices, the final rule
incorporates a number of modifications
to the list of constituents, the leaching
procedure, the chronic toxicity reference
levels, the subsurface fate and transport
model, and the schedule for compliance
with the TC rule.
.With respect to the list of
constituents, the final rule includes 25 of
the 38 constituents proposed in 1986.
One group that has been excluded in the
final rule are constituents that
appreciably hydrolyze. EPA has been
able to develop scientifically valid DAFs
for nondegrading constituents but is still
improving its approach for developing
DAFs for constituents that are expected
to hydrolyze appreciably during
transport. In particular, the Agency does
not yet have a procedure to address
taxic hydrolysis byproducts that may be
formed.
Second, in response to comments, the
Agency has also evaluated the
applicability of the steady-state
condition assumed in the subsurface
fate and transport model, and has
determined that the assumption is valid
for most of the originally proposed
constituents. However, several of the
original proposed constituents have
been deferred from the final rule while
the Agency continues to evaluate the
extent to which the steady-state solution
is appropriate in determining their fate
and transport.
As a result, all the constituents newly
regulated under today's rule are
nonhydrolyzing or minimally
hydrolyzing constituents, and all are
constituents for which the steady-state
solution is appropriate. For all these
constituents, EPA has determined,
based on the results of its subsurface
fate and transport model, that use of a
DAF of ICO is appropriate for setting
regulatory levels. This DAF is sufficient
to capture only those wastes that are
clearly hazardous. As a result of the
Agency's decision to regulate only
nonhydrolyzing or minimally
hydrolyzing constituents and those for
which the steady-state solution is
appropriate, 25 additional constituents
are being regulated rather than the
originally proposed 38. Regulatory levels
for hydrolyzing constituents, as well as
those constituents for which there
remain questions as to whether the
steady-state solution is appropriate, will
be discussed in future notices.
The list of constituents regulated in
today's rule and their respective
regulatory levels are presented in Table
II.2. As in the proposed rule, where the
-------
11804 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday. March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
calculated regulatory level (i.e., the
chronic toxicity reference level
multiplied by the DAF) is below the
analytical quantitation limit, the
quantitation limit is the final regulatory
level. Note that the list of constituents in
Table 112 contains the 14 constituents
currently regulated under the existing
EPTC, As specified in today's rale, these
constituents will continue to be
regulated at their current levels.
TABLE H.2.—TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC CONSTITUENTS AND REGULATORY LEVELS
EPA HW No.'
D004
D005
0018
DOOS
D019
D020
D021
D022
0007
D023
0024
D025
D026
D016
D027
D028 '
C029
0030
D012
D031
D032
D033
D034
DQ08
D013
0009
0014
D035
D036
D037
0038
0010
D011
O039
D015
D040
D041
D042
0017
D043
Constituent (mg/L)
Barium...,. .....^........».«»«.n...............««...n.,^ .^.L^-I^M....!
BflflZfln^ .....„.»„ „ , « t.^lUl lJt»i ,....»,. ....,.....•.!..
Cafjmiyffi ..»„ ...,..„»,..„.....,..,»..,,«,................. JJ(J, ,. ., .....«L...«-».»«IU . i LJ
Carbon tettacnioride ..«.«.„«».«*»»».»»«.»» «,...„«««.-«......«.„_»«..«...«..««...
CftlOfdafle .-T1TT.T.M.r.oT.-r-OT.rT.,.r..Tt1.1.n — rTrT — m- ™«.«».««.,»««.»™«™.,«.»«™..
CfrtOTOb^Wlfl 1.. ! .
Chloroform .. . ... . I.... . ..... .... « .. * ... ...... 1.
o-Cr&sol .»»„..,....... ».M. ,.„«....,.,..,..,......„-...... .. ............ ™. ....... ». ...™........™.n..........1
p-Cresol «.M»»M».»H..M»..»..««»»H» M«....«,«..«....««.........«....«.«..w«.-^-«.
GrflSOl . I .11... I .. .... ...... .... ...1 .. .!.. ...... ...,.......,......,...-..,.....,.,.„...
2 4-D _ _. ™
1 4-DicWofobenzene .... .. . .. , ..... . ... . .» .......
1 ,2-Dichloroetnane .......... ....»« „..,..,....„„...,.
1 1 -Dichtoroetnyline .... ...... «—.«-.«. „..«..,« ... .......
?t4-pinitfOtQ!U£f)H... ,,.T.,,,, .„..„„.,.„.,....»,....,.,..„..„»....»...,..„.„.......,......-
Endrin.,,, _ ,...» ..,__ » .u m* ,,,nin i
Heptacfilor (and its hydroxide) ...... ............ ....„»......*.._....,.. n .L mu i JLL
Hoxachforobflnzftne ,,,.,..,..,„..,.,,.,...„ <>»,
HftwHcWoro*! 3-^Hitacifflnfl .. ............i................. . ..,,. ...n. •.... u.
HftKacMorowttiana ,.-„ ...... ......^....M......®^. -.<»!.. ..«™.. ..*OI,L...,».,I,,,I,
1 aart ,. -,„,„„-„„ „„,„.,„.,,,,„ .,„. ,., .„.„•,,...
Lirwlarwf . ,, ... , .. ... ,.,. ,„... ,,. ..„ . ----- -nin.Liii ji IIIU.L uii^
M^fn^jry,,,. ,„„,.,„,„...,.,„..„,„,,„,,,.,„„„,„„„.,„.„,„„.„„....„.,..,.,_„,„.„,„..„„.,„„,.„,
Metrto?0fifl „,„.. _«.„.««.„„«,..„,... ™,« , u , „, «
TriChlOTO«thyieRe',^,r1r-,-,r»r,r..,..Tn.,1r., ,....r. .........I...,,.,.....,.... .,..« ... . ... ....
2,4,5-TricftlorcphenoI ._ ,„_., „_.._ „ „_._„,.„.„„.„„.
2,4,8-Trichlofopftenol , ._ .„_. ..._ „„ .,„„„„_.«„
2,4,5-TP (55ih/e») , , .... ,„„„„„,„„„„ ,„„ ,„ , L
Vinyl dllorida _._ , ....„,„ ..„„..,._.„„....,„.„. -„„ ,„
CAS NO.1
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
71-43-2
7440-43-9
58-23-5
57-74-9
108-90-7
67-66-3
7440-47-3
95_4a_7
108-39-4
10B-44-5
94-75-7
106-45-7
107-06-2
75-35-4
121-14-2
72-20-S
76-44-8
118-74-1
87-68-3
67-72-1
7439-92-1
58-B9-9
7439-97-6
72-43-5
78-93-3
98-9S-3
87-88-5
110-86-1
7782-49 2
7440-22-4
127-18-4
8001-35-2
79_01_6
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
75-01-4
Chronic toxicity reference
teve*(mg/U
0.05
1.0
0.005
0.01
0.005
0.0003
I
0.06
005
2
2
2
2
01
0.075
0.005
0,007
00005
0.0002
0.00008
0.0002
0.005
0.03
0.05
0.004
0.002
01
2
002
1
004
0.01
o.os
0.007
0.005
0.005
4
0.02
0.01
0.002
Regulatory
level (mg/L)
5.0
1000
o.s
1.0
0.5
0,03
100.0
6.0
50
* 200.0
< 200.0
"200.0
«2000
10.0
7.5
0.5
0.7
'0.13
0.02
0.008
S0.13
0.5
3.0
5.0
0.4
0.2
10.0
200.0
2.0
100.0
"5.0
1.0
5.0
0.7
0.5
0.5
400,0
ZO
1.0
0.2
> Hazardous waste number.
1 Chemical abstracts service number.
4 If o, nv, and p-cresol concentrations cannot be differentiated, the total cresol (D026) concentration is used
latorv level.
regulatory level for total cresol is 200 mg/l.
The regulatory levels reflect
modifications to some chronic toxicity
reference levels since the original
proposal. EPA has revised some of the
Maximum Contaminant Levels, Risk-
Specific Doses, and Reference Doses to
reflect new data and better methods. In
response to comments received, EPA
has decided not to apportion reference
doses of noncarcinogens to account for
multiple routes of exposure, as was
originally proposed (51 FR 21648). See
section III.C for further discussion of
comments on apportionment and the
Agency's reasons for not including
apportionment of reference doses in the
final rule. Today's rule also promulgates
the TCLP to replace the EP. The TCLP
represents an improvement over the EP
in that it more accurately addresses
leaching potential for use in evaluating
wastes containing organic constituents,
and also corrects several minor
technical deficiencies in the original EP.
The version of the TCLP promulgated
today reflects additional Improvements
and modifications made to the TCLP
since the original proposal. The TCLP
promulgated today will also replace the
earlier version of the TCLP promulgated
as part of the land disposal restrictions
program.
Today's rule incorporates a schedule
for compliance that classifies the
universe of potentially affected TC
waste handlers into two groups: (1) All
generators of greater than 100 kg/month
and less than 1,000 kg/month of
hazardous waste (small-quantity
generators) must come into compliance
with the subtitle C requirements for
management of their TC waste within 1
year; and (2) all generators of 1,000 kg/
month or more of hazardous waste are
required to comply with all subtitle C
requirements for TC wastes within 6
months. The phased schedule for
compliance is further discussed in
section V.
Wastes identified as hazardous under
the Toxicity Characteristic will also
become hazardous substances under
section 101(14) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and* Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended. Today's rule
amends the list of reportable quantities
(RQs) in 40 CFR part 302 by adding
appropriate values for each of the new
25 TC toxicants. All of the newly-
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11805
designated TC toxicants are already
listed as CESCLA hazardous
substances. The RQs being promulgated
are the same as those that already apply
to all materials containing these
hazardous substances.
Today's rule defers applicability of
the TC to one type of waste and
exempts another. First, the Agency is
deferring the applicability of the TC to
petroleum-contaminated media and
debris at sites subject to the RCRA
Underground Storage Tank (UST)
cleanup regulations undsr part 280, (See
section III.I.6.) Second, EPA has decided
to exempt from today's rule certain
polyrbiorinatad biphenyl (PCBJ wastes
, that are fuliy regulated under the Toxic
Substances and Control Act (TSCA) and
would be identified as hazardous
because of today's rale (See section
IIIJ.7.).
In portions of the existing codified
waste regulation of title 40, chapter I,
parts 261 through 283, the EPIC is
named. Today's action of promulgating
the TC necessitates amendment of these
references to the EPTC. This amendment
which replaces references to the EPTC
with the words "Toxicity
Characteristic" applies to ths following
sections of 40 CFR: 261.4(b)(6](i) not
(A){B)(C): 261.4(b)(9), 264.301{e)(l).
265.221fd)(l) and 265.273{a).
In §§ 264.301(e)(l) and 265.221(d)(l), in
addition to amending reference to. the
EPTC, the universe of constituents
remains the same as the EPTC. To
accomplish this, the constituents DOGi—
D017, the EPTC constituents, are
specifically named as those constituents
which would not render the waste
hazardous by the TC,
As discussed below, the Agency will
continue to refine the TC in order to
provide greater accuracy and
comprehensiveness in identifying
hazardous waste based on the waste's
toxic constituents. However, the Agency
believes that today's rule fulfills the
statutory mandates under sections
SOOlfg] and 3001 (h). '
III. Response to Major Comments and
Analysis of Issues
The Agency received many comments
on the June 13,1986 proposed rule and in
response to subsequent notices. The
Agency has carefully considered all
comments in the preparation of this final
rule. To facilitate the evaluation and
response to comments, the Agency
grouped the comments into ten
categories. The categories are as
follows:
A. General Approach
B. Constituents of Concern
C. Chronic Toxicity Reference Levels
D. Use of Generic DAFs
E, Application of a Subsurface Fate and
Transport Model
F.TheTCLP
G, Testing and Recordkeeping
Requirements
H. Applicability to Wastes Managed in
Surface Impoundments
1. Relationship to Other RCRA
Regulations
J. Relationship to Other Regulatory
Authorities
In this preamble, the Agency provides
summaries of and responses to major
comments. Readers are invited to refer
to background documents (Refs. 1, 2, 3,
and 4) for complete summaries and
responses to all comments.
A. General Approach
1. Expanded Uss of Hazardous Waste
Characteristics.
The TC revisions specified in today's
rule refine and expand the EPTC. Most
commenters stated that increased
reliance on .hazardous waste
characteristics is a reasonable approach
to defining hazardous waste. Some
commenters stated a preference for the
hazardous waste characteristic
mechanism over the alternative listing
mechanism for identifying hazardous
wastes. They noted that the
characteristics are designed to measure
directly the risks that subtitle C
regulations ara meant to control.
Another advantage mentioned by
commenters is that hazardous waste
characteristics apply uniformly to all
wastes, regardless of source.
A few commenters, however, objected
to the expanded use of hazardous waste
characteristics. Some of these
commenters questioned the Agency's
authority to develop the TC. One
commenter asserted that RCRA section
3001(h] does not authorize EPA to take
the action of adding the proposed
organic constituents to the list of TC
constituents. Another argued that the
legislative history of HSWA indicates
that changes in the leaching procedure
should address the leaching of toxic
metals only. This commenter claimed
that the Agency had exceeded its
statutory mandate by modifying the TC
to include organics.
EPA strongly disagrees with those
commenters who argued that the
Agency lacks authority to expand the
TC. The Agency's approach to
identifying hazardous wastes through a
self-implementing characteristics
procedure was well established in 1984,
when Congress passed HSWA. HSWA
not only confirmed the validity of EPA's
approach to identifying hazardous
wastes by characteristics, but also
directed the Agency to expand the scope
of the TC. RCRA section 3001 (h) states
"* * * the Administrator shail
promulgate regulations under this
section identifying additional
characteristics of hazardous waste.
including measures or indicators of
toxicity." Thus, the plain language of the
statute authorises EPA to broaden the
TC.
Other commenters acknowledged
EPA's authority to expand the TC, but
offered policy arguments against the use
of this mechanism for identifying
hazardous wastes. Most commentars
who argued against expanded use of
characteristics favored use of the listing
mechanism instead of an expanded TC.
Scrr.e of these commenters nolsd that
listings do not present the same
technical problems of precision and
accuracy as the characteristics. Others
stated that listings are more easily
enforced since they are not dependant
upon use of a leaching procedure.
Finally, some commenters claimed that
by expanding the toxicity characteristic
instead of listing additional wastes, EPA
is unfairly shifting the burden for
identifying hazardous wastes onto the
shoulders of the regulated community.
The Agency maintains that the
expanded use of characteristics, in
addition to being consistent with the
statutory mandate, offers advantages
over listing for identifying broad
categories of clearly hazardous waste.
Establishing a characteristic allows the
Agency to identify through one rule
those wastes which are reasonably
certain to pose a threat to human health
and the environment by virtue of an
inherent characteristic without
expending vast Federal resources to
study, characterize, and list numerous
individual wastestreams. Since the
Agency sets regulatory levels high
enough to assure that wastes exhibiting
the'characteristic are hazardous, the
characteristic approach does not bring
wastes into the subtitle C system which
do not present a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health and
the environment By contrast, a listing.
since it applies to all wastes that meet a
listing description, may capture some
individual wastestreams that do not
actually pose a threat to human health
and the environment. Generators may
petition for delisting if this occurs;
however, the deliating process can be
burdensome to the petitioner and to
EPA.
The Agency believes that the
characteristic approach has the
following advantages. First, it is less
burdensome for *he regulated
community because the characteristic
approach limits over-inclusiveness.
-------
11806 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Second, reducing the potential of
including wastes that do not, in fact,
present a threat conserves hazardous
waste management capacity and
Agency administrative and enforcement
resources for waste management
activities that warrant priority attention.
Finally, if necessary, a characteristic
can be adapted quickly to possible
future changes in science or technology.
such as lower quantitation limits.
EPA acknowledges that there are also
some advantages in using the listing
mechanism for identifying hazardous
wastes, particularly with respect to ease
of implementation; the Agency thus will
retain the listing approach as an
alternative mechanism for identifying
hazardous wastes. The Agency
continues to believe that both the
characteristic and listing approaches are
valid and useful tools in identifying
hazardous wastes that are subject to
subtitle C regulation.
Finally, the Agency disagrees with
commenters who contend that
characteristics impose an unfair burden
on the regulated community. Since the
establishment of the hazardous waste
identification framework in 1980, EPA
has recognized that the primary
responsibility for determining whether
wastes exhibit hazardous waste
characteristics rests with generators. In
accordance with this, one of two criteria
for establishing new characteristics is
that they must be measurable by
standardized and available testing
protocols or reasonably detected by
generators through their knowledge of
the waste (see 40 CFR 261.10). Further,
the regulations do not require testing; a
generator may apply knowledge of the
waste to determine if it is hazardous (40
CFR 262.11).
2. Mismanagement Scenario
Hazardous waste characteristics are
designed to identify solid wastes that
pose a threat to human health and the
environment when improperly managed
(RCRA section 1004(5}). Therefore, in
developing the TC, EPA's first task was
to determine how wastes might
plausibly be mismanaged. The
mismanagement scenario that both was
reasonably realistic and presented the
greatest environmental risks could then
be chosen as the reasonable worst-case
scenario and used as the basis for the
revised characteristic. Specifically, the
characteristic would be designed to
identify any wastes from which toxic
constituents would be likely to pose a
threat to human health and the
environment when managed in
accordance with the selected scenario.
In this way, EPA ensured that wastes
would be adequately controlled.
regardless of the manner in which they
are actually managed.
In the June 13,1986 proposal, EPA
considered several alternative
mismanagement scenarios for use in the
development of the TC rule, including
segregated management, co-disposal
with municipal solid waste (the
mismanagement scenario evaluated in
the existing Toxicity Characteristic), co-
disposal with industrial waste in a
landfill subject to subtitle O
requirements, and co-disposal with
industrial waste in a landfill subject to
subtitle C requirements that suffers
some form of containment-system
failure. The Agency rejected the subtitle
C scenario as unrealistic because it is
unlikely that waste generators would
dispose of their wastes in the more
expensive subtitle C landfills unless
required to do so. Thus, it would not be
a realistic scenario.
EPA determined that each of the
remaining options was a plausible
mismanagement scenario since most
wastes are or may be managed in these
types of land disposal facilities. The
Agency rejected the segregated
management or "monofill" scenario on
the grounds that it did not represent a
realistic worst-case practice. Facilities
dedicated to the management of only
one waste or the wastes of only one
generator (i.e., a "monofill") are likely to
pose less of a hazard than general
municipal or industrial landfills because
the design and operation problems for a
monofill are simpler and the operators
generally have considerably more
information on the properties of the
wastes that are managed. Also,
industrial monofills generally do not
generate organic acids that result in an
aggressive leaching medium, as is the
case for municipal landfills. Thus,
industrial monofills pose less of a
potential hazard than municipal solid
waste (MSW) landfills. EPA also
rejected the general (as opposed to
"monofilT'j industrial landfill scsnario
on similar grounds (i.e., the generated
leaching medium may not, in some
cases, be as aggressive as in a municipal
landfill). The Agency therefore retained
the municipal landfill scenario as the
reasonable worst-case mismanagement
scenario for the revised TC.
a. Extent to Which Scenario is
Reasonable. Several commenters
challenged the municipal landfill
scenario, claiming that it is based on an
unreasonable assumption about the way
in which industrial solid wastes are
managed. These commenters claimed
that industrial wastes are rarely
disposed is MSW landfills. If landfilled
at all, these wastes are more likely to be
disposed in industrial landfills. In
addition, industrial wastes are
frequently managed in ways other than
landfill disposal (e.g., incineration,
recycling, treatment on the land, or
treatment in surface impoundments).
Thus, commenters argued, it is
inappropriate to base the TC on the
municipal landfill scenario.
EPA fully recognizes that not all
industrial wastes are managed in MSW
landfills. Nevertheless, the Agency
continues to believe that the MSW
landfill scenario is reasonable because
such landfills have traditionally
accepted unregulated industrial wastes.
It is for this reason that the MSW
landfill scenario was originally
established as the basis for the EPTC
(see 43 FR 33112, May 19,1980).
Although fewer types of industrial
wastes are being disposed in municipal
landfills now as compared to a few
years ago, EPA's information confirms
the continued appropriateness of this
scenario. The "State Subtitle D
Regulations on Solid Waste Landfills"
(Ref. 5), and the "National Survey of
Solid Waste (Municipal] Landfill
Facilities" (Ref. 6) indicate that most
states impose few restrictions, if any, on
the types of nonhazardous wastes
accepted at these facilities; moreover, a
substantial quantity of the wastes
received (typically five to eight percent)
are industrial wastes. Thus. EPA
continues to believe that the municipal
solid waste landfill scenario represents
the most appropriate reasonable worst-
case mismanagement scenario.
Many commenters suggested that EPA
grant exceptions or variances for wastes
that are not co-disposed with MSW. In
this way, the TC would apply only to
those wastes that are actually managed
in accordance with the underlying
mismanagement scenario. The
commenters noted that EPA could
separately develop alternative
characteristics for wastes managed in
other ways to ensure adequate
protection of human health and the
environment.
After careful consideration, EPA has
decided not to adopt this suggestion for
various reasons. Applying the TC only
to wastes actually managed as
suggested in the mismanagement
scenario would involve the creation of a
management-based approach to
identifying hazardous wastes. EPA's
current approach to establishing
characteristics which identify certain
wastes as hazardous is not contingent
upon the way individual wastes are
actually managed. Rather, consistent
with the RCRA Section 1004(5)
definition of hazardous waste, EPA is
g -V
-------
11808 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday, March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
2. The "physical property-based" approach.
which would apply to those wastes having a
certain physical property indicating that they
are likely to be managed in surface
impoundments (e.g., percent solids less than 5
percent); and
3. The "definition-based" approach, which
would apply to those discharged wastewaters
that are subject to regulation under either
section 402 or section 307(b) of the Clean
Water Act
Commenters from various industries
generally supported a separate
mismanagement scenario because they
do not believe that the landfill
mismanagement scenario is appropriate
for aqueous wastes managed in surface
impoundments. Most of these
•commenters requested that EPA adopt
either the management-based approach
or the definition-based approach.
Other commenters, however, opposed
a separate mismanagement scenario for
wastes managed in surface
impoundments. These commenters
contended that the surface
impoundment mismanagement scenario
would not be a reasonable worst-case
scenario, particularly if the scenario
modeled biodegradation. because
significant biodegradation does not
occur in all impoundments. In addition,
the commenters stated that if the
development of a surface impoundment
mismanagement scenario results in two
sets of regulatory levels, requirements
for storage, handling, and transportation
of a waste would be based on the
management practice that the generator
assumes or expects will actually occur.
These commenters were opposed to this
result and noted that wastes may not
always be ultimately disposed in the
manner originally intended by the
generator.
After receiving these comments, the
Agency decided to revisit the issue of
whether or not a separate
mismanagement scenario is necessary
for surface impoundments due to
inappropriately low regulatory levels.
As described in section III.E.2, the
Agency believes that evaluation of the
physical phenomena that affect dilution/
attenuation factors (DAFs) indicates
that the DAFs generated for landfills are
similar, if not greater than, DAFs for
surface impoundments (i.e., the
regulatory levels for surface
impoundments would be equal to or
more stringent than those for landfills).
To confirm this conclusion. EPA then
investigated whether results from
modeling a surface impoundment
scenario would in fact be significantly
different from modeling a landfill
scenario. As described later in this
preamble, for nondegrading
constituents, EPA calculated the 85th
and 90th percentile DAFs for landfills
(which ranged from 134 to 47) and the
85th and 90th percentile DAFs for
surface impoundments (which ranged
from 111 to 51). The surface
impoundment results were obtained by
using the updated model (EPACML) for
the landfill scenario with leachate
generation and environmental
parameters (e.g., well distances, facility
areas) derived from surface
impoundment data.
As a result of this analysis, EPA is
confident that the results from modeling
of the landfill mismanagement scenario
are also appropriate for wastes
managed in surface impoundments (i.e.,
the DAFs are of the same order of
magnitude). The Agency therefore does
not plan to develop a separate surface
impoundment misma-nagement scenario
at this time. Since the modeling results
indicate that the dilution/attenuation
factors for non- and minimally
degrading constituents are all on the
order of 100, the Agency has concluded
that a single value of 100 is an
appropriate choice for use in
establishing the regulatory levels for all
of the constituents addressed in today's
rule. (See section UI.E. of this preamble
for an additional explanation of EPA's
modeling efforts and choice of DAFs.)
3. Targeted Risks
Several commenters argued that, even
if the co-disposal mismanagement
scenario was appropriate, EPA
improperly focused on a few selected
risks from this scenario. Specifically,
they claimed that the Agency restricted
its consideration to human health risks
resulting from ground water
contamination. A number of
commenters stated that the Agency
should consider additional routes of
human exposure, such as air
volatilization, surface runoff, and direct
contact. One commenter questioned
why EPA was not employing the same
multimedia risk and exposure models
that were originally proposed for use in
the land disposal restrictions program
(see 51 FR 1602, January 14,1986).
A few commenters further suggested
that EPA take environmental risks (e.g.,
aquatic toxicity) into account, rather
than concentrating exclusively on
human health risks. They noted that
RCRA section 3001(g), on which the TC
rule is based, directs EPA to make
changes in the EPTC so that it
"accurately predicts the leaching
potential of wastes which pose a threat
to human health and the environment
when mismanaged" (emphasis added).
EPA acknowledges that the
characteristic being promulgated today
focuses on human health risks from
ground water contamination. However,
the Agency does not believe that a
single characteristic is capable of
identifying all wastes that present a
threat to human health and the
environment. The present TC revisions
are only the first step in a long-term
strategy to refine and expand the
hazardous waste identification program.
Future characteristics may address
hazards other than human health risks
resulting from ground water
contamination. EPA continues to
believe, however, that ground water
contamination, as a route of human
exposure, is a priority concern.
4. Accuracy
Several commenters asserted that the
proposed TC revisions failed to fulfill
the statutory mandate to improve the
"accuracy" of the characteristic as a
predictor of the leaching potential of
solid wastes. Specifically, these
commenters argued that, even if EPA
selected the proper mismanagement
scenario, the Agency failed to model the
targeted risks in a reasonable or
appropriate manner. (Many of the
commenters addressing this issue also
focused on the accuracy of individual
elements of the characteristic, such as
the TCLP, the subsurface fate and
transport model, or the chronic toxicity
reference levels. These specific concerns
are considered in sections UI.B through
III.F of today's preamble.)
A number of the commenters on the
issue of accuracy concentrated on the
interrelationship between the various
elements of the TC. These commenters
pointed out that EPA had employed
conservative assumptions at each step
in the development of the revised
characteristic. They argued that even if
these assumptions were reasonable in
isolation, they would not be reasonable
in combination. According to these
commenters. the effect of compounding
multiple conservative assumptions
would be a characteristic that is
unreasonably conservative, thereby
resulting in costly overregulation.
Other commenters maintained the
opposite position and stated that EPA
had employed non-conservative
assumptions for many elements of the
characteristic. These commenters
believe that these assumptions result in
a characteristic that is not conservative
enough and, thus, not sufficiently
protective of human health and the
environment.
The Agency disagrees with
commenters' assertions that the
elements of the TC are either too
conservative or not conservative
enough. The TC, in particular the fate
-------
OSWER DIR. NO, 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11807
identifying \vaste "* * * that may pass
a substantial present or potential hazard
to human health and the environment
when improperly " * * managed"
(emphasis added).
EPA has considered the possibility of
developing management-based
characteristics, i.e., different
characteristics for categories of waste
depending on how they are typically
managed. However, the Agency believes
that such an approach would present a
number of difficulties. For instance, a
management-based approach to
hazardous waste identification could
substantially complicate effective
implementation of the RCRA
regulations. In particular, it is not «
always possible to determine—at the
point of generation, during transport, or
even as a waste enters a treatment,
storage, or disposal facility—how a
solid waste will ultimately be managed.
EPA believes that the most effective and
appropriate approach is to identify
hazardous waste characteristics, not
according to the ways in which
individual wastes are managed, but by
identifying properties of wastes that
would pose a threat to human health
and the environment if improperly
managed. The Agency maintains that
co-disposal with MSW is a
mismanagement scenario that is
reasonably realistic for most industrial
solid wastes.
Another group of commenters
suggested that EPA exempt broad
classes of wastes that, because of their
volume or physical properties, cannot
reasonably be placed in a municipal
landfill. Commenters specifically
mentioned wastewaters, mining wastes,
and municipal waste combustion ash.
They noted that separate characteristics
could be developed for each class of
wastes that is excluded from the TC,
based on the most appropriate
mismanagement scenario for each
individual category of waste.
After careful consideration of these
comments, the Agency agreed that one
category of wastes, waslewaters, might
warrant special consideration based on
the fact that the mismanagement
scenario may not be reasonably
applicable. Thus, EPA published a
Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on May 18,1987 (52 FR
18S83), which asked for comment on the
development of separate regulatory
le\'els for wastewaters. EPA received
considerable information in response to
this notice, and reviewed additional
information on management of
wastewaters in surface impoundments.
After analysis of the waste management
tenhnioues, attanuative mechanisms,
and hydrogeologic processes that govern
constituent transport from surface
impoundments, the Agency concluded
that the DAFs for nondegrading
constituents managed in surface
impoundments were similar to those for
the same constituents managed in
landfills. Thus, for today's rale, the
Agency determined that there is no
technical basis for setting separate
regulatory levels for wastewaters. This
issue is discussed in more detail in
subsection C, and further in sections
III.E (Application of a Subsurface Fate
and Transport Model) and III.H
(Applicability to Wastes Managed in
Surface Impoundments).
The Agency also dees not agree that
the mismanagement scenario is
unreasonable for either non-exerapt
mineral processing wastes or municipal
combustion ash. Although large volume
wastes from the extraction,
bcneficiation.and processing of eras and
minerals are currently exempt from
subtitle C regulation and will not be
affected by the TC rule, small volume
mineral processing wastes which may
be subject to subtitle C regulation (see
54 FR 36592) can plausibly be disposed
in municipal landfills. Municipal waste
combustion ash can also be disposed in
municipal landfills; in fact, the Agency
estimates that only about 30 percent of
municipal waste combustion facilities
utilize ash monofills, and rely
principally on municipal landfills for ash
disposal. Issues related to the regulation
of municipal waste combustion ash are
discussed further in section IIl.i.5.
b. Worst-Case Scenario Selection. A
few commenters agreed with EPA that
the municipal landfill scenario is
reasonable, but they claimed that the
scenario does not represent a
reasonable worst case. Most of these
commenters asserted that co-disposal ia
a subtitle D industrial landfill poses
more of a threat to human health and
the environment than disposal in an
MSW landfill. They pointed out, for
example, that the regulatory standards
for subtitle D industrial waste landfills
are gfinerally no more stringent than
those for municipal landfills. Ths
ccmmentera further claimed that the
leaching media in industrial landfills are
frequently more aggressive than those in
municipal landfills, especially when
acids, bases, and solvents are present
Finally, the commenters noted that
wastes placed in industrial landfills are
not diluted with domestic wastes, as
they are in a municipal landfill. The
commenters concluded that because the
TC proposal was based on a scenario
that was less than worst-case, it would
not adequately protect human health
and the environment.
The Agency believes that the leaching
media in a subtitle D municipal landfill
is typically more aggressive than
leaching media generated in industrial
landfills due to the formation of acids
during decomposition of putrescible
wastes. "State Subtitle D Regulations on
Solid Waste Landfills" (Ref. 5) shows
that putrescible wastes are accepted at
most subtitle D municipal landfills,
while "Summary of Data on Industrial
Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal
Practices" (Ref. 7) shows solvents, acids,
and bases (which can also increase the
aggressiveness of leachate) are
generally not disposed of in subtitle D
industrial landfills. The potential for the
formation of acids from decomposition
of putrescibles in a subtitle D municipal
landfill is greater than the potential of
acids, bases, or solvents being present
in a subtitle D industrial landfill,
therefore supporting the municipal
landfill scenario as a reasonable worst-
case.
EPA acknowledges that, in certain
circumstances, industrial wastes may
pose more of a threat when placed in a
subtitle D industrial landfill than when
placed in a subtitle D municipal landfill.
However, EPA believes that this
situation will only occur in certain
circumstances and thus represents a
worst cose rather than a reasonable
worst case. Should the occurrence of
this situation increase in frequency, the
Agency will reconsider its approach for
regulating these wastes in the future.
c. Exient to Which the
Mismanagement Scenario for Wastes
Managed in Surface Impoundments is
Appropriate, In the May 18,1S87 notice.
the Agency stated that it is considering
developing a separate mismanagement
scenario applicable to wastes that are
managed in unltned surface
impoundments. Developing a surface
impoundment scenario, in addition to
the landfill scenario, would mean that
the TC would have two different sets of
regulatory levels. Waste generators
would first have to determine which
scenario is appropriate and then would
be responsible for evaluating whether
their waste excseded the applicable
regulatory levels.
In the notice, the Agency requested
comments on the appropriate criteria to
be used in determining whether the
characteristic should apply to a
particular waste. The Notice suggested
three possible approaches:
1. The "management-based" approach,
which would apply only to those wastes
actually managed in impoundments;
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
12S09
and transport model used to establish
the dilution/attenuation factors (DAFs),
requires the selection of numerical
values for many parameters. Rather
than selecting values for each parameter
based upon isolated judgments as to
what constitutes a "reasonable worst
case" value, the Agency used the full
range and distribution of values fo«- all
parameters for which such data was
available. By implementing these data
sets through a monte carlo simulation,
the model output (i.e., the frequency
distribution of DAFs) is as realistic as
possible and spans the range of all
possible outcomes rather than
representing only the "best case,"
."reasonable worst-case," etc. That is.
the model output represents all cases,
arrayed according to their frequency of
occurrence, and does not reflect any
qualitative judgement as to what
constitutes a "reasonable worst case" or
any other "case." Accordingly, the
determination as to which DAF value
represents any particular "case" is
solely dependent upon the selection of
the cumulative frequency level. The
Agency's selection of the cumulative
frequency level is discussed in section
llLE.4.d.
EPA does agree with commenters who
recommended that the originally
proposed subsurface fate and transport
model could be revised to more
realistically represent land disposal
settings. Accordingly, EPA has modified
the original model (EPASMOD) and has
collected and incorporated new data
into the model. These modifications and
data are described in greater detail
bslow {section HLE). The reader ia
referred to the Response-to-Coaunents
Background Document for the
Subsurface Fate and Transport Module
(Ref. t), which presents in detail each of
the technical issues raised by public
comments on the model and the
Agency's responses to these issues. EPA
believes that with these changes, the
final TC rule represents a reasonable
approach to the identification of
hazardous wastes,
5. Solvent Override
In the June 13,19fl8 TC proposal, the
Agency discussed the possibility of
incorporating a solvent "override"
criterion into the TC because the
presence of large amounts of solvents in
a waste may result in leacbate from the
waste mobilizing hazardous constituents
from co-disposed nonhazardous waste.
The Agency considered setting
regulatory levels for solvents based on.
; the total concentration of solvent found
, in the TCLP extract.
I Many commenters claimed that
! mobilization of toxicants in municipal
landfills by industrial solvents is
improbable. Commenlers argued that
there are no data to support the
hypothesis that industrial solvents
would alter the solubility of hazardous
constituents in municipal waste. These
coramenters asserted that, at levels
below thair solubility in water, organic
solvents exert very little influence on
the solubility of other organics. Given
the low concentrations of solvent
wastes permitted for land disposal, the
commenters contended that there is
little probability that mobilization will
occur. Commenters emphasized that, in
general, subtitle D landfills do not
accept organic solvents or liquids. Most
industrial solvents already are listed
hazardous wastes under 40 CFR 261.32
and 281.33 and will be managed in
subtitle C hazardous waste fatalities.
Also, commenters contended that the
contribution that industrial solvents will
have on the solvent power of a solid-
waste-iandfili leachate is small
compared to the contribution from
solvents in household and small
quantity generator waste.
Other commenters, however,
expressed their support for EPA's
proposal to characterize a waste by its
ability to leach hazardous constituents
from co-disposed wastes. They urged
that a method be devised to monitor the
influence that solvents have on the
solubility of other waste constituents.
One commenter suggested that the TCLP
leachate could be tested for its ability to
dissolve hazardous waste.
After careful consideration of the
comments on this issue, EPA has
decided not to include a solvent
override in today's revision of the TC,
EPA is not convinced by commenters
who stated conclusively that
mobilization of toxicants in municipal
landfills by industrial solvents is
improbable. EPA also is not convinced
that the solvent contribution of
industrial wastes at municipal landfills
is small compared to that of household
waste and small quantity generator
waste. Moreover, the comparison to
household waste and small quantity
generator waste is not relevant to the
issue of whether industrial wastes
should be regulated based on solvent
properties. However, the Agency does
agree that there is insufficient data
concerning the degree to which
industrial solvents would mobilize other
hazardous constituents and the amount
of solvent wastes that are actually land
disposed. Given this lack of data, a
solvent override has not been included
in today's rale. However, an override
may be considered in future rulemakings
if information becomes available that
indicates a characteristic based on
solvent properties is warranted.
One commenter claimed that RCRA
does not authorize the imposition of
restrictions based on toxicity simply
because a substance can mobilize othor
constituents. The commsnier asserted
that the authority may reside elsdwiwrw
in RCRA, but in that case, a separate
rulemaking, net involving the TC, should
take place.
EPA does not agree; RCRA cleaiiy
authorizes EPA to regulate a waste as
hazardous on the basis of ils ability to
mobilize other constituents. Further,
regulating a waste as hazardous based
on its ability to mobilize other
constituents couid be appropriately
achieved through the characteristic
mechanism. A solid waste is defined as
hazardous if its "physical" or
"chemical" characteristics "may pose a
substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment
when improperly treated, stored,
transported, disposed of, or otherwise
managed" {RCRA section 1004(5)). The
capacity to mobilize toxic constituents
falls within the definition of a physical
or chemical characteristic of a waste
which may pose a substantial
environmental or health hazard. Thus,
EPA may incorporate this approach into
its characteristic waste identification
scheme in the future.
Related to the issue of solubilization,
another commenter asserted that if a
chemical's capacity for mobilization is
considered, treatment implemented to
prevent mobilization (e.g., stabilization,
containment, and chemical conversion)
should be given equal consideration.
The TCLP does consider
immobilization in the context of the co-
disposal mismanagement scenario. The
TCLP was developed to simulate
leaching in a municipal landfill,
addressing the degree of mobility (or,
conversely, immobility) of both organic
and inorganic compounds. Wastes thai
have been treated to prevent
mobilization are less likely to leach
toxic constituents. Such wastes may
cease to exhibit the TC and would
therefore no longer be considered
hazardous wastes. Thus, the TCLP
already accounts for immobilization of
toxic constituents in a waste. However,
if wastes that have been treated to
prevent mobilization fail the TC EPA
believes that the wastes in question
should be managed as hazardous
wastes.
B. Constituents of Concern
As noted above, the proposed TC rule
identified 52 constituents that, if present
a! specified levels in a waste extract.
-------
11810 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
would render the waste "hazardous"
under RCRA subtitle C. Fourteen of the
constituents were already encompassed
by the existing EPTC. The selection of
the remaining 38 constituents was based
on the availability of adequate and
verified data necessary for establishing
(1) a chronic toxicity reference level and
(2) a constituent-specific DAF, Thus, the
Agency focused on those constituents
for which there existed a promulgated or
proposed Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL), a Reference Dose {RfD), or a
Risk-Specific Dose [RSD], and for which
there were sufficient data on
environmental fate and transport
processes to support modeling of a
constituent-specific DAF. The June 13,
1986 proposal also announced EPA's
intention to expand the list of TC
constituents as additional data became
available.
1. Final List of Constituents
The Agency is finalizing the
regulatory levels for 25 of the proposed
organic constituents (see Table B-l) that
do not readily hydrolyze and for which a
steady-state subsurface fate and
transport model is appropriate. EPA
may promulgate or repropose (as
warranted) regulatory levels for the
other organic constituents at a future
date.
TABLE B-1.—LJST OF ORGANIC CONSTITU-
ENTS INCLUDED IN THE EXPANDED TC
RULE
Carbon tetrachlonda..
(Montana „..
Chtorabeozane
m-Creso) ;.._—~.
o-CresoI —,
p-Crastrf
1,4-Ojchtorobeftzone..
1,2-Qiehlofoetfarw—
1,1-Dichloroethylene..
2,4-Dinitfotoluene .„...
Heptachlor (and its
hydrcwKJej.
,3-
butadiene
— He>cacrtofob«f!zena
— Hexachlofoettana
.... Methyl ettiyi ketone
— Nrtrobenzerte
— Pentacfiksrophenol
_.._ Pyridine
— Tetraehioroetnytena
...... Tncfitofoethyleoe
— 2,4,5-Trichlofophenol
— 2,4,6-Trichlo«sphenol
„„,. Vinyl eWorld*
Constituents with regulatory levels
established under the EPTC will
continue to be regulated at previously
established levels, but will require
application of the new TCLP instead of
theEP.
2. Toxicants Versus Indicator
Parameters
A few commenters recommended that
EPA abandon its current focus on
individual toxicants and rely instead on
such indicator parameters as total
organic carbon or total organic
halogens. The commenters argued that
such an approach ivould broaden the
effective scope of the rule and reduce .
the burdens associated with making
hazardous waste determinations.
The Agency does not believe it would
be-appropriate to use indicators as part
of the TC. Indicators generally are used
as screening levels or to set priorities for
further investigations. They do not
achieve sufficient specificity for the
regulatory purposes of the TC. For
instance, the two indicators suggested
by the commenters do not in any way
reflect differences in toxicities among
organic constituents. Consequently, use
of these indicators could lead to both
nonhazardous wastes registering as
hazardous and wastes that are clearly
hazardous registering as nonhazardous.
3. Method for Selecting Constituents
Several commenters questioned the
manner in which EPA selected toxicants
for inclusion in the TC proposal. Some
of these commenters charged that the
Agency's choice of toxicants was
entirely arbitrary. Others claimed that
EPA had based its selections solely on
the availability of toxicologic and
hydrogeologic data, without considering
the magnitude of the hazards presented
by the constituents.
The commenters, in general,
encouraged EPA to.develop specific
procedures and criteria for deciding
which constituents should be included
in the TC, A few commenters offered
particular suggestions for the types of
factors that might be considered in
evaluating toxicants. The recommended
factors included (1) the mobility and
persistence of the constituents, (2) the
frequency with which particular
constituents have been found in
industrial wastes or leachates from such
wastes, and (3) the extent to which
various constituents have been detected
in ground water supplies in
concentrations capable of posing a
threat to human health and the '
environment.
EPA believes that its method for
selecting TC constituents is both
rational and consistent with the
statutory mandate. While selection of
constituents in today's rule is in part
based on available lexicological data, it
should be noted that both the fate and
transport of constituents and the
magnitude of hazards posed were also
given consideration. The toxicants for
which regulatory levels are being
promulgated today are persistent and
can represent a substantial threat to
human health and the environment.
Because of the lack of reliable data on
the frequency with which certain toxic
pollutants are found in leachates or
ground water, an approach relying on
such information would not provide an
accurate and valid basis for selecting
constituents. Further, where data do
exist concerning the frequency at which
certain constituents are found in the
environment, accompanying information
about risk posed in the environment is
often absent.
Although the Agency proposed levels
only for toxicants for which it has
adequate and verified data, generally
these data are available because these
toxicants do represent a substantial
threat to human health and the
environment. The Agency will consider
adding constituents as additional
toxicological data and other supporting
data become available: in making such
decisions, the Agency will consider the
factors identified by the commenters.
Until such data are available, there is no
technical basis to determine at what
level a waste is hazardous under the TC.
A number of commenters argued that
EPA was needlessly "cluttering" the
characteristic with low-priority
constituents that are either not being
produced in the United States or are
primarily found in wastes that are
already subject to regulation.
The Agency does not agree that a
substance no longer manufactured in the
U.S, will not pose a threat from waste
disposal. Some such substances may be
contained in products imported into the
U.S. Also, wastes generated during
cleanup at Superfund sites or RCRA
corrective action sites may exhibit the
TC due to the presence of these
constituents in wastes disposed at some
time in the past Further, the
constituents could be manufactured
again in the future.
Several of the toxicants listed in
today's rule also appear among the list
of discarded commercial chemical
products, off-specification products, and
container and spill residues, as listed in
40 CFR 261.33. A group of commenters
argued that it would be redundant to
establish regulatory levels for these
toxicants because they are already
regulated as listed hazardous wastes.
Similarly, several commenters argued
that some other listed wastes are
regulated as hazardous wastes primarily
because they contain constituents that
will be regulated under the new TC.
EPA does not agree that setting levels
for the selected toxicants would be
redundant While it is true that many of
the newly designated TC constituents
are constituents in wastes that are
specifically listed as RCRA hazardous
wastes, the current listings do not cover
all of the wastestreams that may contain
the TC constituents. For example, the
commercial chemical product listings in
40 CFR 261.33 primarily encompass
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, Mo. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11811
unused products and off-specification
variants of products that are generically
identified using the name of a single
toxic constituent; however, the listings
would not cover other wastestreams
containing the same constituent. The
listings in 40 CFR 261.32 specify only a
limited number of wastesireams that
contain TC constituents. As another
example, the spent solvent listings in 40
CFR 281.31 cover only those solvents
that are used for their "solvent"
properties (i.e., to solubilize or mobilize
other constituents). The current listings
do not encompass process wastes where
solvent constituents are used as
reactants or ingredients in the
formulation of commercial chemical
products. The Agency has previously
stated that it is expanding the TC to
bring these wastestreams into the
hazaidous waste management system
(see 50 FR 5331", December 31,1985).
Thus, the Agency is appropriately
promulgating TC regulatory levels for
some constituents that have been used
as the basis for listings.
One commenter argued that EPA's
approach in selecting TC constituents
was too restrictive, ensuring that many
toxic constituents may nevsr be
regulated. The commenter emphasized
that reliance on MCLs, RfDs, and RSDs
does not provide a comprehensive list of
constituents for which reliable
toxicological data exist. In addition, the
commenter noted that reliance on
h-iman health data does not necessarily
address hazards to the environment.
EPA disagrees with the commenter's
first point. Reliance on MCLs, RfDs, and
RSDs uses the most sound toxicologic
data base available to the Agency. At
present, there are more than 365
constituents with verified toxicity levels
available for EPA use. In regard to the'
second point, the Agency recognizes
that factors other than human health
effects are also important to the overall
protection of the environment, but
points out that the purpose of this
characteristic is to identify wastes that
pose hazards to human health via a
ground water contamination route. In
regard to the other factors, the Agency is
supporting a research effort focusing on
the determination of action levels for
ecological effects and evaluating
appropriate exposure assessment tools.
When sufficient information concerning
these ecological risks is available, the
Agency will compare the ecological-risk-
based levels to the TC regulatory levels
to determine whether further revisions
to these levels, based on ecological risk,
are necessary.
4. Specific Organic Constituents
Many commenters expressed concern
over several of the specific organic
constituents that EPA proposed to
include In the TC. The comments
focusing on specific toxicants are
discussed below.
a. Vinyl Chloride. A few commenters
objected to the inclusion of vinyl
'chloride in the TC. They suggested that
the constituent is already adequately
regulated under the Clean Air Act, the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic
Substances Control Act, and the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (for food
contact applications).
The commentsrs are correct in stating
that vinyl chloride and polyvtnyl
chloride are already regulated under
other environmental health and safety
statutes. However, none of these other
regulatory authorities addrsss the
specific problem of ensuring against
releases of vinyl chloride caused by the
improper management of solid wastes
containing this constituent. Most
importantly, none of the authorities
directly protect ground water supplies
from vinyl chloride contamination.
Because vinyl chloride is known to be
toxic to humans and has been detected
in ground water supplies, EPA believes
that regulating the constituent under
RCRA will add significantly to the
protection of human health and the
environment. An analysis completed as
part of the Regulatory Impact Analysis
(Ref. 8) of this regulation indicates that
large quantities of wastes currently not
regulated as hazardous contain
concentrations of vinyl chloride above
the regulatory levels. Therefore, the
Agency believes that RCRA regulation
under the TC is an important expansion
of the overall regulatory coverage of this
constituent which poses a threat to
human health and the environment.
b. Bis(Z-chlorosihyl) Ether, One
commenter questioned whether
incorporating bis{2-chloroethyl) ether
into the TC is appropriate, since only an
extremely limited quantity of the
constituent could potentially be released
into the environment. The commenter
noted that the constituent is used almost
exclusively as an intermediate in the
production of ionene polymers.
Moreover, it is handled primarily by a
single facility, which either recycles the
material or destroys it by
biodegradation prior to discharge under
a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
The Agency is not promulgating
standards for bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
today. As discussed in section III.E.2,a.7,
bis(2-ehloroethyl ether) is expected to
hydrolyze significantly during transport.
EPA does not have sufficient data to
address the formation and toxicity of
hydrolysis products. Thus, the Agency
expects to address appropriate
regulatory action for this constituent,
along with the other hydrolyzing
constituents, in a future Federal Register
notice.
c. Toxaphene. One commenter
questioned the need to include
toxaphene in the list of TC analytes. The
commenter argued .that toxaphene has
not been produced in the United States
for several years and that generators
should not be required to test their
wastes for "phantom" constituents that
are unlikely to be present.
EPA recognizes that toxaphene is no
longer produced domestically. However,
because previously generated toxaphene
wastes are still being managed in
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities there is still a potential threat
to human health and the environment
from improper management of wastes
containing this constituent. Thus, wastes
containing toxaphene above the
regulatory level should be managed as
hazardous wastes.
Moreover, toxaphene has been
regulated as an EP constituent since
1980 and today's rule retains the existing
regulatory level. Thus, today's rule does
not alter any regulatory requirements
with respect to toxaphene. The Agency
does not believe that maintaining
toxaphene as a TC constituent is
unnecessarily burdensome to the
regulated community. The final TC rule
does not require solid waste generators
to test their wastes. Instead, generators
may continue to determine whether their
wastes exhibit the hazardous waste
characteristics by relying on their
knowledge of the materials and
processes that they employ (see 40 CFR
262.11(c)(2)). Accordingly, generators
who have reason to believe that their
wastes contain no toxaphene are not
specifically required to test for that
constituent.
d. Phenol. One commenter urged EPA
to delete phenol from the list of TC
constituents of concern because phenol
biodegrades under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions.
The Agency is not including phenol in
today's rule because the steady-state
assumption used in the model to
calculate DAFs in this final rule may not
be appropriate for phenol. The Agency
will promulgate a TC regulatory level for
phenol at a later date.
The issue of biodegradation is
discussed in section III.E.2.a.9 as it
pertains to phenol and other
constituents.
-------
11812 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday. March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
e. PentachlorophenoL The Agency is
considering revisions to the regulatory
level for pentachlorophenol (PGP)
because new health data indicate that
PCP is more toxic than originally
assumed. Two studies of different
grades of PCP material were conducted
by the National Toxicology Program,
and the new data indicate that PCP is
carcinogenic in male and female mice
under the conditions of the bioassay.
These studies were used to support the
proposal to list additional wastes from
the wood preserving industry (53 FR
53282, December 30,1988),
The Agency is today .finalizing the
higher regulatory level for PCP although
the Agency expects that the regulatory .
level will decrease in the future. EPA
has determined that it is more prudent
to effect control at a higher level during
the period necessary to take comment
on the appropriateness of modifying the
TC level.
5, Specific Inorganic Constituents
As noted earlier, EPA did not propose
to add any new inorganic TC
constituents in the June 13,1988
proposal. Nevertheless, the Agency
received a large number of comments
addressing the eight metallic species
that were already covered by the EPTC.
The Agency also received many
comments on the possibility of
proposing TC regulatory levels for nickel
and thallium (mentioned in the June 13
proposal). The principal comments are
discussed below.
a. Silver. A number of commenters
urged EPA to delete silver from the list
of TC constituents of concern. They
pointed out that a variety of studies
have demonstrated that the chief effect
of silver on humans is argyria, a blue-
gray discoloration of the skin and
internal organs. The commenters also
stated that argyria is generally
considered a cosmetic effect, rather than
a health effect, because it does not
impair the functioning of the body,
While the commenters acknowledged
that free silver ions may be toxic to
aquatic life, they claimed that such ions
are rarely discharged into the
environment. Moreover, they argued
that even if such ions were discharged,
they would quickly be converted into
insoluble salts, such as chlorides,
sulfides. and phosphates. Finally, the
commenters asserted that deleting silver
from the TC list would be consistent
with current EPA policy. They pointed
out that the Agency has not proposed a
Recommended Maximum Contaminant
Level (RMCL) for silver in drinking
water, on the grounds that silver does
not cause adverse health effects.
EPA acknowledges that an RMCL
(now referred to as a Maximum
Contaminant Level Goal, or MCLG) has
not been proposed for silver because the
only known adverse effect from
exposure to silver is argyria. However,
the Agency has specifically requested
comments on whether it is appropriate
to consider argyria a cosmetic effect as
opposed to a health effect (see 50 FR
40979, November 13,1985). EPA believes
it would be inappropriate to remove
silver from the list of TC constituents
until this issue is resolved. If EPA
determines, within the scope of the Safe
Drinking Water Act rulemaking, that
silver does not pose a threat to human
health and the environment, the Agency
will consider proposing the deletion of
silver from the list of TC constituents.
b. Chromium, Several commenters
objected to the inclusion of total
chromium as a TC constituent of
concern. They argued that only
hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) has been
demonstrated to pose a threat to human
health and the environment. Although
they acknowledged that trivalent
chromium (Cr(IIIJ) can be oxidized to
hexavalent chromium under certain
conditions, they contend that such
conversion is unlikely to occur in ground
water environments. The commenters,
in fact, claimed that iron-bearing soils
are likely to effect the opposite
transformation, from CrfVTj to Cr(III).
Finally, they stated that even if the
oxidation reaction did occur, the
resulting Cr(VI) concentrations would
be so low as not to present a significant
danger to human health and the
environment.
EPA continues to believe that total
chromium concentrations should be
considered in determining whether solid
wastes qualify as characteristic
hazardous wastes. The Agency has long
been aware of the fact that trivalent
chromium is less toxic than hexavalent
chromium. Nevertheless, the Agency
also has been concerned that trivalent
chromium could be converted to the
hexavalent form under certain plausible
mismanagement conditions. It is for this
reason as well as the fact that the
NIPDWS was developed for total
chromium that the regulatory level for
chromium in the EPTC was originally
established on the basis of total
chromium concentrations (see 45 FR
33084, May 19,1980).
The Agsncy later proposed to amend
the EPTC so that it would apply to
hexavalent chromium rather than total
chromium (45 FR 72029, October 30,
1980; see also 48 FR 22170, May 17,
1983). This proposal was based on the
fact that trivalent chromium has
significantly lower migratory potential
than hexavalent chromium and is less
mobile if it does migrate from a waste
matrix. At that time, the Agency also
believed that there was little likelihood
that Cr(III) could oxidize to Cr(VI) under
most plausible types of improper waste
management
More recent evidence, however,
suggests that the conversion from
trivalent to hexavalent chromium may
occur in a number of environmental
situations (see 51 FR 26420, July 23,1986,
fn. 6). For example, Cr(III) has been
found to oxidize readily to Cr(VI) under
conditions found in many field soils.
This reaction is catalyzed by manganese
dioxide, which is commonly present in
both soils and sediments. Moreover, it
has been shown that water treatment
involving chlorination will effectively
transform Cr(III) to Cr(VI). The normal
presence of residual oxidizing capacity
in treated water is capable of
maintaining dissolved chromium in the
higher valence state (50 FR 46966,
November 13,1985). Thus, if trivalent
chromium is present in high
concentrations in well water,
chlorination can result in
correspondingly high concentrations of
hexavalent chromium at the point of
exposure (i.e., at the tap).
For these reasons, EPA's original
concerns regarding the potential for
trivalent chromium to be converted to
hexavalent chromium remain. Thus, the
Agency believes that the prudent course
is to regulate total chromium
concentrations under the TC. It should
be noted that because of this, the
Agency is considering proposing the
deletion of the exclusion for specific
chromium wastes that contain virtually
no hexavalent chromium [see 40 CFR
261.4(b)(6)(i}]. Such a change would
affect certain wastes from the leather
tanning and finishing industry (as well
as certain sludges from the production
of TiOi pigment using chromium-bearing
ores by the chloride process).
c. Nickel and Thallium. Several
commenters expressed support for
incorporating nickel and thallium into
the list of TC analytes. One commenter
emphasized that unless such a step is
taken, a major inequity will continue to
exist in the regulation of listed and
unlisted wastes that contain comparable
levels of nickel. Many other
commenters, however, objected to the
inclusion of nickel and thallium in the
TC. Most of these commenters doubted
whether either element poses a threat to
human health and the environment,
noting that neither one is on the Primary
or Secondary Drinking Water Standards
list.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11313
EPA has decided not to add more
metals to the TC constituent list at this
time because technical issues remain as
to their subsurface fate and transport.
The regulatory levels for the toxicity
characteristic metals are not changed in
this rule (i.e., EPA is retaining the
regulatory levels set under the previous
EP) pending Further Agency validation
and study of the fate and transport of
metals. These validation and study
efforts are focusing on the development
of the metal speciation model
(MINTEQ).
The Agency is developing MINTEQ
for the evaluation of the mobility of
arsenic, banum, cadmium, chromium,
lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,
and thallium in ground water, A
modified version of MINTEQ will fee
used in combination with a set of
generic ground water specifications and
subsurface conditions to determine
metal solubility limitations. EPA will
then use these results, in conjunction
with the subsurface fate and transport
model, to estimate dilution during
transport to the down-gradient exposure
point. (See discussion of the
development of the subsurface fate and
transport of metals at 51 FR1653,
January 14,1986.) The Agency is not
specifically proposing an approach for
evaluating the fate and transport of
metals in today's rule, but does expect
to propose, at a later time, DAFs specific
to metals, including nickel and thallium,
and will address comments relating to
the toxicity of nickel ar.d thallium at
that time.
C, Chronic Toxicity Reference Levels,
The Agency proposed to use chronic
toxicity reference levels (combined with
DAFs) to calculate leachate
concentration limits for individual
constituents; a waste containing
constituents equal to or above those
levels would be a hazardous waste
under the TC. Specifically, EPA
proposed to use the MCLs promulgated
as part of the National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Standard (NIPDWS),
where available, as the starting point for
establishing the regulatory levels for
each of the constituents. For those
constituents for which no MCLs had
been promulgated, the Agency proposed
Jo use oral Reference Doses (RfDs) and
Risk-Specific Doses (RSDs) to develop
chronic toxicity reference levels for the
noncarcinogens and carcinogens,
respectively. Because exposure to toxic
constituents can occur by multiple
pathways, the Agency also proposed to
apportion the acceptable health risk
level of each noncarcinogenic
constituent among the various possible
routes of exposure. The Agency solicited
public comment on: (1) Whether RfDs
and RSDs are appropriate to use when
MCLs are available: (2) the health levels
proposed for RfDs and RSDs; (3) the
associated risk levels; and (4) the
assumptions used to apportion exposure
to the different possible routes. The
Agency's decisions regarding the health-
related issues for which it solicited
comments are presented below.
1. Maximum Contaminant Levels
The original toxicity characteristic—
the EPTC (40 CFR 261.24)—used the
NIPDWS developed under the Safe
Drinking Water Act as the tcxicity
levels to derive the regulatory levels for
the eight metals, four insecticides, and
two herbicides then regulated. (For ease
of discussion, the acronym "MCLs" will
be used in subsequent sections to refer
collectively to both MCLs and the
existing NIPDWS.) EPA plans to
continue this approach in the expanded
TC for those constituents for which
MCLs are available.
A number of commenters expressed
support for the use of MCLs, when they
exist, as the starting point for
calculating regulatory levels for the TC.
Most of these commentars argued that
the MCLs provide adequate protection
of human health. These commecters
stated that MCLs are reliable,
scientifically defensible, and recognized
and understood by the general public.
Several commenters supported the use
of MCLs because factors relating to cost
and available treatment technology may
be considered along with health effects
in the development of the standards.
These commentera asserted that MCLs
represent a reasonable balance among
the factors EPA must consider, while
RfDs and RSDs are more limited. A
number of commenters also felt that the
use of MCLs provides a level of
protection consistent with other
regulatory programs.
In contrast, other commenters
supported the use of RfDs and RSDs as
the basis for the chronic toxicity
reference levels even when MCLs are
available for those constituents. These
commenters stated that health-based
levels are an appropriate starting point
for the regulation. Because the MCLs
consider other factors relating to
technical and economic feasibility in
addition to toxicity, they contend that
the RfDs and RSDs are preferable. Many
of these commenters also supported a
consistent approach for all constituents
regulated by the TC, rather than using
MCLs for some and RfDs and RSDs for
others.
Several commenters asserted that
because the MCLs were developed for
the purpose of regulating the
concentrations of constituents in treated
water "at the tap," it is not appropriate
to use the same standards for defining
hazardous wastes. Several commenters
also expressed concern that the MCLs
developed under tha Safe Drinking
Water Act ara potentially more stringent
than RfDs and RSDs. This concern was
most strongly expressed regarding
carcinogens, for which Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs},
previously referred to as Recommended
Maximum Contaminant Levels (RMCLs),
are set at zero, and MCLs are set at
technically achievable levels that most
clcsaly approach this zero goal.
EPA maintains that the MCLs. when
they exist, are the most appropriate
health criterion to use as the starting
point for developing the regulatory
levels. The exposure scenario developed
for the TC is based on ingesting
contaminated drinking water, and
because MCLs are developed for
regulation of drinking water, they
clearly are relevant. In addition, the
development of tha MCLs follows a
rigorous methodology in which all
available health information is
evaluated in establishing the MCLGs.
The MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs
as is feasible, and the Agency believes
that MCLs are protective of human
health,
It should be noted that EPA evaluates
the health risks that are associated with
various contaminant levels in order to
insure that the MCL adequately protects
the public health. For drinking water
contaminants, EPA sets a reference risk
range for carcinogens at 10~4 to 10~s
excess individual risk from lifetime
exposure. Most regulatory actions in a
variety of EPA programs have generally
targeted this range using conservative
models which are not likely to
underestimate the risk. Since the
underlying goal of the Safe Drinking
Water Act is to protect the public from
adverse effects due to drinking water
contaminants, EPA seeks to insure that
the health risks associated with MCLs
for carcinogenic contaminants are in the
general range of 10~4 to 10~s.
EPA acknowledges that use of MCLs
will, in some cases, result in chronic
toxicity reference levels that are lower
than those that would be calculated
using the RfD methodology. For
example, many of the non-carcinogenic
compounds have MCLs which are
approximately 10 to 20 percent of their
respective RfDs because exposure
sources other than contaminated
drinking water are considered in setting
the MCLs. On the other hand, the MCLs
for some of the constituents addressed
in the proposal are higher than the
-------
11814 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday. March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
levels that would be calculated using the
RSD methodology. An example of this
situation arises when the health criteria
are at such low levels that analytical
methods are not available to measure
these levels. In cases where the MCL is
higher than a purely health-based level,
the Agency notes that use of the MCL is
not inconsistent with today's rale since
the purpose of the rule is to identify
wastes that clearly pose hazards, not to
identify the lowest level of hazard.
However, regardless of whether they are
higher or lower than the levels
calculated using the RID or RSD
methodologies, EPA believes that MCLs
are the appropriate starting point for
developing regulatory levels for the TC.
for the constituents lacking MCLs,
EPA must rely on the available
methodologies to provide chronic
toxicity reference levels that are
scientifically defensible and protective
of human health. EPA believes that the
RfD and RSD methodologies meet these
two criteria. EPA also realizes that
inconsistencies will exist when different
methodologies are employed for
developing regulatory levels. The
Agency intends to evaluate newly
promulgated MCLs to determine on a
case-by-case basis whether the TC
regulatory level will change significantly
if the new MCL is used, and to revise the
regulatory levels, as appropriate. In the
long run, this should provide internal
consistency for the TC, as well as
consistency with other regulatory
programs.
Some commenten supported the use
of MCLGs as the basis for chronic
toxicity reference levels under the TC
because the MCLGs are based on health
effects alone, whereas the MCLs
consider other factors as well, such as
economic and technical feasibility.
EPA disagrees with the commenters
who stated that MCLGs are more
appropriate than MCLs for use in the
TC. MCLGs are nonenforceable health
goals for drinking water, which are to be
set at levels that would result in no
known or anticipated adverse health
effects with an adequate margin of
safety. The Agency has adopted the
policy of setting the MCLGs for probable
human carcinogens (Group A and B
carcinogens) at zero. If the Agency were
to use MCLGs rather than MCLs in the
TC, the regulatory levels for defining a
waste as hazardous would be based on
health criteria that, at least for
carcinogens, are more stringent than the
criteria used to set concentrations
acceptable for direct human ingestion of
drinking water. In addition, the
regulatory levels would be virtually
impossible to detect analytically. This
would mean that any waste that
contains detectable levels of
carcinogens would be hazardous
regardless of the potency of the
carcinogen or the risk presented by that
waste. EPA believes that this is an
inappropriate approach for the TC
because it would result in the regulation
of wastes which are not necessarily
hazardous.
2. Risk-Specific Doses for Carcinogenic
Constituents
For constituents for which no MCLs
have been established, EPA uses oral
RSDs to develop chronic toxicity
reference levels for carcinogens. The
RSD is an upper-bound estimate of the
average daily dose of a carcinogenic
substance that corresponds to a
specified excess cancer risk for lifetime
exposure. A predetermined risk level
and the oral carcinogenic slope factor
estimated by EPA's Carcinogen Risk
Assessment Verification Endeavor
(CRAVE] Workgroup or Carcinogen
Assessment Group (CAG) are used to
calculate the RSD.
The Agency proposed a risk level of
concern based on the weight of evidence
regarding carcinogenicity of each
constituent. Constituents classified as
known or probable human carcinogens
(Group A or B) were assigned a risk
level of 1 in 100,000 (i.e., 10" *), while
constituents classified as possible
human carcinogens (Group C) were
assigned a risk level of 1 in 10,000 (i.e.,
10~4).
The Agency received comments
regarding both the weight-of-evidence
approach for establishing risk levels and
the risk levels selected. In particular,
one commenter supported the Agency's
proposal, stating that a single risk level
is not appropriate for all constituents,
and that use of the weight-of-evidence
approach avoids making regulatory
decisions based on insufficient data.
Another commenter also supported the
use of weight-of-evidence to assign risk
levels, but stated that it is inappropriate
to regulate both known and probable
human carcinogens at the same level of
risk. Alternatively, a third commenter
asserted that the weight-of-evidence
approach is inappropriate because (1)
new information is constantly being
developed on the health effects of toxic
constituents, so the weight of evidence
is constantly changing, and (2) the
classification scheme does not take into
account the potency of the carcinogenic
risk.
The Agency also received specific
comments regarding both the weight-of-
evidence approach and the selection of
specific risk levels. Several commenters
addressed the risk level at which the
Agency proposed to regulate
carcinogens. Some comrnenters
specifically expressed support for EPA's
proposal to regulate Class A and B
constituents at a 10~5 risk level and
Class C constituents at a 10~4risk level.
One commenter stated that because the
procedure for developing risk estimates
is extremely conservative, the proposed
risk levels would not adversely affect
human health and the environment.
Another commenter noted that the
stated risk levels are estimates of the
upper confidence bound of risk and not
the maximum likelihood estimate; thus,
the actual risk to the public would be
less than the stated level.
Other commenters supported the use
of a 10" * risk level for all carcinogens.
These commenters argued that the use
of the proposed risk levels represents a
serious weakening in EPA's regulation
of carcinogens and is inconsistent with
other policies in effect in other EPA
programs,
With respect to the weight-of-
evidence approach, the Agency has
decided to establish a single risk level of
concern for all potential carcinogens
(i.e., the Agency will not assign a
specific risk level to a specific weight-of-
evidence carcinogenicity classification
for this rulemaking}. The weight-of-
evidence approach for classifying a
constituent as carcinogenic is based
primarily on the amount and quality of
data that are available rather than the
strength of the toxic response in animals
or humans. In effect, it is a qualitative
assessment that takes into account the
uncertainty in the data for determining
whether an agent is carcinogenic to
humans. This means that the actual
quantitative difference in risk between
an "A" and "B" carcinogen as classified
by the weight of evidence may either be
zero or may be orders of magnitude.
Thus, EPA believes that both the weight-
of-evidence and the strength of the toxic
response (i.e., potency) should be
considered in making regulatory
decisions within the context of the TC.
With regard to the specific risk level
chosen, the Agency has decided to set
the level for carcinogens (Groups A, B,
and C) at 1 in 100,000 (i.e., 10"5) for the
final rulemaking. Characteristics are
established at levels at which the
Agency has a very high level of
certainty that a waste which exhibits
these properties needs to be managed in
a controlled manner (i.e., as a hazardous
waste]. The Agency realizes that not all
wastes which exhibit properties at
concentrations below the regulatory
levels are necessarily safe for disposal
as nonhazardous wastes. Rather, those
wastes having properties lower than the
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541-00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11815
regulatory levels and which are
demonstrated to pose a hazard to
human health or the environment still
remain subject to waste-specific
evaluations under the hazardous waste
listing program. Wastes which are
determined to require controlled
management after consideration of the
factors identified in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3)
(e.g., the nature of the toxic constituents,
toxicant mobility under various
environmental management scenarios,
volume of waste generated and potential
method of management) are then
specifically listed as hazardous wastes
and subjected to the appropriate RCRA
management controls. This reflects
EPA's philosophy, first articulated in
•May of 1980, that the characteristic
defines broad classes of wastes that are
clearly hazardous, while the listing
process defines some wastes that may
not exhibit the characteristics but are
nonetheless hazardous wastes (45 FR
33111, May 19,1980).
The chosen risk level of 10" * is at the
midpoint of the reference risk range for
carcinogens (10"* to 10""") targeted in
setting MCLs. This risk level also lies
within the reference risk range (10~4 to
10"6) generally used to evaluate
CERCLA actions. Furthermore, by
setting the risk level at 10~4 for TC
carcinogens, EPA believes that this is
the highest risk level that is likely to be
experienced, and most if not all risk will
be below this level due to the generally
conservative nature of the exposure
scenario and the underlying health
criteria. For these reasons, the Agency
regards a 10"5 risk level for Group A, B.
and C carcinogens as adequate to
delineate, under the TC, wastes that
clearly pose a hazard when
mismanaged.
3. Apportionment of Health Limits
EPA proposed to account for potential
exposure from sources other than the TC
scenario by apportioning the RfD-based
chronic toxicity reference levels. The
apportionment scheme effectively
reduced each such chronic toxicity
reference level to 50 percent of its
original value, (i.e., 50 percent of the
RfD). The Agency also proposed to
estimate environmental partitioning of
the apportioned health limits in air and
water according to a simplified
fractionation scheme using Henry's Law
Constants (HJ and octanol-water
coefficients (Kow) for individual
constituents. The Agency did not
propose to apportion the chronic toxicity
reference levels based on RSDs or
MCLs.
Several commenters addressed the
Agency's proposal to apportion the
RfDs. Commenters that criticized the
Agency's proposed apportionment
scheme argued that it was arbitrary,
overly conservative, and unnecessary.
Several commenters recommended that
EPA either use more realistic estimates
of exposure based on the available
constituent-specific data or not
apportion at all.
After a review of comments on the
proposed regulation and consideration
of the available data, the Agency has
decided not to apportion in this
rulemaking. Although the concept of
apportionment has some scientific basis
in that individuals are exposed to many
of the chemicals of concern through
more than one route of exposure and
from more than one source, the
implementation of the concept is very
difficult when adequate data on the
amount of exposure and/or health
effects from all routes of exposure do
not exist. Thus, due to the lack of
sufficient data to determine an
appropriate-apportionment factor for the
various constituents, the Agency now
concludes that its proposed
apportionment scheme cannot be
supported at the present time. Of course,
the proposed apportionment would deal
with uncertainty by erring on the side of
safety; nevertheless the Agency believes
that the conservative approach used to
deal with uncertainty in the
development of the RfD is sufficiently
stringent to define those wastes that
clearly pose hazards. This approach is
in accordance with the Agency's
treatment of noncarcinogens. The
Agency therefore will not apportion the
RfDs for this rulemaking.
A few commenters criticized the
Agency's proposed method for
fractionating the apportioned RfD
between air and water. These
commenters questioned the technical
basis of the Agency's approach and/or
recommended alternative schemes. The
Agency agrees with commenters that the
technical basis for supporting
fractionation as proposed is inadequate
to predict media-specific concentrations.
The Agency is exploring the
development of an appropriate model.
Thus, EPA has decided not to apportion
the RfD and not to fractionate the RfD
between air and water in this
rulemaking.
Other commenters addressed the
apportionment of RSDs for carcinogenic
constituents. Several of these
commenters agreed with EPA's decision
not to apportion RSDs, stating that doing
so would result in very low regulatory
thresholds for some constituents. The
commenters also pointed out that many
conservative assumptions are already
incorporated into the development of the
RSDs for carcinogens. Others
commented that RSDs should be
apportioned because humans are
exposed to these constituents by
multiple routes.
The Agency continues to believe that
it is not appropriate to apportion the
RSDs for carcinogenic constituents.
RSDs are estimated by a procedure that
must deal with unavoidable
uncertainties and is therefore
intentionally conservative. The Agency
stated in the preamble to the proposed
rule that a difference in dose of a factor
of 2 is still well within the margin of
uncertainty of the estimated RSD (51 FR
21567. June 13,1986).
Table C-l presents chronic toxicity
reference levels for the constituents in
today's rule. The Agency received a
number of comments on specific chronic
toxicity reference levels. In some cases.
EPA responded to these comments in
the notice of proposed changes to the
health levels on May 19,1988 (53 FR
18024). Other chemical specific
comments are addressed in the
background document (Ref. 3).
TABLE C-1.—CHRONIC TOXICITY
REFERENCE LEVELS
Constituent
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane . ... -
Chlorobenzene - ...
Chloroform...™. -
Chromium
o-Cresol
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
2 4-D
1 4-Dichlorobenzeoe
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 1-Dtchloroethylone
2 4-Dinitrotoluene _
Endrin
Heptachlor (and its hydrox-
ide).
Hexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene
Hexachlorcethane
Lead _
LJndane
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Methyl ethyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol _
Pyridine
Selenium
Silver
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene... .
Trichloroetnylene
2,4 5-Trichtoropheno) . ..
2,4,6-Tricnlorophenol
2.4.5-TP acid (Silvex)
Chronic
toxicity
reference
levtel (mg/
L)
005
1 0
0005
001
0.005
OC003
1
0.06
0.05
2
2
2
0.1
0.075
0.005
0007
0.0005
0.0002
0.00008
00002
0.005
003
005
0004
0 002
0.1
2
0.02
1
004
001
005
0007
0005
0.005
4
0.02
0.01
Basis
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
RSD
RfD
RSD
MCL
RfD
RfD
R'D
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
RSD
MCL
RSD
RSD
RSD
RSD
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
RID
RfD
RfD
RfD
MCL
MCL
RSD
MCL
MCL
RfD
RSD
' MCL
-------
11815 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 81 / Thursday, March 29, 1S90 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE C-1.—CHRONIC TOXICITY
REFERENCE LEVELS—Continued
Constituent
Vinyl chloride ..... . ...
Chronic
tenacity
reference
level {mg/
L)
0.002
Basis
MCL
Ail RSDs are calculated at the 1Q-§ risk level.
D. Use of Generic Dilution/Attenuation
Factors (DAFs)
In the May IS, 1883 supplemental
proposal, EPA requested comment on an
alternative strategy for setting DAFs in
the TC. The alternative involved setting
DAFs for these constituents in two
phases. The first phase would use a
generic DAF in a manner similar to the
existing EPIC, which uses a DAF of 100
for all EP constituents. In the second
phase, the Agency would further
address the manner in which the DAFs
are calculated and would either: (1)
Continue to use generic DAFs, (2)
employ a subsurface fate and transport
model lo develop constituent-specific
DAFs, or (3) use some combination of
the two approaches. The Agency also
specifically solicited comment on the
use of a generic DAF of 100 or 500 in the
first phase.
Many commenters recognized the
need to expeditiously promulgate the
TC; however, most opposed the two-
phased approach, arguing that it would
cause undue economic harden by: (1)
Forcing industries to design new
treatment programs for one group of
wastes at certain regulatory levels, and
a few years later to redesign in order to
accommodate new levels and wastes,
aad (2) over-regulating certain chemical
substances under the first generic-DAF
phase that may then not be regulated
under the second phase. Some
commenters were concerned, on the
other hand, that EPA would set the
generic DAFs so high (to avoid
overregulalion) that some substances
would be under-regulated.
Most commenters opposed the use of
generic DAFs and urged EPA to retain
the constituent-specific modeling
approach. These commenters argued
that a generic DAF would be arbitrary
and not scientifically defensible; that
use of the generic DAFs would violate
the statutory requirements to develop a
process that accurately assesses
leaching ability and differentiates
between hazardous and nonhazardous
wastes; and that the diversity in dilution
and attenuation attributes across the
constituents would cause any generic
DAF to either severely under-regulats or
severely overregulats a large number of
the constituents. Even those few
commenters who supported the two-
phased approach recommended that the
Agency move rapidly to-the second
phase and employ the modeling
approach to set DAFs.
EPA acknowledges that the problems
noted by the commenters are important
ones. The Agancy requested comment
on the generic DAF approach because of
the likelihood that the issues
surrounding the proposed fate and
transport model for establishing
constituent-specific DAFs would not be
resolved in a timely manner. Since the
Agency has bean able to address the
concerns regarding the subsurface fate
and transport model for the constituents
identified in today's regulation, the
Agency has decided to use the model to
develop DAFs. Consequently, the DAFs
set in today's rale for nonhydroiyzing
constituents for which the steady-state
solution is appropriate are not viewed
by EPA as interim and are supported by
the subsurface fate and transport model.
The Agency intends to establish DAFs
for constituents not addressed in today's
rule on a constituent-specific basis, and
regulatory levels for those constituents
will be proposed or promulgated (as
warranted) at a later date.
E. Application of a Subsurface Fate end
Transport Model
1. Introduction
On June 13,1S86, EPA proposed an
approach (see 51FR 21648) for
estimating regulatory concentration
levels in a waste leachate using chronic
toxicity reference levels, combined with
constituent-specific dilution/attenuation
factors (DAFs) derived from the
application of a subsurface fate and
transport model. The model
(EPASMOD} was first described for
public comment on January 14,1986 (51
FR 1602).
A DAF represents a reduction in ths
concentration of a constituent expected
to occur during transport through ground
water from the bottom of a disposal unit
to a drinking-water source. In rssponsa
to the proposal and supplemental
notices (see Section II, Table II.1). the
Agency received numerous comments
on the subsurface fate and transport
model used for the calculation of DAFs.
This section describes the different
proposals related to the use of the
subsurface fate and transport model, the
modifications to the model in response
to public comments, and the results
obtained with the use of the modified
model.
o. June 13i 1988 Proposed Rule (51 FR
21648). The Agency's June 13,1386
proposal used a subsurface fate and
transport model (EPASMOD) to
calculate specific DAFs for each of the
44 organic hazardous constituents (see
Table E-l). The DAFs for each
constituent were calculated using the
modal, incorporating compound-specific
hydrolysis and soil adsorption data
coupled with parameters describing the
subsurface environment (e.g., ground
water flow rate, hydraulic conductivity
of the aquifer, ground water pH, etc.).
The Agency proposed modeling a
scenario of waste mismanagement at a
subtitle D municipal landfill. Data were
incorporated in the model using a monte
carlo simulation.
TABLE E-1.—DILUTION ATTENUATION FACTORS FOR TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
Constituent
AcrylorsiWie „ .. . .. ..
Serseno _ .. . „._ .
Bfs(2-cfHoroethyl)ethef .. . „
Carbon dtsuHide .... -...-. . ... .
Carbon tetrachloricte *..«
ChlOfostie .. ..... . ..... ... .. ...... .. „ . ...
Ghiorcbenzsne ,.,...... ...... ..... „.. . „ ....
Chloroform ... ....... . ...„ * , ..
o-Cresol . ..... .. .. „...,.. . .... .. ..
nvCfesol . . . .. . .
p^?esoi , ....... ,™.™..™ .
2,4-0.....
1 2"Dichlorobenz9ne ..... .... « ....... ~
LOG
KOW1
007
213
1 04
21S
236
7 548
28?
1 36
2.13
215
2.15
2.70
3.56
Ka"
>1/yr
NHYF *
NH1
NH ....
NH
NH
NH.. „ .. .
NH .
NHYF
NHYF
NHYF
NHYF
NH
Kb"
>1/yr
NHYF
NH
>10/yr.._
NH
>10/yr
lE-6/hr__,
0 23/hr
NHYF
NHYF
NHYF „
NHYF
lE-5/hr.._ „
Kn»
> 1 /yr
NHYF
8E-5/hr „
NH
NH
NH ..
NH. _
3E-9/hf
NHYF
NHYF
NHYF
NHYF _
NH
D/A
factor3
144
144
14 4
14.4
14.4
14 4
144
144
14 4
14 4
144
144
14 4
-------
OSWER DiR. NO.
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11817
TABLE E-1.—DILUTION ATTENUATION FACTORS FOR TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS—Continued
Constituent
1 *2-OiCfllorQGtftan@ ........ - ...
1 1 -Dchloroethylene
Hepiachiof (and its hydroxide)
Mdxaf^lnro^^tadiffnii ,,,,,. . -,.Ir,-,. ,,„,, . , nln. , --,„.
Hsxacrtloroethane „ „ m .„. .. „.„.
Lindans . .... ,. ~.
Methoxychlor .. .......... .....
Metnyteoe chloride. ». ...... «—.«. ....... . ~.~
Methyl ethyl ketone «. . .
'Phenol ._
1,1 1 ,2-TstrachlOfoethane ..... .. ~ .... ..~.
1 i ,2,2-Tetrachlof oethans .... ..... •
Tetrachlofoethylene . .................
234 6-Tetracntor ophenol .~. .. .
Toluene .. „,..., „. . „
Toxaphene . , . .... , .„ „...„ .... .
1,1,1-Trichlofoethane -. - - .....
1,1,2-Trichloroethane _ _ ..;
TrichloroetrsylefHi „ „,„. .... , .„ ,
2,4,6-Trichloraph@nol «. ~™. _*. „. ~ ... . .... .
2,4,5-TP (Sitvex) „
Vinyl cfHorida . _
LOG
Kow >
358
1.40
2 13
230
'3.54
T4.6i
6.42
4.24
4.22
0.74
3.40
T4.30
1.28
0.30
1.90
5.06
1.49
0.68
2.81
2.42
3.03
4.33
2.82
*5.30
'2.50
1.91
2.28
386
358
3.45
1.38
Ka*
NLFG "
NH
NLFG _,„
NLFG
> 1 /yr
NLFG
<1/yr
NLFG ....
>l/yr
> 1 /yr ,.._
>1/yr._
NH
NH „
NLFG
NLFG._ _.
NH
NHYF
NLFG
NH _
NH
NLFG
NH
NHYF
NH.™
NH
NH... _.
NLFG
NH. „
NH _
NLFG
NH ;
Kb"
NLFG
NH
NLFG .... ,__
NLFG.
>1/yr
NLFG „_
<1/yr
NLFG
> 1 /yr
>1/yr _
>1/yr _
1,4/nr
NH
NLFG _
NLFG „.
>1E-4/hr _
NHYF .
NLFG
1.3/hr
2.6E-»-3/hr
NLFG
1E-5/hr
NHYF
> to/yr
NH
13/hr...,
NLFG
1E-5/hr
1E-5/hr
NLFG... ....
1E-5/IW _.
Kn»
NLFG
7.2E-5/hr
NLFG _....
NLFG
>1/yf
NLFG.
«J 1 /yr
NLFG
>1/yT
>1/yr,.
>1/yr
7.5£-S/hr
1.18E-8/hr _
NLFG
NLFG
NH
NHYF
NLFG
2.2£-7/rtf
NH
NLFG
NH
NHYF
NH
1.1£-4/hr
4.3£-7/hr .
NLFG
NH
NH . ._... __
NLFG .........
1E-7/hr., _.
0/A
factor 3
14.4
75.0
144
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
14 4
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
65.0
14.4
14 4
144
14.4
150.0
20.0
14.4
14 4
14.4
14.4
| 14.4
!
1 Logarithm o) ihe octanol/water partition coefficient
* Acid, base and neutral hydrolysis rate constants.
' Dilution/attenuation (actor derived from ground water transport system.
4 NHYF m No Hydrolyzable Functional Group.
» NH = Negligible Hydrolysis.
• NLFG = No Liable Functional Group.
' Estimated value.
In the monte carlo simulation, values
for each parameter are based upon the
frequency distribution for each
parameter (where such data exists)
rather than the selection of a single
value for each parameter. The model is
then run a sufficient number of times
(typically several thousand] to produce "
the frequency distribution of the model's
output. This overall frequency
distribution is, effectively, a
combination of the frequency
distributions for each individual
parameter. This approach avoids the
compounding effects of conservatism
inherent in choosing single, reasonable-
worst-case values for each parameter.
Monte carlo simulation was chosen as
the preferred method to analyze the full
range of possible environmental
conditions for the land disposal
scenario. The wide range of
environmental conditions (e.g., ground
water velocities, pH, temperatures,
exposure point locations) that can exist
in locations across the nation where the
wastes in question may be disposed
precludes a priori specification of a
reasonable worst case for these
parameters. Another important reason
to use the mor.te carlo method is the
very complex manner in which the many
model variables and parameters
interact. Unless many [hundreds to
thousands) combinations of variables
are investigated, it is simply not possible
to anticipate those physical settings that
lead to unacceptably high exposure
levels. Accordingly, the monte carlo
method was chosen to ensure that a
conservative but not physically
unrealistic or impossible analysis was
completed. .
The EPASMOD, as described in the
proposed rule, was based on a number
of key assumptions pertaining to the
features of ground water flow,
properties of the porous medium, and
the behavior of hazardous wastes in
ground water. These assumptions
included the following:
• Saturated soil conditions (no
attenuation of chemicals in the
unsaturated zone);
• Flow regions of infinite extent in the
longitudinal direction, semi-infinite
extent in the lateral direction, and finite
in the vertical direction:
• Aquifer can be characterized by
homogeneous and isotropic properties
and the aquifer thickness is constant;
• Ground water flow is uniform and
continuous in direction and velocity;
• Degradation is limited to hydrolysis
and the by-products of hydrolysis are
assumed to be nonhazardous:
• Contaminants follow a linear
equilibrium adsorption isotherm;
• An infinite source supplies a
constant mass flux of chemical into ihe
aquifer;
• Recharge due to precipitation
supplies water to the disposal unit and
the aquifer;
• The ground water upstream of the
disposal site is initially free of
contamination;
« The receptor well is directly in line
with the source and the ground water
flow direction;
• The receptor well is located 500 feet
from the unit; and
* Hydraulic conductivity does not
vary with temperature.
In the June proposed rule, the Agency
also proposed using the 85th cumulative
percentile level of the back-calculated
dilution attenuation factors obtained
using the monte carlo simulation
technique as an appropriate regulatory
level for the TC. Selection of this level
means that downgradient
-------
11818 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
concentrations will not exceed the
allowable health-based concentrations
in more than 15 percent of all possible
analyzed settings of subtitle O disposal
units. (This proposal referenced other
proposals dealing with the ground water
transport model, such as the January 14,
1986 Land Disposal Restrictions notice,
and notices published by the delisting
program; relevant comments received in
response to those notices are also
discussed in this rulemaking.)
b. August 1,1988 Notice of Data
Availability and Request far Comments;
Supplement to Proposed Rule (52 PR
28882). On August 1,1988, the Agency
presented new data related to subtitle D
municipal landfills, soil characteristics,
and chemical-specific hydrolysis rates
to be used with the subsurface fate and
transport model to calculate DAFs for
each of the organic constituents in the
TC. Th-3se new data became available
to the Agency after the June 13,1988
proposal. The August 1,1988 Notice also
requested comments on several major
revisions to EPASMOD that were being
considered by the Agency, subsequently
referred to as EPA's Composite Model
for Landfills (EPACML). As a result of
comments received on the January 14,
1986, and June 13,198S proposals, as
well as the August 1,1988 Notice, the
Agency has used EPACML to support
the choice of appropriate DAFs for this
rulemaking.
These modifications and data are
described in greater detail below
(section III.E.2). The reader is referred to
the Response-to-Comments Background
Document for the Subsurface Fate and
Transport Module (Ref. 1), which
presents, fa detail, each of the technical
issues addressed in the public comments
on the model and the Agency's response
to these issues.
2. Modifications of the Subsurface Fate
and Transport Model (EPASMOD) in
Response to Comments
In today's rule, the Agency has used
EPACML to estimate the attenuation
and dilution of specific constituents
during their migration through the
unsaturated zone beneath a municipal
landfill and their transport through the
saturated zone to a potential drinking
•vater source (exposure point). EPACML
Accounts for dispersion in the
longitudinal, lateral, and vertical
Jirections; one-dimensional steady and
miform advective flow; sorption; and
;hemical degradation from hydrolysis.
The major enhancements that were
nade to EPASMOD to produce
-3PACML, the substantive comments
hat led to these changes, and important
assumptions made to develop analytical
solutions are described in subsection (a)
below.
In addition, the Agency used the
EPACML model to corroborate its
conclusions on dilution/attenuation
factors for surface impoundments. For
this exercise, data inputs typical of
surface impoundments rather than
landfills were used. These procedures
are described in subsection (b) below,
a. General Modifications—i.
Unsaturated Zone. The EPASMOD
model discussed in the June 13,1988
proposal assumed that there was no
unsaturated zone (i.e., the bottom of the
landfill is directly connected to the top
of the aquifer). Several commenters
stated that the assumption that the
facility is located directly at the top cf
the saturated zone is unrealistic because
an unsaturated zone usually exists
above the aquifer and that retardation,
dilution, and degradation effacts in the
unsaturated zone should be considered,
The commenters also suggested that,
when incorporating the unsaturated
zone, the depth to the water table
should be incorporated as part of the
monte carlo analysis.
The Agency is in agreement with the
commenters and has now included an
unsaturated zone as part of the
subsurface model. The Agency believes
that this modification to the model is
reasonable, based in part on a survey of
existing municipal landfills that
indicated that an unsaturated zone
exists beneath 95 percent of the
surveyed landfills. Incorporating an
unsaturated zone into the model
accounts for any retardation and •
degradation of chemicals in the
unsaturated zone and provides a more
realistic scenario.
To account for the unsaturated zone,
the Agency developed unsaturated zone
flow and transport modules and
implemented them using the monte carlo
(probabilistic) framework that has
already been used in conjunction with
the saturated zone modeling approach in
EPASMOD; these unsaturated zone
modules are incorporated into EPACML
The input concentration to the
unsaturated zone transport module of
EPACML corresponds to the leachate
concentration at the bottom of the
landfill.
The unsaturated zone model was
reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory
Board (SAB). The SAB endorsed the use
of the model for applications for the
development of regulations; however,
the SAB recommended that it not be
used for site-specific applications
because the model has limitations
imposed by the simplifying assumptions
(those necessary for regulatory use), and
the limitations of the use of site-specific
data. The unsaturated zone model
consists of two modules: a flow
component and solute transport
component. These two components were
developed in a form to allow for their
incorporation in the monte carlo
simulation. The major assumptions and
consequences of the flow module are:
• Flow is steady in the vertical
direction, and lateral and transverse
movement of the leachate is negligible.
Because there is little or no lateral flow
in the unsaturated zone, these
assumptions are appropriate. In any
case, this procedure will tend to
maximize the concentration of laachate
leaving the unsaturated zone and
therefore represents a conservative
assumption.
• No vapor phase or immiscible
liquid flow occurs, and the water phase
is the only flowing material. EPA
acknowledges that some constituents in
some situations may undergo phase
shifts and be emitted in vapors. Because
this rule is essentially directed to risks
from drinking water and because of the
uncertainties in accurately computing
emissions and their relationship to the
currently available leaching tests, this
conservative assumption was adopted.
Under certain conditions, particularly
very high constituent concentrations,
immiscible liquid flow can occur. For
such situations, the model's inability to
account for the immiscible flow
condition may lead to higher
dowr.gradient concentrations (i.e., the
model would underestimate the receptor
well concentrations).
• Flow is isothermal (not affected by
temperature variations). In reality,
temperature variations at any given site
are not dramatic because the source of
infiltrating liquid is precipitation. Thus,
this assumption is not expected to
influence the results to any appreciable
degree.
• Effects of variations in the
unsaturated zone hydraulic properties
caused by alternating moisture
conditions are negligible (i.e., hysteresis
effects). Many soils, especially the more
porous ones for which infiltration rates
are high, do not present important
hysteresis effects. In other cases, little
and often no data are available to
characterize the effects. Failure to
include hysteresis is not expected to
affect the results to any appreciable
extent.
• The flow field is uniform and
continuous in direction and velocity.
Precipitation-driven infiltration can be a
dynamic process where much of the
vertical movement occurs during
relatively short periods of time. Time-
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol^55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11319
averaged values of infiltration derived
from dynamic water balance
calculations (as described in the
Background"Technical Support
Document) are often used to enable
solution of analytical, steady-flow
models, The unsteady-flow conditions
could lead to higher downgradient
concentrations than predicted by
EPACML. However, the effect is
expected to be significant only for
rapidly degrading constituents. For the
constituents regulated in this rule, no
appreciable impact is expected because
none of the constituents are expected to
hydrolyze to any significant extent
during transport.
» The unsaturated zone is
•homogeneous and isotropic. This
assumption is typically required to
enable mathematical solutions
amenable to exhaustive sensitivity
analyses and monte carlo
implementation. In any one application
(one model ran) of this assumption, the
result can either under- or over-predict
downgradient concentrations. The
monte tiarlo implementation, however,
results in a very wide range of possible
conditions, and thus the total analysis,
when taken together, accounts for a
wide variety of unsaturated zone
conditions. ,
The major assumptions and
consequences of the unsaturated zone
transport module are:
• Chemical transport is vertical:
lateral and transverse movement of the
chemical is negligible. This follows from
the first assumption for the flow module
described above.
• Chemical sorption is modeled as a
reversible, linear equilibrium process.
This is a standard modeling assumption
which ii accurate for systems having
relatively low solute concentrations, and
conservative at higher concentrations.
* Degradation is limited to
hydrolysis. This assumption was made
to be consistent with the similar
approach adopted for the saturated
zone. Thus, the model includes only
those degradation mechanisms that can
be reliably characterized in laboratory
studies of each individual constituent.
This assumption remains a major
conservative component of the overall
model.
• Chemical transport in the vapor
phase has been assumed to be
negligible. This follows from the second
assumption for the flow module
described above.
• The unsaturated zone transport
model is solved for the steady-state
condition. This is a conservative
assumption that has been investigated
for its impact on all the originally
proposed constituents. The extent to
which this assumption is appropriate is
discussed in section HI,E,4(b](iii),
The details of the unsaturated zone
module are provided in the background
documents (Ref. 1, 9], which also
describe the data sources and analyses
that were performed to obtain the data
distributions,
//'. Source Characterization. In
EPASMOD, the input leachate to the
saturated zone was assumed to be
instantaneously mixed in the vertical
direction over a pre-specified depth of
source penetration, and the
concentration in the leachate was equal
to the maximum source contaminant
concentration in the saturated zone
below the facility. Mass balance
considerations required that the lateral
extent of the leachate directly
underneath the facility be adjusted to
ensure that leachate was neither gained
nor lost in the transition from the facility
(or unsaturated zone) to the aquifer. A
number of commenters criticized the
treatment of the source. A major
concern was that the method was
inadequate because of an overly
conservative assumption, which equated
the concentration of the contaminant in
the saturated zone to the landfill
leachate concentration. Thus,
commenters argued that EPA had not
given adequate consideration to mixing
and dispersion under the landfill. The
commenters also pointed out that this
treatment of the source could result in
modeling physically unrealistic
boundary conditions (e.g., by modeling a
source of small cross-sectional area with
a very large width of the Gaussian
source, and vice versa).
The Agency agrees with the
commenters that the method used to
characterize the source-boundary
conditions for the saturated zone
transport needed to be improved. Thus,
the method has been revised to consider
the mass balance requirements,
geometrical configurations, and physical
processes that are occurring in the.
mixing zone below the facility and
within the saturated zone. An important
characteristic of the revised method is
the plume restriction in the lateral
extent. That is, the method no longer
permits physically unrealistic situations
where the plume source width exceeds
the facility width. In addition, the
current method of computing the source-
boundary conditions represents the
mixing and dilution effect on the
leachate below the source and ensures
that the concentration of the
contaminant in the saturated zone will
be less than or equal to the landfill
leachate concentration.
Hi. Treatment of Dilution from
Recharge. In EPASMOD, the dilution
effect of ground water recharge on
contaminant transport in the saturated
zone was taken into account by
including recharge as a dilution term in
the governing equation. Dilution of
leachate concentrations from recharge
was calculated by dividing the
infiltration [recharge) rate by the source
penetration depth. A number of .
commenters were concerned that the
influence of recharge on the ground
water flow field had not been properly
accounted for in the model. In addition,
several commenters alerted the Agency
to an error in the equation used to
evaluate the recharge dilution
parameter.
In response to these comments, the
Agency has modified the model to
calculate dilution from recharge by
dividing the recharge rate by the total
saturated thickness of the aquifer, the
aquifer porosity, and the effective
retardation factor in this zone. This
revision represents a more realistic
assessment of the dilution potential of
recharge by considering changes in the
entire volume of water in the
contaminated aquifer and the
effectiveness of contaminant and
recharge flow and mixing in the aquifer.
The Agency recognizes that recharge
effects on ground water flow fields are
not rigorously considered in the model
and that the assumption of uniform,
constant, horizontal ground water
velocity neglects the possible effects of
local mounding of the water table
underneath the land disposal unit.
However, the constant velocity
assumption can be interpreted as an
averaging of the velocity field over the
spatial area affected by recharge; in .
addition, the uniform, horizontal flow
assumption was necessary to make the
three-dimensional transport equation
analytically solvable. The effect of
recharge on ground water velocity is
difficult to account for directly in the
model. To assist in the analysis, EPA
has conducted a sensitivity analysis
comparing EPACML results with
recharge effects as predicted by a two-
dimensional numerical model that
rigorously accounts for recharge. The
results (which can be found in Ref. 9)
indicated that as long as recharge values
are significantly less than the natural
flow velocity, there was no major effect
on the ground water flow fields. Based
on this analysis, and on evidence of
typically low rates of ground water
recharge, the Agency believes that the
revised treatment of the dilution effect
from recharge is reasonable. In addition,
the error, as pointed out by several
commenters, in the equation used to
evaluate the recharge dilution
-------
11320 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1930 / Rales and Regulations
parameters was corrected, and the
correction is included in EPACML
iv. Location of the Receptor Well. In
EPASMOD, the receptor well was
assumed to be located downgradlent
from the landfill along the centerline of
the plame (direction of ground water-
flow} at a fixed distance of 500 feet
(152.4 m). In addition, the receptor well
was assumed to be tapping water from
the top of the aquifer, and no mixing of
water in the well or effects of drawdown
in the well were considered in-
EPASMOD.
Many commenters argued that the
assumptions concerning the location of
the receptor well were too conservative
and suggested that well locations should
be considered in a probabilistic manner
as part of the monte carlo simulation in
the model. These commenters noted that
well locations other than on the
centerline should be considered. Several
ccmmenters also stated that the tvell
locations should not be restricted to
lying within the areal extent of the
plume and suggested that wells located
outside of the plume should be
considered in the calculation of the
dilution/attenuation factors.
The Agency agrees that the proposed
location of the well was unrealistic and
that affected wells located at paints
othsr than on the centeriine should be
considered. Therefore, the model now
considers well locations anywhere
within the areal extent of the
•contaminant plume. In order to
incorporate these locations, a
distribution of distances to
downgradient wells was developed
based upon a subtitle D municipal
landfill sur/ey (Ref. 6). These distances
were used as part of the monta carlo
analysis. Also, to incorporate locations
other than on the centerline, the Y
values (see Figure 1} were selected
randomly over a 180° domain but the X-
Y pairs were constrained to values that
were located within the areal extent of
the plume.
EHLUNQ CODE S5CO-KMI
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11821
FIGURE 1
A SCHEMATIC OF THE HASTE FACILITY SOURCE BOUNDARY
CONDITION AMD LEACHATE MIGRATION THROUGH THE
UNSATURATED AND SATURATED ZONE
PLAN VIEW
SECTION VIEW
V T
Unsaturated Zone
Aquifer
Monitoring
-.Well
Water Table
8
*VvA
-------
11822
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday. March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
The Agency disagrees with those
commeriiers who stated that well
locations outside of the areal extent of
the plume should be considered. The
purpose of the Toxicity Characteristic is
to answer the question "if the
management of this waste continues to
be uncontrolled, what are the
consequences in terms of human
exposure via ingestion of contaminated
drinking water?" In performing the
exposure assessment to answer this
question, the Agency believes it
appropriate to consider only wells that
could be affected by the disposal of the
waste. Wells that could not be affected
by the migration of constituents from the
wastes dre obviously irrelevant to the
exposure assessment and, thus, not
considered.
Commenters also stated that it was
unrealistic to assume that the well
tapped water from only the uppermost
point of the aquifer. These commenters
stated that, in practice, the intake
portion of a well is located below the
top of the water table and that mixing
and drawdown will occur.
The Agency agrees that the proposed
well intake location was unrealistic and
that it ignored the effects of vertical
mixing and the possibility that the well
intake would likely be at some point
other than the top of the aquifer. In
response, the assumption has been
modified to consider well intake at any
point throughout the depth of the
aquifer. This modification largely takes
into account the above-described mixing
and drawdown effects.
In determining how to account for
well drawdown more realistically in the
model, the Agency considered the
mechanics of well construction.
Generally, wells are screened from near
the top of the aquifer to a sufficient
depth (into the aquifer) to allow delivery
of the needed water supply. Thus, the
ranges of values for the length of the
screens and their locations relative to
the top of the aquifer are very large. In
recognition of this variability, especially
in screen length, the Agency has
employed a simplifying assumption that
the concentrations of constituents at
various depths of the aquifer represent
the concentrations at the exposure
point. That is, the concentration of
constituents in the water drawn from
the well is assumed to be equal to the
concentration of the constituents at the
depth which is seiscted in the monte
carlo simulation. (The '.veil depth is
randomly selected from all points within
the vertical range of the aquifer's
thickness.)
To evaluate the model's sensitivity to
this assumption, the Agency evaluated
the case in which wells were assumed to
be screened from the top of the aquifer
to the monte-carlo-selected depth. The
exposure point concentration was then
calculated as the average concentration
over the screened depth. This case is
considered to be more representative of
the most likely well design, although in
many cases the well will not extend to
the bottom of the aquifer nor will it
always be constrained to intersect the
plume as is implemented in the monte
carlo simulation. This scenario is
considered to be more conservative (i.e.,
resulting in lower DAFs) than the
EPACML-as-implemented scenario.
When one considers other possibilities
like well location factors up gradient
and outside the plume, the range of
DAFs from the two scenarios can be
expected to bound the actual exposures.
In evaluating the model predictions
over the range of cumulative frequency
values considered in interpreting the
model's results in today's rule (see
Section III£.4—DAF Evaluation), the
dilution/attenuation factors for the two
scenarios are not sufficiently different to
warrant separate conclusions regarding
the appropriate value for use in today's
rule. (Model results for the two
scenarios are compared in the
background document for the model—
Ref. 9.)
v. Dispersivity Values. Dispersivity
controls the degree of spreading of
dissolved contaminants in the
subsurface. The saturated-zone fate and
transport model includes dispersion in
the longitudinal, transverse (horizontal),
and vertical directions. The model thus
requires values of the longitudinal.
transverse, and vertical dispersivities in
the saturated zor.e. In EPASMOD, the
distance x from the downgradient edge
of the landfill to the receptor well was
assumed to be fixed at 152 m (300 feet).
Consequently, fixed values of the
longitudinal and transverse
dispersivities were used in the model.
The values of vertical dispersivity were
assumed to vary uniformly.
Several commenters criticized the
assumption that dispersivity values did
not vary and reflected only the fixed
distance selected in the model. They
also suggested that the ratio of
longitudinal to transverse dispersivity
used in the model was too low. The
basis of their comments is that field
values of dispersivities have been
shown to depend on, and usually
increase with, the travel distance.
The Agency agrees with the
commenters and now calculates the
three components of dispersivity based
on a detailed analysis of data gathered
from field tests (the model background
document [Ref. 9] presents a detailed
discussion on dispersivity values and
provides references to the field data).
The Agency believes that the revised
approach, reflecting the distance-
dependent nature of the dispersivity
values and different relationships
between the dimensional dispersivities,
is more realistic and consistent with the
available data.
EPACML also requires the
specification of a dispersivity parameter
for transport in the unsaturated zone.
Since the transport equation in the
unsaturated zone is. one-dimensional,
only the longitudinal (vertical)
dispersivity value is required and is
calculated as a function of the distance
(i.e., the depth to water table) traveled
in the unsaturated zone.
vi. Hydraulic Conductivity. In
EPASMOD, the value of hydraulic
conductivity in the saturated zone was
estimated using the Kozeny-Carmen
(Ref. 9) expression, which relates
hydraulic conductivity to porosity, the
mean particle diameter of the aquifer
material, and the fluid properties
(density and viscosity). This relationship
was based on an assumed ground water
temperature of 15 degrees C and did not
reflect changes in the fluid properties
with temperature.
Commenters expressed concern with
this assumption because ground water
temperature is known to typically range
in temperature from 4 degrees C to 30
degrees C. A few commenters also
expressed concern regarding the validity
of using this empirical relationship.
In response to these comments, the
Agency generalized the expression to
include the effects of changes in
temperature on fluid viscosity and fluid
density. That is, the fluid viscosity and
density are now considered as functions
of temperature rather than as constants.
The Agency realizes that the hydraulic
conductivity also depends on physical
properties, such as grain shape, grain
size distribution, packing, and tortuosity
of the porous media. Porosity
measurements reflect the composite
result of these textural characteristics
on the structural arrangement of the
porous media. The range of porosity
values derived in EPACML indirectly
reflect the impact of these properties.
Therefore, in view of the Agency's
objective to represent the wide
variations expected from site to site, the
Agency decided to retain the Kozeny-
Carmen equation, except for the
modification described above.
vii. Hydrolysis. As already discussed
in section III.E.2.. the EPACML model
accounts for reduction in constituent
concentrations due to hydrolysis. This
results in higher DAFs for constituents
that hydrolyze during transport than for
-------
OSWER DI.R. NO. yytl.UU-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11823
constituents that do not. The DAF
predicted by the model for some of these
constituents ranges up to one million.
Thus, in some cases, wastes would not
be considered hazardous unless they
contain large amounts of these
toxicants; still, in other cases, no
amount of toxicant in the waste would
define it as hazardous under this
scenario. Therefore, the Agency did not
believe it appropriate to include these
constituents in the TC (see Table E-2 for
list of constituents that appreciably
hydrolyze). Furthermore, the model does
not account for the degradation products
that are produced as the original
constituents hydrolyze. That is, while
the decrease in the concentration of the
original constituent is accounted for. the
resultant increase in concentration of
the hydrolysis products is not. Several
commenters stated that the toxicity and
transport of the potential hydrolysis
products should be considered to fully
assess the hazards posed by the
constituents that hydrolyze.
The Agency agrees with the
commenters and is (1) determining
which byproducts result from hydrolysis
and (2) developing an appropriate
protocol for predicting the concentration
of hydrolysis byproducts (see Table E-
2). Once this protocol is developed, the
Agency will determine whether any of
these toxicants should be added to the
list of constituents. While the Agency
considered including these constituents
at a higher dilution and attenuation
factor until this work was completed,
the Agency does not have sufficient
information at this time to determine
which of the constituents listed in Table
E-2 will eventually be added to the TC
and at what level.
TABLE E-2—HYDROLYZING CONSTITU-
ENTS LISTED IN THE JUNE 13, 1986
PROPOSED RULE
Acrylonitrfle
Bis(2-chtoroethyl) ether
Methytene chloride
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2.2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroe thane
1.1,2-TricWoraethane
viii. Steady-State Assumption. As
implemented for today's rule, EPACML
was solved for the steady-state
condition. Thus, the solution represents
the case where leaching has occurred
for a period of time that is sufficiently
long to allow the concentration at the
receptor well to become constant
Several commenters noted that, in
certain circumstances, use of the steady-
state solution would lead to
unreasonably low DAFs. In particular, in
situations where the mass of a
constituent is relatively low in the
source facility (i.e., the landfill has a
very limited quantity of the constituent
available to contaminate leachate), the
steady-state model will continue to
assume the existence of a very large
quantity of the constituent and, hence,
over-predict the resulting concentration
at the downgradient well. Under such
circumstances, the commenters argue,
the Agency should accommodate this
phenomenon by using a transient
solution in deriving appropriate DAFs.
The Agency agrees with the
commenters and has initiated a study to
thoroughly investigate the problem
described above. Based upon
preliminary investigations already
complete, however, the Agency
continues to believe that application of
the steady-state model to many
constituents is appropriate and is
promulgating regulatory levels for those
constituents based upon the results of
the steady-state model. The preliminary
investigations have also led to a
decision to postpone the promulgation of
regulatory levels for constituents that
are believed to be more appropriately
evaluated with a transient solution. The
Agency is continuing to refine the
approach required to implement the
transient solution but results to date
suggest that this latter group of
constituents require unreasonably large
quantities in the source facility to insure
that the steady-state solution is
appropriate. For example, under some
conditions even when the constituents
exist at concentrations in excess of 1000
ppm of the solid waste within the entire
volume of the landfill, the steady-state
condition is not realized. Therefore,
based upon the preliminary analysis,
regulation of these constituents based
upon the DAFs predicted by the steady-
state model may not be appropriate.
Preliminary investigation of this
condition was completed for all of the
originally proposed constituents. All
constituents were assumed to exist in
the "tested" waste at 1000 ppm.
Furthermore, the "tested" waste was
assumed to occupy 100% of the available
facility capacity (i.e., the "tested" waste
is the only solid waste in the facility).
As a reasonable worst case scenario,
the DAF was derived by the transient
model for each constituent under these
conditions. Because the above
assumptions are very conservative, most
of the DAFs derived for the constituents
were found to coincide with the steady-
state values. That is, sufficient mass
was available to insure that steady-state
conditions were reached. Accordingly,
regulatory levels for these constituents
are being promulgated in this rule. For
the following constituents, however, the
steady-state condition was not achieved
under this scenario:
phenol
1,2-dichlorobenzene
carbon disulfide
isobutanol
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
toluene
Accordingly, the Agency is postponing
the promulgation of regulatory levels for
these six constituents until such time as
the investigations are complete. Once
these investigations are completed, the
Agency will take the appropriate action.
ix. Biodegradation. The subsurface
fate and transport model does not
account for biodegradation processes in
the subsurface environment. EPA
recognizes, however, that
biodegradation is an important process
that can reduce concentrations under
either aerobic or anaerobic conditions.
Accordingly, the EPA has constructed
the model so that it can theoretically be
modified to include these processes for
experimentally derived biodegradation
rates: Biodegradation processes have
not been included because the data
bases to support this portion of the
model are currently insufficient.
The first major data deficiency is that
the model incorporates many diverse
subsurface environmental conditions
where as constituent-specific
biodegradation rate data typically exist
for only a few (if any) subsurface
environments. EPA also recognizes that
although the kinetic equations
describing the degradation of hazardous
organic chemicals in many
environments are available, these
equations have not been sufficiently
evaluated in the subsurface environment
(Ref. 10,11.12). Second, the Agency
considers data on the formation of
transformation products to be
insufficient. Third, the key processes
that can affect the subsurface
biodegradation rate are not well
understood. These processes include
sorption. pH. temperature, nutrient
availability, toxicity, and others. For
example, while nutrient levels in the
environment are generally considered
sufficient for low populations of
microorganisms, the microorganic .
population at which the nutrient
availability in the environment becomes
a limiting factor is not known.
Additionally, while sorption is well
understood for hydrophobic compounds
at low concentrations (Ref. 13), at
concentrations where the compounds
can form small droplets or become
entrained in the micropores of the
-------
11824 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
subsurface matrix, sorption effects are
not well understood. The effects of
temperature have been characterized in
innumerable studies of isolated
microorganisms, but the kinetics of
these effects have only recently been
investigated in environmental samples
(Ref. 14). Finally, the toxicity of
hazardous chemicals to the
microorganisms themselves is only now
being investigated (Ref. 15).
Accordingly, the Agency is continuing
to gather data to refine the modeling of
biodegradation, but has not been able to
include biodegradation in the ground
water transport model at this time. In
this regard. EPA has published
guidelines for developing anaerobic
. microbiological biodsgradation rate
data for chemicals in the subsurface
environment (see 40 CFR 795.54). Results
developed under these guidelines will
provide data on kinetic rates of
degradation, and to a lesser extent, on
the effects of pH and temperature on
these rates. Similar guidelines have not
been developed for aerobic systems at
this time. Data developed under 40 CFR
795.54 may be considered for use in the
model at some future time.
x. Summary of General Modifications,
The Technical Background Document
(Ref. 9) describes in detail the model
revisions, including options developed
but not implemented for the purposes of
establishing the regulatory levels for
today's rule. A summary of the major
model options and procedures
implemented for the rule follows:
» The model was run for the steady-
state case. The initial condition was a
constant concentration. The equations
were solved for infinite time.
• The unsaturated lone module was
included in the analysis.
• Concentrations can be predicted at
wells placed at any position. The wells
can be allowed to draw from any
selected depth,
• The updated method of computing
dispersivities as a function of random
longitudinal well locations was used
(designated in the model as the "Gelhar
procedure").
» The option implemented for setting
the boundary conditions between ths
unsaturated zone and the aquifer was
the one that limits the lateral extent of
the plume to the downgradient facility
width, computes vertical mixing and
dispersion underneath the facility, and
estimates the maximum source
concentration within the plume based
on mass balance requirements. Any
combination of conditions that violated
these requirements and, thus is not
physically realistic, was rejected.
The above options and additional
options are listed in the background
document for the mods! {Ref. 9).
Specifically, the model input and control
variables, as required and accepted by
the computer code, are listed for each
computer run used to set regulatory
levels in today's rule.
By incorporating these modifications,
the EPACML, as applied to landfills,
models the following basic features:
• The landfills are filled to capacity
and covered with native soil.
« Caps are characterized as being in a
failed or deteriorated state. Thus,
permeabilities are set to be higher than
would be typical of landfills with an
undamaged cap. It is assumed that liners
are not present,
* All wells (exposure points) are
considered to be downgradient in every
model ran. The longitudinal distance
parallel to the direction of ground water
flow is determined from data described
later in section III.E.3.
' • Lateral well location is determined
by allowing the position to uniformly
vary at random within the plume width
and with the additional constraint that
the location also must be within an area
defined by lines at SO-degree angles
from the direction of ground water flow
at the midpoint of the downgradient
boundary of the facility.
• Vertical well location is determined
by allowing the position of the well
intake point to uniformly vary at
random over the entire aquifer depth.
« The landfill storage capacity is
assumed to be sufficient to
accommodate sufficient mass of each
constituent to allow a steady-state
condition to exist. This produces an
infinite source initial condition.
« Constituents contained within the
landfill do not degrade.
« Infiltration rates are represented as
annually averaged flows based on 20-
year climatic records and concomitant
water balance calculations.
b. Use of the EPACML for Surface
Impoundments, Because some wastes
are managed in surface impoundments
rather than landfills, several
commenters indicated the need to
analyze and include the results obtained
by considering a surface impoundment
mismanagement scenario. They argued
that dilution/attenuation factors (DAFsJ
generated by modeling a landfill
scenario would be too stringent for
wastes managed in surface
impoundments. Based upon these
comments, the Agency decided to
investigate whether surface
impoundment DAFs would be
significantly different from landfill
DAFs. EPA requested comment on the
use of this data in the August 1,1988
notice.
Based upon this investigation, the
Agency has concluded that the use of
DAFs based on a landfill scenario is
appropriate in establishing the
regulatory levels for wastes managed in
surface impoundments. EPA used the
EPACML model to confirm this analysis
by modeling a surface impoundment
mismanagement scenario.
This conclusion is based on the
Agency's evaluation of the physical
parameters that would lead to different
DAFs for surface impoundments than
for landfills. A key factor that could lead
to differences in the DAFs from these
two types of management units (surface
impoundments and landfills) Is the
difference in total leachate infiltration
rates. The infiltration rate is equal to the
product of ths leachate mass flux {mass
per unit area per unit time) and the area
of the management unit. For surface
impoundments, the mass flux can be
considerably greater than for landfills.
However, to the extent that the area of
surface impoundments is typically
smaller than the area of landfills
(although some atypical surface
impoundments can be as large, if not
larger than landfills), the effects of the
greater leachate flux are somewhat
offset. That is, while the flux is greater.
the area is smaller, resulting in
relatively similar leachate infiltration
rates.
A second factor that affects the DAFs
is the situation in which the leachate
flux is large and the ground water
velocity is relatively small. In these
situations, a ground water mound may
form below the management unit. This
effect is more typically associated with
surface impoundments because of their
higher leachate fluxes; this effect should
result in smaller DAFs (and, thus, more
stringent regulatory levels) than would
be predicted if the mounding did not
occur. As a result of these factors, the
Agency concluded that DAFs from a
surface impoundment scenario would be
equivalent to or less than DAFs from a
landfill scenario.
To confirm this conclusion, EPA used
EPACML to evaluate a surface
impoundment scenario. The main
features of the surface impoundment
scenario, as simulated using EPACML.
are as follows:
• The surface impoundments are
filled to their fluid capacity and are
assumed to operate on a continuous
basis.
• Bottom layers are characterized as
being in a more permeable state
(typically ten times greater) than those
found in field studies.
* Location rules for downgradient
well positions and lateral and vartica1
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11825
locations are identical to landfills. The
data base for longitudinal distances is
different, however,
» The operating life of the surface
impoundment is assumed to be
sufficient to accommodate a sufficient
mass of constituent to allow a steady-
state condition to exist. This assumption
produces an infinite source initial
condition.
• The leaching rate from a surface
impoundment depends on, among other
factors, the ponding depth in the
impoundment and the characteristics of
the bottom materials. The Hydrologic
Evaluation of Landfill Performance
(HELP) model used in evaluating the
landfill data is inadequate to determine
the leaching rates from surface
impoundments. Therefore, the leaching
rates from subtitle D surface
impoundments were estimated by
considering the relationship between the
velocity in the vertical direction and the
substrate's porosity and permeability
and the solution of the nonlinear steady
state flow problem. To be conservative,
the Agency used a permeability value
ten times higher than the value typically
reported in field studies as an input for
calculating leaching rates (the source of
these data are discussed below).
• The Agency has not yet conducted a
detailed survey for subtitle D surface
impoundments, but the Agency
conducted a review and analysis of data
on subtitle D units in RCRA Facility
Assessment (RFA) Reports (Ref 16). A
set of data on subtitle D surface
impoundments was obtained from this
analysis and used as inputs to the
EPACML. Additional data were
compiled from aerial photographs by
EPA's Environmental Photographic
Interpretation Center (EPIC).
• The data extracted from RFSs
included the area of the surface •
impoundments and the distance to
downgradient drinking water wells as
determined by EPIC.
« The ponding depth data for the
subtitle D surface impoundments were
reported by E, C. Jordan (Ref. 9). The
hydraulic conductivity of the bottom
materials was chosen as 1.0 E-6 cm/sec.
This value reflects the effect of gradual
settlement and compaction of sediments
at the bottom, because surface
impoundments tend to fill up with
sediments over a period of about 20
years or so. The Agency believes that
the hydraulic conductivity value of 1.0
E-6 cm/sec represents a reasonable
worst-case value. These values were
used in conjunction with EPACML to
estimate DAFs for the surface
impoundment data.
As expected, DAFs predicted for
surface impoundments are somewhat
smaller than the corresponding values
for landfills (see section III.E.4).
However, because the EPACML does
not incorporate the mounding effect, the
surface impoundment evaluation was
restricted to include only those cases
where mounding would be minimal and,
thus, reasonably ignored. As a
consequence of limiting tht evaluation
to these cases, the modeling results tend
to omit some worst case scenarios. That
is, if all possible cases were included,
rather than just the "no mounding"
cases, the DAFs for surface
impoundments could be somewhat
lower and, thus, the downgradient
concentrations may be higher than those
estimated by the EPACML model. The
Agency thus believes that the omitted
surface impoundment conditions should
be further investigated and may result in
more stringent regulatory levels. The
Agency believes, however, that the
DAFs produced by the EPACML
analysis properly delineate wastes that
are clearly hazardous wastes.
3. Newly Acquired Data
As previously described, the DAFs
proposed on June 13,1988, were
calculated based on the subtitle D
landfill scenario. However, subtitle D
landfill data were not available to the
Agency at that time, and instead,
subtitle C landfill data were used.
Several commenters criticized the use
of subtitle C (hazardous waste) landfill
data. The Agency agreed with the
commenters and has based the final rule
on data from a survey of solid waste
subtitle D landfills.
a. Landfill Data. The Agency
conducted a survey of municipal solid
waste landfills in the U.S. (Ref. 6). The
survey used a stratified design based on
facility size. The results were tabulated
based on 1,102 completed
questionnaires. The survey yielded data
on area of landfills, distance to the
nearest downgradient drinking1 water
wells, and thickness of the unsaturated
zone. These data are site-specific,
corresponding to individual solid waste
landfills located throughout the United
States. The survey data were analyzed
to develop distributions of these site-
specific parameters and used as inputs
to EPACML, as described in the model
background document (Ref. 9), The input
frequency distributions are also
presented in the background document.
EPA also collected additional data on
leachate generation at municipal
landfills. EPASMOD requires, as input,
the leachate distribution from the
bottom of the landfill. The leaching rate
distributions for the June 13.1988,
proposal were based on the use of a
single soil type, loam, as the cover soil
for the landfill. These distributions were
estimated using climatologic data for a
total of 30 cities nationwide,
representing the median range for each
of 18 climatological conditions or zones
identified in the 48 contiguous states.
The assumptions of a single soil type
and 18 climatic zones were criticized as
not being realistic and resulting in an
overly optimistic cap performance. The
commenters suggested enhancing the
data base by including simulation of
different soil covers.
In response to these comments, the
Agency has implemented a number of
changes. The Agency believes that these
modifications significantly improve the
validity of the leachate flux distribution
and make it more realistic.
So/7 Type
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
has a county-by-county soil mapping
program underway. More than SO
percent of the land area in the U.S. has
been mapped, and soil data representing
approximately 51 percent of the total
land area in the U.S. have been entered
into a computer data base. Using this
data base, the soil classifications were
grouped according to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's definitions
of coarse, medium, and fine textures.
These three categories are represented
in EPACML by soils equivalent in
properties to sandy loam, silt loam, and
silty clay loara for the landfill cover
materials. The latest results show that
coarse grained soils, medium grained
soils, and fine grained soils represent
15.4, 56.6, and 28.0 percent, respectively,
of the soils that have been mapped thus
far.
Climatic Zones
The number of cities representing
climatic variations that were used to
develop frequency distributions for the
leachate generation has been increased
from 30 to 100. The reason for this
change was to reduce the chance that
any one city would provide an
unrepresentative percolation rate in its
climatic range.
The climatic data base used in
EPACML was enhanced to include six
precipitation ranges and five ranges of
pan evaporation rates, thereby resulting
in 30 climatic ranges as opposed to the
18 described in the earlier proposal. For
the climatic ranges so defined, the
percentage of the area of the 43 states
represented by each range was
calculated, and the percent areal
average was used to weight the
percolation (recharge and/or
infiltration) rate estimated for the
selected cities in each range according
-------
11826 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday, March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
to probable relative occurrence in the
U.S. The effect of these changes is to
provide more representative values of
the overall national distribution of the
leachate flux.
After the percolation data for the
landfill were calculated using the HELP
model (Ref. 9), the climatic ranges were
further subdivided to account for wide
variations in percolation within a range.
This resulted in separate subranges
being established for some California
cities (Los Angeles, Sacramento, San
Diego, and Santa Maria), and two
Oregon cities (Medford and Astoria),
Percolation rates for each of the
selected cities in the 48 contiguous
states were determined using silt loam,
sandy loam, and silly clay loam cover
soils. These soils, based on data
obtained from the SCS, appear to
represent the most common soil types in
the U.S., and thus the most common soil
to be used as covers for landfills. They
also span the range of likely cover soils,
from fine-grained to coarse-grained, or
from low to high percolation rates.
Simulations were performed for each of
these soil types, and the results
weighted according to the frequency of
occurrence for each type.
The leaching rate flux was determined
by using the average, weighted
percolation rate from the cities in each
climatic range. The model background
document (Ref. 9) presents the data used
and the accompanying changes to the
June 13,1986 proposal runs.
b. Chemical-Specific Parameters. In
the EPASMOD proposal, chemical
parameters, such as hydrolysis rates,
were used to calculate the relative
retardation factors and degradation
rates for selected compounds. Some of
the chemical-specific parameters used in
that model were estimated based on a
brief review of the existing chemical
data. Some commenters criticized some
of the parameter values selected and
used for that proposal as being
nonrepresentative of the range of
parameter values.
The Agency has an ongoing program
for the measurement of constituent-
specific parameters and for the review
of new constituent-specific data as
reported in the current scientific
literature, Some hydrolysis rate
constants and octanol-water partition
coefficients used in the proposal have
been revised to reflect the most recent
laboratory measurements and recent
values reported in the literature. The
updated parameter values are given in
the background document (Ref. 9) and
represent either measured or best
available values.
4, DAF Evaluation
a. Selection of an Appropriate
Percentile. As described earlier, the
EPACML was used to investigate the
expected range of DAFs associated with
mismanagement of solid wastes. As
generated by EPACML, the DAF
represents the expected reduction in the
concentration of a constituent during
transport through soil and ground water
from the leachate release point (bottom
of the waste management unit) to an
exposure point (a well serving as a
drinking-water supply). The wide range
of possible environmental settings (e.g.,
ground water velocities, pH,
temperatures, etc.) and tha multitude of
possible scenario configurations (e.g.,
, facility area, distance to downgradient
wells, etc.) result in an extremely wide
range of DAFs. Monte carlo simulation
was used to implement EPACML. and
the resulting cumulative frequency
distribution can be viewed as a ranked
order of increasingly higher
downgradient concentrations expected
from the "best-case" situations (large
DAFs) to the "worst-case" situations
(small DAFs) for the scenario being
investigated.
The Agency's proposed approach was
to define DAFs representative of
reasonable worst-case conditions as
those corresponding to the 85th
percentile of the cumulative frequency
distribution. The Agency received
numerous comments on the selection of
the 85th percentile, which are addressed
in Section d, following.
b. Resulting DAFs for Landfills, The
DAF values corresponding to various
cumulative frequency levels for landfills
are as follows:
Pereenfile
An nondegrading constitu-
ents..
80
328
385
85
134
152
90
47
52
95
12
14
'The DAFs (or chloroform are sligtitiy highw than
tor the other nondegrading constituents because
chlorctcrm is expected to hyfirotyze slightly during
transport
The similar DAF values for
nondegrading constituents and
chloroform arises because all these
constituents either do not degrade at all
or only degrade slightly.
c. Resulting DAFs for Surface
Impoundments. The DAF values
corresponding to various cumulative
frequency levels for the surface
impoundment investigations described
in EJ.b of this section are as follows;
Percentile
AH nondegrading constitu-
ents ..,....,41..,.1......i.«.»-nm..ion
Chloroform «««..-™™..».
80
226
227
85
111
111
90
51
5?
95
19
19
As with the landfills, the constant
DAF for all constituents reflects the fact
that nondegraders and very slow
degraders have virtually identical
environmental fate for the scenario
investigated. As the resulting numbers
indicate, within a.reasonable degree of
accuracy, the DAFs for waste managed
in surface impoundments are equivalent
to the corresponding landfill DAFs.
d. Final DAF Selection. The Agency's
purpose in developing dilution/
attenuation factors (DAFs) is to identify
wastes whose leaching behavior
indicates that they may pose a hazard to
human health unless they are controlled
under subtitle C management standards.
Thus, the Agency developed a
subsurface fate and transport model that
simulates a subtitle D management unit
(i.e., a municipal landfill) and the
subsurface environment that would be
encountered by toxic constituents as
they migrate from the management unit
to a drinking-water well. In order to
make the model's output (DAFs) as
realistic as possible, the Agency
implemented the model using real-world
distributions for parameter values (e.g.,
areas of landfills, properties of the
subsurface environment, etc.) whenever
possible. The monte carlo structure of
the simulation allowed the modeling
results to be presented as a cumulative
frequency distribution or probability.
That is, the model expresses the
probability that a toxic constituent
disposed of in a municipal solid waste
landfill will undergo certain dilution/
attenuation as it moves through a
subsurface environment to an exposure
point. Thus, there is a different DAF for
each selected probability.
In its June 13,1986 proposal notice, the
Agency proposed the use of the DAF
corresponding to the 85th percentile
cumulative frequency level and
requested comment on the use of other
percentile levels. Comments were
received urging the use of both higher
and lower levels. Recommendations for
using the 30th percentile cumulative
frequency were justified by assertions
that the assumptions used in the model
were already unduly conservative. One
commenter noted that EPA could still
rely on the listing program to regulate
wastes whose leachate concentrations
would not exceed the regulatory levels
derived from the lower percentile DAF
but that are still considered hazardous.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9341.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11827
Other commenters argued that the 85th
percentile was not adequately protective
of human health and the environment.
One commenter, claiming that
assumptions in the model were not
conservative enough, recommended that
the 95th percentile be used.
In selecting the appropriate level, the
Agency recognizes that there is no
consensus "correct" level for
interpreting modeling results. This has
resulted in a particular challenge in
developing today's rule, wherein a
quantitative approach is being used for
guidance in answering what is a partly
qualitative question'—namely, "what is
the human health impact of unregulated
- management of certain types of wastes
in a 'reasonable worst-case* disposal
scenario?" While the Agency believes
that the 85th percentile is an appropriate
choice to represent a reasonable worst-
case result, consideration of the
relationship of the 85th percentile DAF
to other percentile DAFs is also
appropriate. That is, the Agency
believes that the behavior, or shape, of
the upper portion of the cumulative
frequency distribution curve should also
be evaluated in order to determine how
critical the selection of a particular
frequency level is to the DAF.
Another consideration in determining
the appropriate DAF value, independent
of the selected cumulative frequency
level, is the accuracy inherent in the
data set used. Given that there is some
uncertainty associated with any data set
used to represent possible values for
any parameter, and that the model
requires values for many parameters,
the Agency believes that the selected
DAF value should not imply an undue
degree of accuracy.
After considering the above factors,
the Agency has concluded that a DAF
value of 100 is appropriate for
establishing the regulatory levels for the
constituents included in today's rule.1
First, the Agency believes that,
considering the number of parameters
for which distributions of values were
" established (in order to represent a
"generalized" scenario), a DAF with an
order-of-magnitude precision is
1 As explained previously, the Agency is not. in
today's rule, promulgating regulatory levels for
several of the constituents for which regulatory
levels were proposed. These constituents include
those that are expected to hydrolyze appreciably
and those for which it has not yet been determined
whether the steady-state solution to the subsurface
fate and transport mode! is appropriate. Once the
issues associated with these constituents are
resolved, the Agency will promulgate or repropose
(as warranted) regulatory levels for these
constituents. For cases where regulatory levels are
reproposed, they may incorporate dilution/
attenuation factors other than 100,
appropriate.2 Second, in selecting this
DAF value of 100, the Agency noted that
the 80th and 90th percentile DAFs, as
well as the 85th percentile DAFs,
indicate that constituents migrating in
the modeled disposal scenario will be
diluted by approximately two orders of
magnitude. This is also true of the
predicted DAFs from the data used for
surface impoundments. Thus, EPA
believes that a DAF data used for
indicating dilution by two orders of
magnitude (i.e. 100) is appropriate.
Moreover, as the data indicate, on an
order-of-magnitude scale, the predicted
DAF is not extremely sensitive to the
exact cumulative frequency value that
was selected.
The Agency points out that the
considerations leading to the use of 100
to represent the model-predicted
dilution/attenuation factors are unique
to today's promulgation. In other cases,
different conclusions may be more
appropriate. For example, when
parameter values can be more narrowly
defined (as in site-specific evaluations),
the higher degree of precision may be
appropriately ascribed to the model-
predicted DAFs. Likewise, where the
program goals are different (i.e. other
than to identify levels that are indicative
of wastes that clearly are hazardous),
the selection of a value that represents a
cumulative frequency value other than
the 85th percentile may be warranted.
F. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) (Method 1311)
1. Introduction
The development of the TCLP and the
role of the test in identifying a waste as
hazardous were discussed at length in
the June 1886 proposal (51 FR 21648).
Today, EPA is promulgating the TCLP,
with some improvements and
modifications, as a replacement to the
EP for use in the identification of
hazardous waste. (The revised TCLP is
promulgated in Appendix II to 40 CFR
part 261 and has been designated as
EPA Method 1311 and will be
incorporated in "Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/
Chemical Methods—SW-MB",)
The Agency received numerous
comments in response to the Federal
Register notices (51 FR 1602, 51 FR
21648, 51 FR 24856, 51 FR 33297, 51 FR
40593, 51 FR 40643 and 53 FR 18712)
related to the TCLP procedure. In
particular, EPA received close to 140
comments on the application of the
TCLP in response to the June 1988
* The health data is only valid to one order of
magnitude precision and thus may control the total
number of significant figures.
proposal. The comments covered
general issues such as the relationship
to the EP, the adequacy of research
supporting TCLP development and
specifically, the statistical treatment of
data. Commenters also addressed
technical issues including the suitability
of the zero head space extraction (ZHE)
vessel; the types of filters, reagents, and
leaching media; the quality assurance
requirements; and the multiple
extraction and oily waste extraction
procedures. In addition, comments were
received on the use'of quantitation
limits for establishing regulatory levels.
All the comments were categorized and
summarized by issue and are presented
in the technical background document
along with the Agency's response to
these comments (Ref. 4).
In this preamble, only certain
comments are discussed, which include
(a) the applicability of the TCLP to
specific types of waste (i.e.. solidified
wastes); (b) the analytical difficulties
encountered during the analysis of the
TCLP extract for phenolic compounds
and phenoxy acid herbicides: and (c) the
use of quantitation limits. The first two
comment issues are presented below
while the last comment and the
Agency's response is given in section
IV.C. of this preamble.
2, Adoption in the LDR Rulemaking and
Modification from the Proposed Rule
The TCLP was promulgated in
Appendix I to 40 CFR part 288 on
November 7,1986 (51 FR 40593), as part
of the Land Disposal Restrictions Rule
for Solvents and Dioxins. The TCLP is
used in the Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDR) program to determine whether
certain wastes require treatment prior to
land disposal and to determine whether
certain treated wastes meet the
applicable treatment standards. In
today's rule, the Agency has
incorporated two other clarifications to
the TCLP as proposed on May 24,1988
(53 FR 18782) for use in both the LDR
and the TC programs.
The Agency modified the proposed
TCLP as a result of the Agency's own
research and comments received on the
January 14.1988 (51 FR 1602) proposal
for the LDR program and the June 13,
1986 (51 FR 21648) proposal for the TC.
These modifications to the TCLP were
promulgated on November 7,1988 for
the LDR program. On May 24,1888, the
Agency proposed additional
modifications to the TCLP for both the
LDR and the TC. In today's rule, the
Agency has adopted two of these
proposed changes, and is promulgating
the revised TCLP for use in both the
LDR and TC programs.
-------
*»»
"•
11828 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday. March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
The first change is the insertion of a
more detailed method flow chart to
explain how analysts ars to perform the
test. Comments axprsased confusion
regarding the original Dow chart {e.g.,
that it was difficult to follow), so the
Agency has added this new chart to
eliminate confusion. The second change
is the addition of new equipment
suppliers to provide more information
on the availability of suitable testing
equipment. The new equipment
suppliers include two manufacturers of
rotary agitation devices, Environmental
Machine and Design, Inc., of Lynchbarg,
VA, and Miliipore Corporation of
Bedford, MA; two manufacturers of a
2ero-headspace extractor (ZKE) vessel,
. Lars Lands of Whitmore Lake, MI and
Environmental Machine and Design,
Inc., of Lynchburg, VA; and three
manufacturers of filter media, Miliipore
Corporation of Bedford, MA; Nudeopore
Corporation of Pleasanton, CA; and
Micro Filtration Systems of Dublin, CA,
These manufacturers are listed in
Tables 2,3. and 5, respectively, of the
method (i.e., Appendix II of 40 CFR 261),
along with company telephone numbers
and equipment model numbers.
Another more substantial proposed
modification, the addition of a stainless
steel cage insert to the bottle extractor,
will not be added by the Agency at this
time for the reasons discussed below.
The Agency had proposed this
modification to eliminate the
requirement for particle si2e reduction
for certain types of wastes (e.g.,
solidified materials).
3. Applicability of TCLP to Solidified
Wastes
Some commenters expressed
reservations regarding the applicability
of the TCLP to specific types of wastes.
The wastes of concern were solidified
wastes. Numerous commenters
supported the reinstatement of the
structural integrity procedure (SIP) or
some other stability criterion for
solidified wastes. They argued that
particle size reduction (i.e., "grinding")
would be inappropriate in those
instances where solidification of the
waste is needed to meet the best
demonstrated available technology
(BOAT) provisions of the law and that
grinding may not adequately represent
the weathering process or the effect of
vehicular traffic. Commenters
recommended that the Agency retain the
SIP. Others agreed that particle size
reduction is inappropriate for stabilized
monolithic wastes and produces
unrepresentative results. Specifically,
commenters stated that particle aize
reduction alters the physical character
of many solidified wastes by destroying
the cementitious property of these
wastes in such a way that the leaching
rate increases unrealistically. By
increasing the surface area that is
available to attack by a leaching
medium, the amount and rate at which
substances may be leached increases.
Inasmuch as waste grinding is not
normally employed in municipal
landfills, particle size reduction renders
the TCLP a less accurate model of
leaching in a municipal landfill
environment.
Sinca the June 13,1986, proposal the
Agency has reviewed the use of the SIP,
which uses a drop-hammer to test the
integrity of the waste and to reduce its
size if it fractures. The Agency found
that although the SIP may simulate the
potential of a monolithic waste to be
degraded by vehicular traffic on a
landfill, it cannot address certain other
stresses acting on the waste (e.g., wet-
dry and freeze-lhaw cycles], in addition,
the SIP can.only be used for wastes that
can be prepared in a sample of specified
dimensions.
While evaluating the use of the SIP,
the Agency found that dense, hard
materials would occasionally break the
glass extractor bottle. To prevent
breakage of the bottles, the Agency
developed a cage insert for the extractor
bottle. The cage, which is designed to
prevent contact between the hard
sample and the sides of the bottle, is
constructed of 0.25-inch stainless steel
woven mesh. Experiments have shown
that the use of the cage prevents bottle
breakage.
While evaluating the utility of the
cage, the Agency noticed that wastes
that were believed to be well-solidified
retained their monolithic nature in the
cage during extraction, whereas wastes
that were believed to be less well-
stabilized (even though some of them
had passed the SIP) were broken into
small pieces during the extraction. Thus,
these experiments led to the proposed
use of the stainless steel wire cage in the
extraction apparatus (53 FR 28792. May
24,1988). The use of this device, the
Agency believed, tested the physical
integrity of the sample and reduces
particle size appropriately.
Commenters expressed support for
the cage modification—that it Is a step
In the appropriate direction toward a
more realistic assessment of the
environmental leaching potential of a
solidified waste. However, commenters
also had concerns that the cage was
proposed prematurely—that not enough
evaluation of waste samples using the
cage had been done. Specifically,
commenters argued that the cage could
possibly leach significant quantities of
nickel and chromium to contaminate
metals analysis; that it \vould be
difficult to collect representative
samples in some cases; that there were
problems with the configuration of the
cage so that it could not be
accommodated to fit a large array of
bottles; that the cage's construction
provided numerous crevices and a
significant amount of surface area for
waste residue to collect, making
effective cage cleaning difficult; and that
solidified samples could be molded into
a shape that would cause less material
to be sloughed off during extraction.
leading to a less aggressive test. The
Agency agrees with these commenters
and has decided not to go forwerd with
the cage modification at this time. The
Agency currently has work under.vay to
evaluate all these concerns, and will
continue to evaluate modifications of
the TCLP and will propose further
improvements as they are developed.
4. Analytical Methods
Several comments addressed the
analytical difficulties of analyzing the
TCLP extract for phenolic compounds
and phenoxy acid herbicides by gas
chromatography/mass spectroscopy,
SW-848 Method 8250 (GC/MS), These
analytical difficulties include the
interference of the acetate ion in the
TCLP leach fluid with the column
packing material of Method 8250.
Removal of the acetate ion is often
difficult, and equipment damage may
result if the acetate is not removed i\.e.,
the acetate ion can destroy the column
packing material).
The Agency agrees that analysis for
acidic compounds by GC methods may
be difficult, but not impossible. The
Agency suggests the use of a bonded-
phase capillary column (Method 8270) to
reduce the interference from acetate. In
addition, the Agency is investigating
other methods for removal of the acetate
ion from the extract before analysis for
the phenolics and herbicide and
welcomes alternative suggestions.
especially when accompanied by
supporting data.
The Agency had suggested the use of
HPLC as an alternative to GC/MS
analysis of phenolics and phenoxy acid
herbicides. However, several
commenters believed that an HPLC
method is generally regarded as more
expensive and not as readily available
as GC/MS. In addition, some
commenters indicated that GC/MC is a
better method analytically than HPLC.
and that HPLC would be more difficult
to implement The commenters
expressed that, at the very least, a
lengthy verification process woald be
-------
OSWER.DIR. NO. .9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 81 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11829
required to determine an HPLC method's
ruggedness and reproducibility and to
determine the most effective cleanup
steps. The commenters further suggested
that even if an effective HPLC cleanup
procedure is developed and approved by
the Agency, it is bound to increase the
analytical costs and slow down the
analytical throughput. Even without
considering this restriction, the
procedure of leaching the organics into
an aqueous medium, followed by
extraction, recovery, and concentration,
fs bound to require more manpower and
thus more money than a more direct
solvent extraction of the solid itself. The
commenters indicated that methods for
analyzing solid waste for semi-volatile
organics and phenoxyacid herbicides
are already described in SW-848 and
should be the preferred methods, both
for practicality and as a way of
providing a reliable test.
The Agency agrees that the GC/MS or
GC/electron capture (GC/EC) analysis
is more advantageous for the analysis of
phenolics and phenoxy acid herbicides
because the equipment is more readily
"and widely available than HPLC,
despite the associated difficulties. HPLC
methods for phenolic compounds are not
included in the third edition of SW-846
because of a lack of validation data. The
Agency will allow only the use of the
GC/MS method until such time that the
Agency proposes an HPLC method.
C, Testing and Recordkeeping
Reguirements
1. Existing Requirements for Generators
Under existing regulations, persons
who generate solid waste are not
specifically required to test their wastes
to determine whether they exhibit the
characteristic of EP toxicity or any other
characteristic. Instead, solid waste
generators are required to make a
determination as to whether or not their
wastes are hazardous (40 CFR 262.11).
If a waste is found to be excluded
from regulation under § 261.4, or if it is
found to be a listed hazardous waste
under subpart D of 40 CFR part 261, no
further determination of hazardousness
is necessary. On the other hand, if a
waste is neither excluded nor listed, the
solid waste generator must determine
whether it exhibits any of the hazardous
waste characteristics in subpart C of 40
CFR part 281. This determination may
be made by either testing the waste or
applying knowledge of the waste, the
raw materials, and the processes used in
its generation.
If a waste is determined to be
hazardous, the generator must keep
records establishing the basis for that
determination (40 CFR 262.40(c}). These
records must be maintained for at least
3 years after the generator no longer
handles the waste in question. Neither
of these recordkeeping requirements,
however, applies to solid waste
generators who do not generate
hazardous wastes.
Other provisions in the hazardous
waste regulations make generators
responsible for knowing the properties
of their wastes and for documenting that
knowledge. For example, generators
who declare that their wastes are
hazardous must nevertheless have
sufficient knowledge of their wastes to
complete the Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest, to use proper labels,
containers, and placards, and to satisfy
all applicable reporting and
recordkeeping requirements (see 45 FR
12728, February 26,1980). In addition, all
generators of hazardous waste are
required under 40 CFR part 268 to
determine whether their wastes are
restricted from land disposal.
2. Changes Considered
In the June 13,1986 proposal, EPA
expressed concern that the current
system for determining whether a solid
waste is hazardous may be inadequate
to ensure that wastes are characterized
properly as hazardous or nonhazardous.
Because of the importance of accurate
hazard determinations to the RCRA
subtitle C program, the Agency
discussed the possibility of requiring
solid waste generators to test their
wastes periodically.
In the proposed rule. EPA identified
three general approaches that might be
adopted in the TC final rule. In the first
approach, the Agency would retain the
current approach, allowing generators to
rely on their knowledge of materials and
processes used in generating wastes as
a basis for their determination. In the
second approach, EPA would require the
testing of wastes, at a frequency
specified by regulation. Finally, in the
third approach, the Agency would
require testing but without specifying a
particular testing frequency. Under this
third approach, generators would be
required to develop an appropriate
testing frequency, based on Agency
guidance, and to document the basis for
their choice.
Commenters were heavily divided on
the issue of testing and recordkeeping
requirements. Many commenters,
including waste management firms and
a few generators, favored mandatory
testing of solid wastes. Most of these
commenters argued that generators
typically lack sufficient information to
determine accurately the composition of
their wastes without testing. Indeed, one
commenter claimed that with 52
constituents regulated at the part-per-
million level or lower, a generator could
never be sure whether a waste exhibits
the TC without performing the TCLP
test. The commenters concluded that
testing is the only reliable method for
ensuring that potentially hazardous
wastes are properly identified and
managed.
A few commenters offered somewhat
different reasons for supporting testing
requirements. For example, some
commenters pointed out that mandatory
testing would facilitate EPA
enforcement efforts. Others claimed that
mandatory testing would reduce
uncertainty by making it clear to
generators precisely what EPA expects
of them with respect to performing
hazardous waste determinations.
Another group of commenters,
however, opposed the imposition of a
formal testing requirement. These
commenters argued that mandatory
testing would place an inordinate
burden on the regulated community
without providing significant benefit for
human health and the environment. In
particular, the commenters claimed that
mandatory testing is unlikely to identify
wastes that were improperly
characterized as nonhazardous when
generators relied exclusively on their
knowledge. According to these
commenters, generators rely on their
knowledge only when the wastes they
produce are clearly hazardous or clearly
nonhazardous. Whenever uncertainty
exists, these commenters stated,
generators either declare their wastes
hazardous or perform appropriate tests.
The commenters emphasized that this
cautioned response "results from
generators' liability for making incorrect
determinations, regardless of whether
they test their wastes. The commenters
concluded that requiring testing of all
wastes would deplete resources and
place a strain on limited laboratory
capacity.
The Agency recognizes that there are
many difficult issues related to the
imposition of a testing requirement, both
for the Toxicity Characteristic and the
other hazardous waste characteristics.
While the Agency believes that a testing
requirement could improve the Agency's
enforcement tools, the Agency believes
that the current requirements for
hazardous waste determinations are not
ineffective because many generators do
have sufficient knowledge to make a
determination without a test. The
Agency further believes that liability for
incorrect determinations provides a
strong incentive for not misclassifying
hazardous wastes as non-hazardous.
Although EPA thinks that the current
-------
11830 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
system set forth in 40 CFR 262.11 is
effective, the Agency believes that
imposing a testing requirement does
have some merit, in that it could
increase the accuracy of determinations,
could clarify the responsibilities of
generators, and could facilitate
compliance monitoring,
The Agency will continue to evaluate
the comments on this issue as well as
explore other options for a testing
requirement. At present, however, the
Agency is not yet ready to go forward
with a testing requirement based on any
of the options it has evaluated thus far.
Should the Agency decide that an
appropriate approach is available, it will
propose and solicit comment upon the
details of that approach in a separate
rulemaking. In the meantime, the
Agency believes that the existing
determination requirement (as specified
at 40 CFR 262.11), as well as the liability
for incorrect determinations, is effective
and practical,
H. Applicability to Wastes Managed in
Surface Impoundments
As discussed above, in response to
the proposed TC, EPA received many
comments questioning the validity of
applying the TC to wastes, including
waste waters, likely to be managed in
surface impoundments. In response to
commenters* concerns, on May 18,1987,
EPA published a Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal
Register, which requested comments
and data on several issues related to the
regulation of wastes managed in surface
impoundments under the TC rule. The
Agency also requested comment
(assuming such an approach) on: (l) The
criteria to be used to determine whether
the surface impoundment scenario
should apply to a particular waste, (2)
the point at which concentration
measurements should be made (e.g., at
the point of generation or within the
impoundment), and (3) how multiple
surface impoundments should be
handled under the TC rule.
Comments received in response to the
notice concerning the surface
impoundment management scenario are
summarized and addressed in section
U1.A.2.C. Comments received in response
to the notice, which addressed sampling
point and multiple impoundment issues,
are discussed below,
1. Sampling Point
In the May 18,1987 notice, EPA
requested comments on whether
evaluations of wastes managed in
surface impoundments should be based
on measurements of the concentration in
the impoundment or at the inlet to the
impoundment In response, some
commenters supported sampling at the
inlet to the impoundment and stated that
sampling the waste within the
impoundment is not only contrary to
Congressional intent, but conflicts with
EPA's own regulations that require the
determination of hazard to be made at
the point of generation.
Other commenters, however, argued
that wastes should be sampled within
the impoundment or that the
impoundment effluent should be
sampled. Many of these commenters
argued that measuring the
concentrations in the impoundment
more accurately represents the
concentrations of hazardous
constituents that pose a threat to ground
water. Some commenters argued that
evaluation of hazard should be based on
impoundment effluent because
concentrations of the wastewaters
within the impoundment are
approximately the same as the
concentrations in the impoundment
effluent.
If the Agency were to allow persons
to make their determinations on the
waste in the impoundment, it would
raise questions that the Agency has not
yet evaluated completely nor taken
comment on. For example, in this
situation, should the Agency actually
require testing; if so, how often and
what should be tested? Would such a
result allow persons to land dispose of
wastes that (but for the point of hazard
determination) would be hazardous,
contrary to Congressional intent? Would
such a result allow persons to treat
wastes without a permit and thus be
inconsistent with Congressional intent?
EPA concedes that, for some activities
(e.g., closure), leachate quality may be
more appropriately assessed by
measuring concentrations at multiple
sites within the impoundment
The current rules require that the
determination of whether a waste is
hazardous be made at the point of
generation (i.e., when the waste
becomes a solid waste). (A waste must
be a solid waste before it can be
classified as a hazardous waste under
RCRA.) EPA believes that determination
of the regulatory status of a waste at the
point of generation continues to be
appropriate, especially since the Agency
is not developing a separate
mismanagement scenario or set of
regulatory levels for wastewaters. To be
consistent with other hazardous waste
regulations and until the Agency
addresses the above questions, EPA is
retaining the existing approach of
requiring sampling at the point of
generation.
2. Multiple Surface Impoundments
In the May 18,1987 notice, EPA
requested comment on how multiple
surface impoundments or "treatment
trains" should be handled under the TC
rule. Some commenters favored
regulating all surface impoundments in a
treatment train as a single unit—if the
first impoundment treats a hazardous
waste, all impoundments would be
required to comply with the RCRA
regulations for hazardous waste
treatment facilities-. Other commenters,.
however, suggested that each
impoundment should be regulated
individually. Still other commenters
stated that owners and operators should
be required to determine whether the
most upstream surface impoundment is
treating wastes that exhibit the TC, but
they should only be required to evaluate
downstream impoundments if an
upstream impoundment exhibits the TC.
As discussed above, the Agency has
decided not to develop a separate
regulatory scheme for surface
impoundments. Thus, the Agency will
continue to regulate all surface
impoundments as individual units and
will not pursue any of the other options
discussed by commentere. Currently,
under 40 CFR part 261, each surface
impoundment in a series of multiple
surface impoundments is regulated
separately. If a surface impoundment
receives or generates a hazardous
waste, the owner or operator of the
impoundment is required to comply with
the RCRA regulations governing
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. On the other hand, if
a downstream impoundment is not
treating or generating a
characteristically hazardous waste and
upstream units have not managed, listed
wastes, then the downstream unit is not
subject to RCRA subtitle C
requirements.
/. Relationship to Other RCRA
Regulations
1. Hazardous Waste Identification
Regulations
a. Hazardous Waste Listings. Under
the June 13,1988, proposal, the
hazardous waste listings in subpart D of
40 CFR part 261 would not be affected.
All the listings would remain in effect,
including those listings that were based
on the presence of TC constituents. It is
EPA's intention that the hazardous
waste listings would continue to
complement the revised TC as they had
theEPTC.
A number of commenters, however,
argued that the TC should supersede
certain hazardous waste listings. In
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday, March 20. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11831
.particular, they suggested that the TC
should be the only basis for regulating
wastes that have been identified as
hazardous solely because of the
presence of a TC constituent. Such an
approach, according to the commenters,
would establish a more rational basis
for identifying hazardous wastes.
Wastes failing theTC test would be
regulated as hazardous wastes, whether
or not they have previously been listed.
because they have demonstrated the
potential to pose a threat to human
health and the environment. Wastes
passing the TC test, in contrast, would
not be subject to subtitle C regulation.
The commenters claimed that, by
. definition, if the extract from a waste
that was listed because of the presence
of a TC constituent does not contain the
constituent in a concentration greater
than or equal to the regulatory level, the
waste can safely be managed at a
subtitle D facility.
EPA does not agree that the TC
revisions justify elimination of any of
the hazardous waste listings. The
Agency has consistently maintained that
individual waste streams may be listed
regardless of whether the waste is
defined as hazardous by the TC.
Exhibiting a characteristic can
constitute the basis for listing a waste.
In fact, prior to today's action,
approximately 25 listings were- based on
the presence of metals or pesticides
covered by the EPTC.
There are a nnmber of reasons for
continuing this approach. Firstt listed
wastes frequently contain hazardous
constituents other than the ones cited in
Appendix VD of 40 CFR part 261 as- the
basis for the listings. It is for this reason
that Congress directed EPA, in
evaluating delisting petitions, ta
consider constituents other than those
for which the wastes were listed,
assuming that there is a reasonable
basis to believe that such constituents
might render the wastes hazardous (see
RCRA section 3001(fJ). In many cases,
the additional hazardous constituents
that are present in a waste may not be
on the list of TC constituents. The
listings may therefore serve to identify
wastes that pass the TC test bat are
nevertheless hazardous. Removing
wastes from a hazardous waste listing
without an evaluation of additional
constituents would appear to be
inconsistent with the intent of section
3(KM(f).
Another reason for retaining the
hazardous waste listings is that TC
constituents may continue to pose a
threat to human health and the
environment even when they are
present in concentrations lower than the
regulatory levels. The r-iguiatory levels
have not been designed to address the
problems of phytotoxiaty, aquatic
toxicity* or bioaccumulation potential.
Moreover, they have not beea designed
to identify the full range of wastes that
may be toxic to human beings. Instead,
the characteristic levels have been
established at concentrations where
there is a high degree of certainty that
any wastes with constituents at levels
equal to or exceeding the regulatory
levels pose a potential threat to human
health. Individual wastes may continue
to be hazardous, despite the fact that
they may contain TC constituents in
concentrations below the regulatory
levels. This is particularly true for
wastes that have the potential to be
exposed to more aggressive leaching
conditions than those modeled in the
TCLP. As a result, EPA believes that
wastes previously listed as hazardous
should continue to be considered
hazardous, whether or not they exhibit
the characteristic.
b. "Mixture" and "Derived Froat"
Rules. Because the TC will not
supersede the listings for hazardous
wastes, it also will not affect the
regulatory status of wastes that are
hazardous by virtue of the "mixture"
rule of 40 Cm 262.3(a)(2](tv) or the
"derived from" rale of 40 CFR 261 J(c).
The "mixture" rule provides that any
mixture of a listed hazardous waste and
a solid waste is itself a RCRA hazardous
waste.3 The "derived from" rule states
that any waste derived from the
treatment storage, or disposal of a listed
hazardous waste is hazardous.
Several commenters contended that
the current regulatory scheme
encompasses wastes that contain de
minimi's quantities of teachable organic
chemicals. The commenters
acknowledged that mixtures and
treatment residues posing insignificant
threats to human health and the
environment may be excluded front
regulation through the delisting process.
However, they claimed that delisting is
unduly expensive, time-consuming, and,
in some cases, impractical. The
commenters suggested as an alternative
that mixtures and treatment residues
from listed wastes containing TCLP
constituents not be considered
hazardous unless they fail the TC test.
They contended that this approach
would adequately protect human health
and the environment. Moreover, it
3 The exception to this rule ia a mixture of solid
waste and a waste that ii listed solely because it
exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste. 1C soch
a mixture does not exhibit any characteristic of
hazardous waste, the mixture is not defined a*
hazardous [40 CFS 2ei-3(a){2pW.
would be "self-implementing,1* in the
sense that it would eliminate the need
for the current process of petitions- and
Agency review for delisting.
EPA recognizes that the "mixture"
and "derived from" rules may create
some inequities by including wastes that
contain very small amounts of
hazardous wastes that have been mixed
so as to render them nonhazardous.
However, the Agency has consistently
maintained that the mixture and derived
from rules are an appropriate regulatory
approach for dealing with waste
mixtures and treatment residues.
When the rules were promulgated in
1980, EFA stated that it was essential to
regulate waste mixtures to prevent
generators from evading subtitle C
requirements by simply co-mingling
listed wastes with nonhazardous
wastes. The Agency also determined
that because of the infinite potential
combinations of listed wastes and other
wastes, it was unable at that time to
devise any workable, broadly applicable
formula that was capable of
distinguishing between hazardous and
nonhazardous mixtures. The Agency
acknowledged that the "mixture" rule
might be overly broad, but noted that
generators could avoid any inequities
either by segregating their wastes or by
obtaining a waste-specific exclusion
under the delisting program (see 45 FR
33095, May 19,1980).
EPA also believed that it was
important to regulate wastes from the
treatment, storage, or disposal of listed
hazardous wastes on the basis that
these "derived from" wastes might
themselves be hazardous. Once again,
however, the Agency found that because
of the large number of listed wastes and
treatment processes (some of which
introduce new hazardous constituents
into the treatment residues), it was
unable to prescribe standards that could
properly distinguish between hazardous
and nonhazardous residues. (It should
be noted that the definition of treatment
is not confined to rendering a waste
non-hazardous, but also includes any
method designed to change the nature of
a waste to render the waste (1) less
hazardous; (2) safer to- transport, store,
or dispose; (3) amenable for recovery; or
(4) reduced in volume (see 40* CFR
260.10).) Therefore, the Agency
concluded that wastes generated during
the treatment of listed wastes should be
presumed to be hazardous. Delisting
was provided as the mechanism for
excluding these wastes from subtitle C
regulation (45 FR 33098, May 19,1980).
EPA is sympathetic to the
commenters' concerns regarding use uf
delisting to exclude wastes that are
-------
11B32 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
hazardous under the "mixture" and
"derived from" rules. The Agency does
not believe, however, that the
alternative suggested by the
commenters (i.e., relying on the TC to
regulate mixtures and treatment
residues) would adequately protect
human health and the environment. As
noted above, wastes that pass the
characteristic test may nevertheless be
hazardous, either because they contain
listed constituents at concentrations
below the TC regulatory levels but at
levels and under circumstances that
nevertheless render the waste
hazardous or because they contain
hazardous constituents that are not
covered by the TC rule. As noted above,
the TC regulatory levels are not
threshold levels defining all hazardous
waste, but are levels that are set to
clearly define hazardous waste. Wastes
containing constituents falling below
these levels may still present a hazard in
more limited situations.
Nevertheless, the Agency recognizes
that some inequities may result by the
application of the "mixture" and
"derived from" rules to certain dilute
listed wastes. The Agency therefore is
considering proposing an amendment to
the definition of hazardous waste which
would establish self-implementing de
mintmis exemption levels for hazardous
constituents found in listed wastes.
Listed wastes that meet these exemption
levels would no longer be listed
hazardous wastes and thus would not
need to be managed as hazardous
wastes unless they exhibit a hazardous
waste characteristic.
c. Mixture Rule Exemption. The
mixture rule under 40 CFR 26l,3(a)(2}(iv)
provides an exemption from RCRA
subtitle C regulation for mixtures of
wastewaters and certain listed spent
solvents. The mixture rule exemption is
applicable only if the maximum weekly
usage of the solvents (other than
solvents that can be demonstrated not
to be discharged to wastewater) divided
by the average weekly flow of
wastewater does not exceed specified
values. The mixture rule exemption does
not apply to wastewaters that exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste or to
wastewaters that contain listed
hazardous wastes not specified in the
mixture rule exemption.
A number of commenters claimed that
the proposed TC conflicts with the
mixture rule exemption. The
commenters noted that the mixture rule
exemption levels are higher than the
corresponding TC regulatory levels for
solvent constituents. Because of this
difference in regulatory levels, the
commenters stated that the proposed TC
rule will bring large quantities of
currently exempted wastewaters into
the hazardous waste management
system. In effect, the commenters argued
that the TC rule will revoke the mixture
rule exemption. Commenters
disapproved of this result, stating that
the mixture rule exemption was
promulgated in recognition that small
amounts of certain spent solvents are
often most efficiently managed by being
discharged to a plant's wastewater
treatment system and that this method
of management does not pose risks to
human health and the environment.
EPA acknowledges that the TC rule
may bring some currently exempted
wastewaters into the subtitle C
regulatory system; however, the mixture
rule exemption is an exemption from the
hazardous waste listings, not the
characteristics. Thus, there is no
inconsistency between this rule and the
mixture rule exemption. In addition, it
should be noted that the TC regulatory
levels are based on state-of-the-art
toxicological data and risk assessment
methodologies. Consequently, EPA
believes that the TC regulatory levels
are the best measures available to
identify wastewater mixtures that pose
a threat to human health and the
environment. In contrast, the mixture
rule exemption levels are based upon
less current risk information.
Even though some wastewaters
presently covered by the mixture rule
exemption will become hazardous
wastes as a result of the TC role, EPA
believes that the exemption will
continue to serve an important purpose
b'y ensuring that mixtures of
wastewaters and certain listed spent
solvents will not be considered
hazardous unless they exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste. To
clarify the mixture rule exemption and
make it more consistent with current
risk information, EPA is considering
proposing in the future that the mixture
rule exemption levels be reduced so that
they are equivalent to the TC regulatory
levels.
d Delisting. While the June 13,1986
proposal did not specifically address the
effect that the TC might have on the
hazardous waste delisting program
under 40 CFR 260.22, a. number of
comments were received claiming that
the TC rale would be inconsistent with
existing EPA policies regarding case-by-
case exclusions. In the August 1,1988
proposal, however, the Agency solicited
comment on the use of the EPACML
model in the delisting program.
The commenters noted that each
major element of the delisting program
is different from the corresponding
element in the original TC proposal. For
example, the chronic toxicity reference
levels that are used to establish "no
hazard" levels under the delisting
program appear to differ from the levels
that were used to establish the proposed
TC regulatory standards. In addition, the
delisting program uses (as appropriate)"
a different ground water transport
model (i.e., the Vertical and Horizontal
Spread (VHS) Model), which generates
generic DAFs rather than compound-
specific factors. Finally, the delisting
program employs (as appropriate) the
Organic Leachate Model (OLM) rather
than the IP or the TCLP to determine
the degree to which various organic
constituents are likely to leach from
solid wastes. The commenters urged the
Agency to use the same reference levels,
DAFs, and leaching procedures in both
the characteristic and delisting
programs. A few commenters expressed
a particular preference for adopting the
delisting elements as part of the revised
TC.
There were a number of differences
between the various elements of the
proposed TC and the corresponding
elements in the delisting program.
However, regarding Chronic Toxicity
Reference Levels, the only difference
between the levels used in the delisting
program and those in the TC final rule is
the use of different risk levels for the
carcinogens (i.e., delisting uses a more
conservative risk factor of ID"6 for
carcinogens, compared to the use of a
10"s risk factor in the TC rale). Many of
the differences between the chronic
toxicity reference levels used in the TC
rule and those in the delisting program
have been eliminated as a result of
decisions concerning risk levels and
apportionment Furthermore, the health-
based levels used in the delisting
program and in the TC rale have been
updated to incorporate recent Agency
evaluations (see 53 FR18024).
EPA believes that the risk factors
being used for each program are
appropriate, and does not think that risk
levels used to set regulatory levels
should necessarily be the same in the
two programs because each serves a
separate purpose. Delisting evaluates
the hazard posed by specific individual
wastestreams that have been listed as
hazardous. Characteristics identify
broad classes of clearly hazardous
wastes; specific wastes that may pose a
substantial identified hazard in a lower
risk range may be listed as hazardous.
As discussed below, EPA believes it is ,
appropriate that the delisting program is,
in certain cases, more stringent than the
characteristic program.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11333
A number of commenters focused on
the overall stringency of the
characteristic and delisting programs. In
particular, the commenters stated that
the proposed TC regulatory levels were
sometimes greater than and sometimes
leas than the concentration standards
used by the Agency's deiisting program
in determining when listed wastes may
properly be managed in subtitle D
facilities. Most of the commenters
argued that EPA, in the interest of
consistency, should adopt the same
concentration standards under the
characteristic and delisting programs.
Other commenters, however, urged the
Agency to establish higher
concentration standards under the
revised characteristic. The latter group
of commenters noted that characteristics
are designed to identify broad classes of
solid wastes that are "clearly"
hazardous, while listings are designed to
identify wastes that may not exhibit a
characteristic, yet are nevertheless
hazardous. The commenters concluded
that, in light of the different functions of
listings and characteristics, it should be
more difficult for a waste to pass the
delisting standards (i.e., to be eligible for
delisting) than for the same waste to
pass the characteristic test
EPA does not agree with those
commenters who argued that the
Agency must use the same
concentration standards in the
characteristic and deiisting programs or,
that the concentration standards for
characteristics must be higher than
those for delisting. These programs have
very different purposes. While
hazardous waste characteristic levels
are those equal to or above which a
waste is clearly hazardous due to a
particular property, delisting levels are
those bslow which a waste is not
hazardous. Thus, it is reasonable that
these two levels may or may not
coincide. Delisting decisions are based
on an extensive evaluation of a
particular waste which requires specific
information on the waste. The
characteristics approach to defining a
hazardous waste is much more broad.
Only one mismanagement scenario is
used and it is based on "reasonable
worse-case" assumptions resulting in a
"generic" regulatory level to be applied
to all solid waste. And, of course,
section 280.22 of the RCRA regulations
specifies that a waste may not be
delisted if it exhibits a characteristic of
. hazardous waste (e.g., the characteristic
of EP toxicity). Thus, the delisting
program could never be less stringent
than the characteristic program.
In regard to the use of different
models in the delisting and
charaetaristic programs, in the August 1,
1988 Federal Register notice, the Agency
specifically solicited comment on the
use of the Toxicity Characteristics
model (EPACML) in place of the model
currently used in the delisting program
(the VHS model). All of the commenters
supported the use of EPACML instead of
the VHS model in the deiisting program,
although one commenter supported this
only if it would not add complexity and
thereby increase the time required for
delisting petition evaluation. Another
commenter stated that the EPACML
model should be used in ths delisting
program but that petition evaluations
should not be restricted to the use of any
single specific model. Finally, several of
the commenters stated that the Agency
should present details as to how tha
EPACML model would be used for
delisting in a separate Federal Register
notice.
In response to these comments, the
Agency will use the EPACML model and
the TCLP in the delisting program. Also,
as suggested, the Agency will explain
how the model and the TCLP will be
used in a future Federal Register notice.
A few commenters expressed concern
about the applicability of theTC to
wastes that have previously been
delisted. The commenters argued that
once EPA has rulsd (through the waste-
specific delisting process) that a
particular waste stream poses no threat
to human health and the environment,
the Agency should be barred from using
a generic rule to declare the same waste
as being "clearly" hazardous. One
commenter claimed that it would be
especially unfair to alter the regulatory
status of a waste stream after the person
managing it has been granted an
exclusion and has acted in reliance on
that exclusion (e.g., by changing the
production process or waste
management practices).
EPA has consistently maintained that
wastes "excluded" from subtitle C
regulation under the delisting program
may nevertheless be hazardous if they
exhibit a characteristic of hazardous
waste (see 40 CFR 280.22). While the TC
rule will apply to previously delisted
waste, EPA does not. in general, expect
that such wastes will become hazardous
because of application of the revised
TC. The Agency believes that, because
delisting levels are more stringent than
the final TC levels, the impact of the TC
rule on previously delisted wastes will
be minimal. Nevertheless, if a previously
delisted waste exhibits the TC, it will
again be subject to subtitle C
requirements (i.e., delisteef wastes are
treated no differently than any other
solid waste).
2. Land Disposal Restrictions
a. Risk Levels and Frequency Interval.
The approach used to develop
regulatory levels in the proposed TC
rule was similar to ths original approach
suggested for developing treatment
standards in the proposed Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDR) rule (51 FR
1602, January 14,1986). Both proposals
began with health-based concentration
thresholds at the point cf exposure and"
used subsurface.fate and transport
models to back-calculate allowable
constituent concentrations in the
laachate. fa the June 13,193B TC
proposal, ths Agency requested
comments en whether the risk levels
and cumulative frequency level used in
the TC should be the same as those used
to develop the treatment standards in
the proposed LDR rule.
Several commenters supported the use
of different risk levels and cumulative
frequency levels in the two proposals.
These commenters stressed that
different statutory mandates for the two
rules and the entirely different functions
of the TC regulatory levels and the LDR
treatment standards warranted different
approaches. However, other
commenters contended that the
frequency level and risk levels in the TC
rule should be the same as or more
stringent than those used in the LDR
proposal. Some of these commenters
argued that the more stringent risk
levels and frequency level in the LDR
proposal provided a more appropriate
degree of protection for human health
and the environment than the
corresponding levels and frequency
interval in theTC proposal.
The issue of consistency of risk levels
and frequency level for the TC and the
LDR program is now moot. The LDR
final rule (51 FR 40572, November 7,
1988) abandoned the use of screening
levels based on risk methodology and
subsurface fate and transport modeling,
and promulgated an approach to
establishing treatment standards based
entirely on technology-based standards
expressed as Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT). Today's
rule continues to be based upon health-
based concentration levels and dilution/
attenuation factors, the values for which
are based upon the predictions of a
subsurface late and transport model.
b. Treatment Standards for TC
Wastes. Under RCRA section 3004(g}(4},
EPA is required to make an LDR
determination for all TC wastes within 6
months of today's action, as discussed
in the following section. Several
commenters were concerned that the
LDR treatment standards that will
-------
11S34 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday. March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
eventually be established for the TC
wastes may be inconsistent with TC
regulatory levels. Some of these
commenters noted that the proposed
LOR treatment standards for listed spent
solvents were in many cases lower than
the proposed TC regulatory levels for
the identical constituents in unlisted
characteristic wastes. The commenters
feared that if LOR treatment standards
are applied to unlisted TC wastes in the
same manner as they are applied to
similar listed wastes, the characteristic
wastes may require treatment to below
the TC level before subtitle C land
disposal is permissible. This means that
unlisted wastes no longer exhibiting the
TC must continue to be managed as
hazardous wastes. Some commenters
who voiced concerns over potential
differences between TC regulatory
levels and LOR treatment standards
suggested that there should be a clear
continuum of regulatory levels, with the
higher standards being those that deem
a waste hazardous in the first place (i.e.,
the TC regulatory levels).
Wastes deemed hazardous under the
TC will not immediately become subject
to the LOR program on the effective date
of the TC rule, except perhaps by
operation of the California List
restrictions (i.e.. halogenated organic
compounds are subject to the LDR if
they exhibit a characteristic, see 52 FR
25770, July 8,1987). However, the
Agency has not yet determined whether
the existing LDR California List
restrictions should be applicable to
newiy identified TC wastes. The Agency
specifically requested comment on the
appropriateness of applying the
California List prohibitions to newly
identified hazardous wastes in the
November 22,1989 proposed rule for the
"Third Third" of scheduled wastes (54
FR 48499). The Agency will fully address
this issue as part of the "Third Third"
final rule.
Since the Agency is not today
proposing LOR treatment standards for
the TC wastes, the Agency believes that
it is more appropriate to address these
comments when the LDR treatment
standards are proposed. However, in
response to comments that proposed
treatment standards for listed solvents
were lower than proposed TC levels, the
Agency would like to point out that the
treatment standards for TC wastes will
not necessarily be the same as the
corresponding LDR treatment standards
for spent solvents. Indeed, if the TC
wastes belong to a different treatability
group, one can expect that the treatment
standards will be different.
c. Schedule for LDR Determinations.
For wastes already listed or identified at
the time of enactment of HSWA. the
Agency must make LDR determinations
according to the schedule set forth in
RCRA section 3004(g)(4). If EPA fails to
make the determinations by the
established schedule, the wastes are
automatically subject to the land
disposal restrictions on the scheduled
date. EPA must also make LDR
determinations for all wastes that are
identified or listed as hazardous after
November 1984 (when HSWA was
enacted) within six months after the
wastes are identified or listed.
On November 22,1989 (54 FR 48372).
EPA proposed treatment standards for
those wastes that exhibit the EPTC, as
well as any of the other characteristics.
Upon the effective date of today's rule,
the TC will include the 14 EPTC
constituents in addition to the 25
organics, and the TCLP will replace the
EP. EPA proposed that the BOAT levels
for wastes that exhibit the EPTC for the
14 constituents remain the same when
the TC becomes effective. By May 8,
1990 the Agency will establish the final
BOAT levels for the 14 constituent
currently identified by the EPTC. Newly
identified TC wastes are subject to the
six-month listing deadline. However,
wastes are not automatically prohibited
from land disposal if EPA fails to make
this required determination within six
months.
Some commenters argued that the six-
month deadline would accelerate the
LOR determinations for listed wastes
that contain TC constituents. For
example, some commercial chemical
products are currently scheduled to be
reviewed by May 8.1990 (51 FR 19300,
May 28,1986). However, these wastes
also may exhibit the TC. Commenters
were concerned that these wastes may
be subject to the six-month deadline and
claimed that this would effectively
accelerate the determinations in a
manner that would be contrary to
Congressional intent.
Wastes that are newly identified as
hazardous by today's rule will be
subject to the six-month deadline for
LDR determinations. However, even if
EPA were to complete LDR
determinations for TC wastes before
May, 1990, the Agency disagrees with
commenters that this has the potential
to accelerate the determinations in a
manner that would be contrary to ,
Congressional intent. The dates set forth
in RCRA section 3004(g)(4) are deadlines
by which EPA must make LDR
determinations or the wastes are
automatically restricted from land
disposal. EPA is in no way prevented or
discouraged by the statute from making
LDR determinations before any of its
deadlines (RCRA section 3004(g)(5).
"Not later than * * *"). Indeed, other
determinations are being made ahead of
schedule; the final rule for restricting
"second third" wastes includes
treatment standards and prohibitions for
some "third third" wastes (54 FR 26594).
3. RCRA Corrective Action and Closure
Requirements
Today's rule will have no direct effect
on either the action levels of RCRA
corrective action or the cleanup
standards of RCRA closure
requirements. However, to the extent
that the TC brings more facilities under
the RCRA program as hazardous waste
management facilities, additional
facilities will be newly subject to the
subtitle C corrective action and closure
requirements.
Although the corrective action
program under subtitle C addresses
remediation of releases of hazardous
constituents from waste at facilities
subject to RCRA permitting, the TC
levels will be neither action levels (i.e..
concentrations that, if exceeded, signal
the need for corrective action) nor
cleanup standards. Rather, corrective
action, as a process, encompasses
trigger levels and cleanup standards that
are developed from site-specific
information gathered during the
investigatory and evaluative phases of
the process (i.e., the RCRA Facility
Investigation and the Corrective
Measures Study).
Thus, the levels or concentrations
associated with today's TC rule are
largely independent from levels
associated with corrective action.
Similarly, the closure requirements are
unaffected by today's rule. The TC is not
used to determine whether a facility has
met the requirements for clean closure.
However, it must be noted that solid
wastes generated as a result of
remediation of releases or in pursuance
of closure requirements that exhibit the
TC must be handled as a hazardous
waste.
4. Minimum Technology Requirements
a. Applicability. HSWA added section
3004(o) to RCRA which imposes
minimum technology requirements on
owners and operators of certain landfills
and surface impoundments seeking
permits. HSWA also added a new
section 3015 imposing similar
requirements on certain interim status
waste piles, landfills, and surface
impoundments. Finally, HSWA section
3005(j) requires surface impoundments
to be retrofitted to meet minimum
technology requirements. EPA codified
the statutory language in the Agency's
U' a
i
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11835
Codification Rule promulgated on July
25,1985 {50 FR 28705). Facilities that will
face new RCRA regulation following the
promulgation of the TC will need to
comply with the minimum technology
requirements in order to remain in
operation.
6. Scope of Minimum Technology
Requirements—1. Permitted Facilities.
Section 3004{o){l](A) requires that after
November 8,1984, certain landfills and
surface impoundments must meet
minimum technology requirements. The
minimum technology requirements for
landfills and surface impoundments
appear in 40 CFR 264.301(c) and
284.221{c), respectively. They require the
owner or operator of each new unit and
each replacement unit or lateral
expansion of an existing unit to install
two or more liners and a leachate
collection system between and, for
landfills, above the liners.
2. Interim Status Facilities. Section
3015 of RCRA requires that certain
waste piles, landfills, and surface
impoundments meet minimum
technology requirements. The minimum
technology requirements for interim
status waste piles, landfills, and surface
impoundments appear in 40 CFR 265.254,
285.301, and 265.221, respectively. They
require that the owner or operator of
each new unit, replacement of an
existing unit, or lateral expansion of an
existing unit that is within the area
identified in the part A permit
application install liners and a leachate
collection system or equivalent
protection. Existing surface
impoundments (i.e., surface
impoundments regulated under subtitle
C prior to November 8,1984) had to be
retrofitted to meet the minimum
technology requirements by November
8,1988.
c. Compliance with Minimum
Technology Requirements. Facilities or
units newly regulated as a result of the
TC will have to meet the minimum
technology requirements of sections
3004(o) and 3015 if and when they add a
new unit, replace an existing unit, or
laterally expand an existing unit.
Surface impoundments must comply
with the retrofitting requirement in
section 3005(j)(6)(A), which requires the
owner or operator of a newly-regulated
surface impoundment to retrofit that
impoundment 4 years from the date of
promulgation of the additional listings or
characteristics, that made it subject to
regulation. Thus, surface impoundments
that become regulated under subtitle C
because of the TC will need to meet the
minimum technology requirements on
March 29,1994, (However, retrofitting
may be expedited due to the minimum
technology requirements imposed under
the capacity variance for land disposal
under section 3004.) This extension
applies only to those impoundments that
contain solely the newly listed/
characteristic wastes. Any
impoundments that already contained
listed/characteristic wastes currently
are subject to RCRA regulations,
including the minimum technology
requirements. Other existing land
disposal units (besides surface
impoundments) that already contained
wastes that exhibit the TC will not
require retrofitting unless they are
expanded or are replacement units.
5. RCRA Subtitle D (Solid Wastes)
a. Municipal Waste Combustion Ash.
Several commentars requested that ash
from municipal waste combustion
(MWC) units be exempt from regulation
under the TC. Many of these
commenters argued that the regulation
of MWC ash would be in direct conflict
with RCRA section 3001{i), which
provides that resource recovery
facilities engaging in MWC "shall not be
deemed to be treating, storing, disposing
of, or otherwise managing hazardous
wastes." Other commenters indicated
that the high costs associated with
subtitle C regulation would discourage
the recovery of energy values from
MSW. They claimed that this result
would run counter to the clear
Congressional intent to encourage
resource recovery as a beneficial
alternative to the landfilling of MSW.
EPA articulated its position on the
scope of section 3001(i) when the
Agency codified the 1984 HSWA (see 50
FR 28725, July 15,1985). However, two
recent Court decisions have rejected
EPA's 1985 interpretation. EDFv. City of
Chicago, No. 88C789 (N.D. Ill,) (slip op.
Nov. 29,1989) and EDFv. Wheelabrator
Technologies Inc., No. 88Civ.0560 (S.D.
N.Y.) {slip op. Nov. 21.1989). The
Agency is considering the appropriate
response to these two decisions.
b. Impact on Wastes Excluded from
Subtitle C Regulation. Another group of
commenters asked for assurances that
the TC rule would not affect the existing
exclusions for specific wastes under 40
CFR 261.4(b). One commenter expressed
particular concern about the exclusion
for mixtures of household and other
nonhazardous solid wastes. Another
commenter raised questions about
applying the TC to wastes that are
usually considered to be non-hazardous
solid wastes. Other commenters focused
on the exemptions for "special wastes,"
primarily mining and mineral processing
wastes and oil and gas production
wastes. A utility company consortium
addressed the exemption for wood
treated with arsenic, commonly used as
a fungicide for utility poles. The
commenter noted that cresols and
pentachlorophenol, also used as
fungicides for wood, are proposed as TC
constituents; the commenter asserted
that the exemption for arsenic-treated
wood should be extended to creosote-
and pentachlorophenol-treated wood as
well.
The TC rule will not apply to wastes
that are already excluded from subtitle
C regulation under § 261.4(b), These
wastes will continue to be exempt from
regulation as hazardous wastes, even if
they would exhibit the TC. Likewise, the
TC rule does not add any exclusions to
the applicability of previously
promulgated hazardous waste
characteristics. With respect to the issue
of creosote- and pentachlorophenol-
treated wood, EPA does not at this time
intend to expand the list of exemptions
under § 281.4(b) to include these wastes.
This is discussed further in section
III.J.4.b.
It should be noted, however, that the
special waste exclusions are currently
being reevaluated in accordance with
the criteria and procedures mandated by
Congress, After completing the studies
required by RCRA section 8002, EPA
may determine that one or more special
wastes should be regulated under RCRA
subtitle C (see RCRA section 300l(b]).
Such wastes would then be listed or the
generators required to determine
whether the wastes exhibit a hazardous
waste characteristic.
A few commenters argued that even if
special wastes are brought into the
subtitle C system, they should not be
subject to the TC. These commenters
claimed that codisposal of special
wastes with MSW is implausible
because special wastes, by definition,
are generated in very large quantities.
The commenters recommended that EPA
develop a separate mismanagement
scenario and leaching procedure for
special wastes.
At this time, the Agency cannot agree
that the TC should not be applicable to
special wastes; rather, the applicability
to these wastes will be determined on a
case-by-case basis. If EPA makes a
determination that any special wastes
should be regulated under RCRA
subtitle C, the Agency will at that time
make a separate determination
concerning the applicability cf the TC to
such wastes.
6. RCRA Subtitle I (Underground
Storage Tanks)
c. Scope of the Underground Storage
Tank Program. Subtitle I of RCRA
provides for the establishment of a
-------
lisas
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 /Thursday,March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
regulatory program for underground
storage tanks containing "regulated
substances." Regulated substances are
defined under RCRA section 9001(2) as
(1) petroleum and [2] hazardous
substances listed under section 101(14)
of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA or Superfund), excluding
hazardous wastes regulated under
subtitle C of RCRA.
Except as discussed below, today's
action will change the regulatory status
of TC wastes that were previously
subject to RCRA subtitle I. Because
these wastes will be RCRA hazardous
wastes, they are excluded from
regulation under subtitle I (see 40 CFR
part 280.10(b)(l)). For this reason,
underground storage tanks that contain
TC wastes will be subject to the subtitle
C tank requirements rather than those
promulgated under subtitle I.
b. Deferral for Petroleum-
Contaminated Media and Debris
Subject to Part 280 Corrective Action
Requirements. As part of its
underground storage tank (UST)
program, the Agency has recently
promulgated regulations which address
releases from USTs containing
petroleum (see 53 FR 37082, September
23.1988 and 53 FR 43322, October 2B,
1988), Among other requirements, these
rules require petroleum UST owners and
operators to install leak detection, to
report leaks from their tanks and piping,
to undertake corrective action to
address such releases, and to
demonstrate financial assurance for
corrective action and third party
liability resulting from such releases.
These requirements started going into
effect in December, 1988, and the
Agency estimates that over the next few
years more than 300,000 petroleum UST
releases will be discovered and be
subject to the subtitle I corrective action
requirements. In addition, the Agency
has, through cooperative agreements,
provided funding to states from the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Trust Fund under RCRA to
undertake the necessary response
actions where petroleum UST owners
and operators are unable or unwilling to
do so. Hundreds of petroleum UST
cleanups have been initiated to date
under this program.
As noted in the preamble to the final
UST rules, due to the large regulated
community affected by the UST
regulations, the UST program is based
on self-implementing requirements and
is highly dependent upon voluntary
compliance to attain the environmental
performance objectives of the program.
However, because petroleum contains
several of the hazardous constituents for
which regulatory levels are being
established today (e,g., benzene) some
of the petroleum-contaminated media
and debris may exhibit the Toxiciry
Characteristic under today's rule. While
the-amount and type of media and
debris that may exhibit the
characteristic at any particular UST site
will depend upon the petroleum product,
soil type, and the size of the release, it is
likely that many sites where petroleum
UST releases have occurred will contain
some media that exhibits the Toxicity
Characteristic, The management of any
such media and debris would be subject
to subtitle C requirements for hazardous
waste management.
The Agency has insufficient
information concerning the full impact of
this rule on UST cleanups, but the
information available to date suggests
that the impact may be severe in terms
of the administrative feasibility of both
the subtitle C and subtitle I programs.
Thus, the Agency has decided to defer a
final decision on the application of the
TC to media and debris contaminated
with petroleum from USTs subject to the
part 280 requirements. The application
of today's rule to these cleanups will be
delayed while the Agency evaluates the
extent and nature of this impact and
alternative administrative mechanisms
for implementing the UST cleanups in
accordance with subtitle C
requirements. The Agency believes that
the UST regulations governing cleanups
at these sites will be adequate in the
interim to protect human health and the
environment.
The deferral of a final decision
concerning application of this rule to
UST cleanups is necessary for several
reasons. First, while the actual number
of sites and amount of media and debris
at each site that would exhibit the
toxicity characteristic under today's rule
is unclear, based on a preliminary
assessment, the number and amount
could be extremely high. As noted
above, EPA expects hundreds of
thousands of UST releases to be
uncovered in the next few years.
Subjecting each of these sites to subtitle
C requirements could overwhelm the
hazardous waste permitting program
and the capacity of existing hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. Imposition of the subtitle C
requirements is also likely to delay •
cleanups significantly and severely
discourage the self-monitoring and
voluntary reporting essential to
implementation of the UST program.
Moreover, the UST cleanup activities
involving the most contaminated media
and debris are also likely to involve free
product recovery. Free product recovery
would not be subject to subtitle C
requirements because the material being
recovered is not a waste.
Because of the uncertainties of the
impacts on the UST cleanups as a result
of this rule, including the amount of
contaminated media that would become
hazardous waste and the type of
management feasible and appropriate
for such waste (i.e., on-site-treatment,
off-site disposal), EPA cannot determine
whether the application of this rule to
these cleanups will have the severe
consequences on implementation of
these RCRA programs that preliminary
information suggests. Also, because this
issue did not come to the Agency's
attention until late in the development
of this rulemaking, the Agency has not
had an opportunity to obtain public
input on this issue, the implications of
the subtitle C requirements when
applied to UST cleanups, or any
alternative regulatory mechanisms to
make feasible the implementation of
UST cleanups while meeting subtitle C
hazardous waste requirements. Thus,
the Agency believes that further
evaluation of the impacts of applying the
TC to soils and ground water
contaminated by petroleum from USTs
and subject to the subtitle I program is
necessary in order to determine whether
an exemption for such materials is
warranted or whether additional
regulatory or administrative changes
can or should be made in order to make
the application of the TC to UST
cleanups feasible.
In order to make a final decision
concerning the applicability of this rale
to UST sites, the Agency intends to
undertake several activities. First, the
Agency will attempt to more specifically
define the impact of the TC through
studies of petroleum UST sites, focusing
upon the potential hazard from these
sites. More specifically, the Agency will
study the characteristics of UST sites
(number of UST sites by media type,
volumes of media and debris typically
removed, fraction of this media and
debris that exhibits the TC, if any, etc,},
current practices and requirements for
management of these media and debris,
and how contaminated media and
debris from these sites are managed
under the new subtitle I state programs.
As currently envisioned, these studies
will include: (1) A survey of tank
vendors, contractors, and others
knowledgeable about UST site
characteristics and contaminated media
and debris management practices: (2) a
survey of current state and local
programs; and (3) a sampling program
conducted in conjunction with one or
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11837
more selected states. The Agency also
plans to evaluate the impact that
subtitle C management of petroleum-
contaminated media and debris from
USTs would have on the Agency's and
states' hazardous waste management
programs. In addition, the inclusion of
these media and debris in the subtitle C
management system will be evaluated in
comparison to the available capacity for
commercial hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal.
Second, the Agency will evaluate
whether and how the subtitle C
requirements can be feasibly
implemented for UST cleanups. This
evaluation will include an investigation
of regulatory streamlining, phased
compliance, or other administrative
changes to increase the feasibility of
implementing UST cleanups in
accordance with subtitle C
requirements. As part of this effort and
the larger issue of the application of
subtitle C requirements to contaminated
media, EPA intends to convene a public
forum to discuss the relationship
between subtitle C and subtitle I
requirements, the impacts of the subtitle
C program on UST cleanups, and how
the subtitle C requirements can feasibly
be applied to the UST cleanups.
EPA requests data and comment from
the public on these issues. Upon
completion of the evaluations described
above, EPA will determine whether to
retain the temporary exemption for UST
cleanups provided in this rule or to
remove the exemption and make the TC
fully applicable to corrective actions
under subtitle I.
7. RCRA Section 3004(n) Air Regulations
In HSWA. Congress directed EPA to
"* * * promulgate such regulations for
the monitoring and control of air .
emissions at hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities, including
but not limited to open tanks, surface
impoundments, and landfills, as may be
necessary to protect human health and
the environment." This provision was "
added as section 3004(n) of RCRA. In
response, the Agency proposed the first
of a multi-phased set of air regulations
for TSDFs on February 5,1987 (53 FR
3748). This first phase is intended to
apply to equipment that would be used
to treat wastes that would first be
subject to the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LOR] standards to ensure
that the LOR treatment did not result in
cross-media transfer of hazardous
constituents to the air (see III.I.2., above,
for a discussion of the LDR program).
This first phase is to be followed by
proposals for more comprehensive air
regulations for TSDFs. Once these air
standards are promulgated, they are
expected to apply to many of the wastes
newly regulated by today's rule.
The February 5,1987 proposal would
limit air emissions of organics as a class
from certain treatment units. The
proposed rule would apply to specified
equipment that contains or is in contact
with certain hazardous wastes, which
are identified based upon their potential
to emit organics. The proposed
standards contain two major features.
First, a 95% reduction in process
emissions from units distilling or
stripping (air or steam) organic wastes
would be required. Second, leak
detection and repair programs would be
required for certain valves, pumps,
compressors, pressure relief devices,
and closed-vent systems. If wastes that
exhibit the TC also have concentrations
of organic constituents exceeding the
regulatory threshold, they will be
subject to this first phase of regulation
for air emissions.
/. Relationship to Other Regulatory
Authorities
1. Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA)
Although promulgated in fulfillment of
a RCRA mandate, today's rule may
affect, to varying degrees, remedia lions
performed under CERCLA authority.
Such effects or interactions, when they
arise, will be associated with section
121(d) of CERCLA, which requires
CERCLA remedial actions to comply
with all applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) of
other federal and state laws, including
RCRA.
Several commenters questioned the
applicability of the TC to CERCLA sites
and argued that the TC would constrain
the discretion of Remedial Project
Managers and On-Scene Coordinators.
However, CERCLA section 121(d) is
clear that CERCLA remediations must
comply with Federal and State ARARs.
Accordingly, RCRA regulations,
including today's TC, are incorporated
into the CERCLA decision-making and
remediation process to augment controls
already in place under the CERCLA
program.
In addition, a few commenters argued
that as a result of today's rule, a greater
number of hazardous waste
determinations would be made during
CERCLA remediations. Consequently,
"thousands of additional Superfund
sites" would be created, attributable in
large part, one commenter notes, to
petroleum and petrochemical waste that
will exceed TC levels. The Agency
disagrees with the commenters. While it
is clear that CERCLA remediations must
comply with Federal and State ARARs,
the TC is not used by CERCLA to
determine whether or not to undertake a
clean-up action. Rather, the TC will
apply to decisions concerning the
management of solid wastes (e.g., soil
and debris) generated during cleanup
activities.
2. Clean Water Act
a. Conflict with NPDES Effluent
Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards.
Many commenters argued that the
regulatory levels in the proposed TC
conflict with NPDES effluent guidelines
and pretreatment standards under the
Clean Water Act (CWA). Several
commenters stated that in many cases,
the proposed TC regulatory levels are
lower than the concentrations allowed
in wastewaters directly discharged to
surface waters in compliance with
NPDES effluent guidelines. Commenters
also stated that many wastewaters that
are indirectly discharged to publicly
owned treatment works in compliance
with pretreatment standards will exhibit
the TC.
Most of the commenters argued that it
would be difficult to justify labeling a
wastewater as "hazardous" under
RCRA, but "safe" under the CWA. One
commenter claimed that differential
treatment of identical wastewaters is
particularly difficult to justify because
leaks from on-site wastewater
management operations normally
migrate to the same bodies of water that
receive NPDES-permitted discharges.
EPA acknowledges the possibility that
some wastewaters that meet NPDES
effluent guidelines or pretreatment
standards may exhibit the TC. However,
because the statutory bases for setting
regulatory levels are different under the
CWA and RCRA, the treatment
standards and effluent limitations
established under the CWA are not
inconsistent with the TC rule. The CWA
requires EPA to set effluent limitations
to control discharges of toxic pollutants
"* * * which shall require application
of the best available technology
economically achievable * * *" and to
set more stringent effluent limitations
where necessary to meet applicable
water quality standards (see CWA
section 301(b)). RCRA, however,
mandates that EPA identify wastes
which may be a threat to human health
or the environment. The criteria for the
identification and listing of hazardous
waste requires EPA to take into account
"* * * toxicity, persistence, and
degradability in nature, potential for
accumulation in tissue, and other related
factors such as flammability,
corrosiveness, and other hazardous
-------
11838 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday, March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
characteristics" (see RCRA section
3001(a)), These criteria are different
from those used under the CWA.
Accordingly, the two statutory
programs have different goals. EPA
believes that the TC regulatory levels
represent concentrations above which a
wastewater poses a potential hazard to
human health and the environment, if
mismanaged, even if it has been treated
to some degree. Therefore, owners and
operators of wastewater treatment
facilities that treat wastewaters
exhibiting the TC will be required to
comply with all applicable regulations
under RCRA and the CWA.
b. Permit Requirements for
Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Many
commenters stated that under the
proposed TC, many wastewater
treatment facilities will become
hazardous waste treatment facilities
subject to full RCRA permitting
requirements. These commenters were
concerned that the costs to industry of
preparing permit applications and
complying with RCRA regulations for"
hazardous waste treatment facilities
will be prohibitive. Some commenters
argued that EPA has insufficient
resources to process permit applications
from all of the wastewater treatment
facilities that will require permits.
Although owners and operators of
some wastewater treatment facilities
that use newly-regulated surface
impoundments could be subject to
RCRA permitting requirements, EPA
believes that the actual number of
facilities requiring permits will not be
large. The Regulatory Impact Analysis
for this rule indicates that other options
available to wastewater treatment
facilities treating wastewaters
exhibiting the TC are likely to be more
cost-effective than obtaining an RCRA
permit (see section VI. B for a more
detailed discussion). In particular, an
alternative that the Agency expects may
be attractive to many owners and
operators is the replacement of surface
impoundments with tanks. Retrofitting
existing surface impoundments to meet
RCRA requirements for hazardous
waste management facilities will often
be more expensive than building tanks
that are subject to CWA requirements in
lieu of RCRA permitting requirements.
("Wastewater treatment units" are
exempt from, the hazardous waste
management standards under 40 CFR
264.1(g)(6) and 265.1{c)[10). Similarly,
"totally enclosed treatment facilities"
are exempt under 40 CFR 284.1{g)(5) and
265.1(c}(9}.) Thus, there are options
available to owners/operators for whom
RCRA standards, may be too costly.
There may be some wastewater
treatment facilities that opt to continue
using surface impoundments to manage
wastewaters exhibiting the TC, and
these facilities will enter the RCRA
permitting system. However, the Agency
does not believe that there will be such
a large number of facilities that it will
overwhelm the Agency's permitting
capabilities.
c. Sludges from Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW). The
preamble to the June 13,1986 proposed
rule requested comments on the
regulation of sewage sludge under
RCRA and under the CWA. The
preamble stated that EPA was
considering an exemption from RCRA
regulation for sludges from publicly
owned treatment works (POTW sludges)
upon the promulgation of sewage sludge
management standards pursuant to
section 405(d) of the CWA,
A number of commenters, including
many municipalities, responded to this
request for comments. Although a few
commenters opposed an exemption from
RCRA for POTW sludges, the
commenting municipalities supported an
exemption from RCRA. These
municipalities stated that sewage sludge
management regulations, in addition to
pretreatment standards, are sufficient to
protect human health and the
environment without additional
regulation under RCRA. Commenters
stated that regulating POTW sludge
under RCRA will place a significant
economic burden on municipalities and
will cause municipalities and EPA to
face duplicative administrative costs
and regulatory confusion.
EPA does not agree with commenters
that regulation of POTW sludge under
RCRA will place a significant economic
burden on municipalities or increase the
burden of implementation. EPA's office
of Water tested 18 POTW sludge
samples using the TCLP; none of the
samples tested exhibited the TC at the
proposed regulatory levels (Ref. 18).
Because the final TC regulatory levels
are higher than the proposed regulatory
levels, the Agency believes that few, if
any, POTW sludges will exhibit the TC.
Thus, most POTW sludges will not be
classified as hazardous waste under
RCRA.
, Although EPA does not believe it is
necessary to exempt POTW sludges
from RCRA at this time, the Agency may
reconsider this decision after the
sewage sludge management regulations
are promulgated. In the unlikely event
that a particular POTW sludge does
exhibit the TC, the municipality may use
the pretreatment program under the
CWA to eliminate the indirect
discharges of the pollutants that are
causing the sludge to exhibit the TC.
3. Safe Drinking Water Act
Several commenters noted that the
proposed regulatory level for chloroform
is lower than the primary drinking water
standard for trihalomethanes (a class of
organic chemicals that includes
chloroform) established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Most of
these commenters consequently
declared that the regulatory level had
been set too low, and they argued that it
would be unreasonable to regulate
ordinary drinking water as a hazardous
waste. Some commenters asserted that
an industrial facility taking water from a
public water supplier (a facility
supplying drinking water in compliance
with the SDWA rules) could find that its
noncontact cooling water becomes a
hazardous waste after it is passed
through the plant and is disposed.
In today's final rule, the regulatory
level for chloroform has been raised
from that proposed in the June 13,1986,
notice of proposed rulemaking. The
change is because of two modifications
to the data originally used to set the
regulatory level: first, the chronic
toxicity reference level for chloroform is
roughly 12 tines higher than when
originally proposed (see 53 FR18024)
and, second, due to the changes in the
model, the OAF is about 7 times higher
than the one originally proposed.
Together, these two changes result in a
regulatory level that is higher than both
the original regulatory level and the
SDWA standard for trihalomethanes.
Non-contact cooling water or other
wastewaters derived from public water
supplies complying with the SDWA thus
should not exhibit the TC for chloroform
unless these wastewaters are
contaminated by other sources.
4. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
a. Pesticide Wastes. The Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) authorizes EPA regulation
of pesticide sale, distribution, use, and
disposal. Since RCRA regulations cover
solid wastes which include pesticide
product wastes, these wastes may be
regulated under both FIFRA and RCRA.
Until recently, pesticide disposal
under FIFRA was primarily controlled
by mandating that product labeling
include instructions for the proper
disposal of the pesticide and its
container. Recent amendments to
FIFRA, effective October 25,1988,
authorize the Administrator to impose
additional requirements relating to
storage, transportation, and disposal of
certain pesticides. For example, EPA
under FIFRA may issue requirements
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11839
and procedures for the storage,
transportation, and disposal of
suspended or cancelled pesticides and
of rinsates or containers associated with
the pesticides. Also, EPA may require
that applicants for registration of a
pesticide submit information regarding
methods for safe storage and disposal of
the pesticide, and that applicants for
registration provide evidence of
sufficient financial resources to provide
for disposal in the event of suspension
or cancellation.
A number of pesticide-related wastes
are listed as hazardous under 40 CFR
part 281, The listings include four
groups: The first, at § 261.31, includes
'certain discarded unused pesticide
formulations containing tri-, tetra-, and
pentachlorophenols (F027) or certain
compounds derived from the
chlorophenols; these are listed as acute
hazardous waste. This listing includes
approximately 20 phenoxy pesticides
and their salts and esters. Today's rale
will add the constituent 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol, which is used as an
active ingredient in pesticide products,
to the TC list Because products
containing this constituent are
separately listed under F027, the
promulgation of specific toxicity limits
will not affect their regulation under
RCRA (i.e., they will continue to be
regulated as acute hazardous wastes at
all concentrations, both above and
below the TC level).
The second group, at § 262.32. consists
of "K" wastes from the production of
specific pesticides, such as wastewater
treatment sludges from the production of
the pesticide chlordane (K032); these are
listed as toxic wastes. Again, however,
because these wastes are listed, they
will not be affected by the regulatory
levels of the TC, but will continue to be
subject to regulation regardless of
concentration levels.
The third grouping, at § 261.33 (e) and
ff), consists of "P" and "U" wastes.
Section 261.33 lists certain commercial
chemical products as hazardous when
discarded or intended for discard.
Approximately 50 pesticide active
ingredients are listed as acute
hazardous wastes under § 281.33(e],
while 83 pesticide active ingredients are
listed under § 261.33(1) as toxic
hazardous wastes. Pesticide products
containing these chemicals as sole
active ingredients or the pure or
technical grade of these chemicals are
regulated under both RCRA and FIFRA
when they become wastes. Generally,
products containing these ingredients as
one of multiple active ingredients are
not regulated (at this time) as hazardous
wastes under subtitle C of RCRA unless
they meet one of the characteristics;
their disposal is still subject to any
applicable FIFRA and RCRA subtitle D
requirements. For the majority of the 133
listed pesticides, today's rule will not
change their status under RCRA; waste
pesticides that are either pure, technical
grade, or sole active ingredient products
will continue to be subject to regulation
as hazardous at all concentrations under
RCRA subtitle C. Wastes from multiple
active ingredient products that do not
exhibit a characteristic wiE still be
regulated under any applicable FIFRA
and RCRA subu'Oe D requirements.
Six pesticide wastes that are currently
regulated on a concentration basis
under the existing EPTC at § 261.24,
.form the fourth group. These six
pesticides (endrin, lindane,
methoxychlor, toxaphene, 2.4-D, and
silvex) will be retained in the new rule
with their current concentration limits,
which are based on a DAF of ICO. The
significant difference between the
listings and the TC is that, while
multiple active ingredient products are
not covered by the listings, they are
covered under the characteristic. Thus,
increasing the number of pesticidal
constituents encompassed by the TC
(whether or not they are also listed),
brings more multiple active ingredient
formulations into the subtitle C system.
Consequently, today's rule is expanding
regulation of pesticide wastes under
RCRA.
Although EPA is adding pesticides to
the TC list of constituents, today's rule
will not have a significant effect on
many pesticide users who generate
wastes. RCRA regulations contain
special requirements that affect the
extent to which pesticide users will
become subject to additional RCRA
regulation:
* Household pesticide wastes are,
like other household wastes, exempt
from RCRA.
• Farmers who triple rinse their
containers and dispose of the rinsate on
their own farm in a manner consistent
with 40 CFR 262.51 and label
instructions ara exempt from RCRA
requirements.'
• Other small quantity generators
under § 2B1.S need comply only with
reduced requirements. Many pesticide
users are small quantity generators,
• Under § 261.7, properly emptied
containers may be exempted from
further RCRA requirements. Thus, many
pesticide containers may not be subject
to regulation as hazardous wastes.
As a result, the principal effects of
today's final rule will be felt by
commercial applicators, such as aerial
applicators and pest control operators.
who are not eligible for the special
requirements-applicable to farmers and
who may use sufficiently large volumes
of pesticides that they exceed the small
quantity generator limitations. If they
use large quantities of multiple active
ingredient pesticide products that have
not previously been regulated, such
commercial applicators may be newly
subject to the RCRA hazardous waste
management requirements.
b. Treated Wood Wastes. The Agency
is promulgating TC regulatory levels for
certain chemicals—for example, cresols
and pentachlorophenol—that are
commonly used as wood preservatives.
In its review of wood preservative
chemicals under FIFRA, EPA concluded
that these wood preservatives may
continue to be used under certain
circumstances, and the Agency decided
to allow disposal of treated wood by
means of ordinary trash collection,
burial, or incineration (49 FR 20GG6, July
13,1984, and 51 FR 1334, January 10.
1986). However, the mandates of FIFRA
and RCRA are different. EPA has
previously stated that even if it were
determined that certain ground uses of
treated wood did not pose unreasonable
risks, wood wastes might still be
regulated under RCRA subtitle C (45 FR
78531, November 25,1980). Under
FIFRA, the Agency may determine that
the economic benefits of continued use
of a pesticide outweigh any potential
risks posed by the pesticide. This does
not mean, however, that materials
treated with pesticides should not be
managed in a controlled manner under
RCRA at the end of their useful lives, to
ensure that long-term risks are
minimized.
Some treated wood that is hazardous
solely because it fails the EP toxicity
test for arsenic which is not a hazardous
waste for any other reason or reasons is
exempt from regulation as hazardous (40
CFR 261.4(b)(9)J. The exemption is
limited to wood wastes generated by
persons who use wood products for their
intended end use. Several commentars
claimed that large quantities of treated
wood wastes will be newly regulated as
hazardous under the TC, and they
argued that this result is inconsistent
with other EPA policies and regulations.
Most of these commenters
recommended that EPA expand the
existing exemption for arsenic-treated
wood waste to encompass all treated
wood that exhibits the TC.
EPA has decided not to expand the
existing exemption for arsenic-treated
wood. If a wood waste does exhibit the
TC for a constituent other than arsenic,
or if the waste is hazardous waste for
any other reasons or reasons, the
-------
11840 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Agency believes that the waste should
be regulated as hazardous, in order to
protect human health and the
environment. The arsenic-treated wood
exemption is not being revoked at this
time, but it may be Devaluated in the
future.
5. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA)
a. Food Wastes. Several commenters
noted that allowable levels set by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA]
under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics
Act (FDCA] are, in some cases, higher
than the proposed TC regulatory levels
for the same chemicals. Most of these
commenters then asserted that if it is
safe to consume substances containing
pesticides or additives, it must also be
safe to place such substances in
municipal landfills. Some commenters
expressed concern that food wastes that
comply with FDCA pesticide tolerance
or action levels may nevertheless have
to be handled as hazardous wastes as a
result of the TC. One food processing
industry trade association requested
that the final TC rule state that any
waste from food already in compliance
with a tolerance or action level set by
EPA or FDA is nonhazardous.
The Agency acknowledges that for
certain chemicals in waste, it proposed
TC regulatory levels lower than FDCA
tolerances or action levels in food.
However, it is inappropriate to make a
direct comparison of these two sets of
levels. FDCA levels are set for
concentrations in food products, while
TC levels apply to concentrations in the
leachate from waste materials. Because
not all toxic constituents leach from the
waste, levels in the leachate are lower
than in the waste material itself.
Accordingly, for a food waste to be
hazardous, the waste would have to
have constituent concentrations higher
than the TC levels. The Agency is
unaware of any food-related wastes that
will be regulated as hazardous under the
TC rule. (In addition, unlike the FDCA,
RCRA does not allow consideration of
economic factors in establishing
regulatory levels of concern.)
If any food waste does exhibit the TC,
it may be subject to lesser requirements
as household waste (40 CFR 281.4(b)(l))
or under the small quantity generator
provisions (40 CFR 261.5). For non-
household food wastes that fail the TC
(i.e., leachate from the waste contains
contaminants in levels equal to or above
the regulatory levels promulgated in
today's rule) and that are generated in
large quantities, it is appropriate that
they be managed in a controlled manner
to protect human health and the
environment. Because EPA sees no
conflict between the TC rule and
tolerance or action levels under FDCA,
this rule contains no exemption for
wastes that meet the FDCA standards.
b. Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic
Wastes. Several commenters, arguing
that the proposed TC levels were too
low, pointed out that the proposed
regulatory levels are lower than FDCA-
allowed levels for the same chemicals in
drugs or cosmetics.
Although the proposed TC regulatory
levels for certain chemicals were lower
than the FDCA levels for the same
chemicals in drug and cosmetic
products, the levels are higher in the
final rule. Moreover, it is clear that
different factors must be taken into
account when regulating these
constituents in drugs and cosmetics
rather than in solid wastes, as confirmed
by different statutory mandates. The
constituents in drugs and cosmetics
products, often used in very small
quantities, serve a useful function and
may be therapeutic in certain quantities
and under proper circumstances.
However, this does not mean that these
same constituents should not be
controlled where found at TC levels in
waste materials.
Of course, drug and cosmetic wastes
generated in households are not subject
to subtitle C regulation (40 CFR
261.4(b)(l)) nor are wastes generated by
small quantity generators (less than 100
kg/mo of non-acute hazardous waste—
see 40 CFR 261.5). However, drug and
cosmetic products when discarded may
present risks to human health and the
environment if disposed in large
volumes. Thus, EPA maintains that
regulation of large quantities of drug or
cosmetic wastes exhibiting the TC is
appropriate and not in conflict with the
existing FDCA program.
8. Used Oil Recycling Act
The Used Oil Recycling Act of 1980
(UORA), which amended RCRA, was
intended to increase safe recycling and
reuse of used oil. It established that it is
in the national interest to recycle used
oil in a manner that both protects public
health and the environment and
conserves energy and materials. The
UORA has been incorporated in section
3014 of RCRA.
Section 3014 of RCRA. as amended by
HSWA, requires EPA to make a
determination of whether to list or
identify used oil as a hazardous waste
(see RCRA section 3014(b)). In response
to this statutory directive, EPA proposed
to list most types of used oil, including
recycled used oil, as a hazardous waste
on November 29,1985 (see 50 FR 49258).
EPA subsequently decided in November,
1986 not to list used oil because the
Agency believed that the listing would
discourage recycling of used oil and
could result in an increase in the amount
of used oil that is disposed of or illegally
dumped. The Agency decided to
continue to study whether used oil that
is disposed should be listed as a
hazardous waste under RCRA or
regulated under different statutes (see 51
FR 41900 (November 19,1986)). EPA's
decision to withdraw the proposed
listing of used oils was invalidated by
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in
1988. The Agency was directed by the
Court to reconsider the listing of used oil
as a hazardous waste based on the
technical criteria contained in RCRA
section 3001.
Some commenters claimed that used
oil would be brought into the subtitle C
system under the TC proposal. They
stated that used oil is likely to fail the
TC test for both aromatic hydrocarbons
(e.g., benzene) and chlorinated solvents
(e.g., trichloroethylene and
tetrachloroethylene). The commenters
argued that regulating used oil as a
hazardous waste would be inconsistent
with the intent of the UORA, as well as
with current Agency policies regarding
used oil.
Under today's rule, used oil will be
regulated as a hazardous waste only: (1)
If it exhibits one or more of the
hazardous waste characteristics defined
in subpart C of 40 CFR part 261
(including the TC as finalized today)
and (2) if it is disposed of (rather that
recycled). On the other hand, used oil
that exhibits one or more of the
hazardous waste characteristics and is
recycled is exempt from regulation (see
40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(iii)) except as
provided in subpart E of 40 CFR part
266. In addition, RCRA prohibits the use
of used oil as a dust suppressant or for
road treatment if it is contaminated with
dioxin or mixed with a hazardous
waste. Thus, used oil that exhibits one.
or more of the characteristics (except for
ignitability) cannot be used as a dust
suppressant. In particular, the
regulations have the following effect:
• Solid waste that is hazardous waste
because it fails a characteristic and that
is recycled (except by burning or use as
a dust suppressant) is exempt from
regulation.
• Characteristically hazardous used
oil that is disposed of (or incinerated
without recovery of energy value) is
subject to full RCRA subtitle C
regulation.
• Characteristically hazardous used
oil that is being burned for energy
recovery is subject to subpart E of part
266—i.e., off-specification used oil is
subject to certain administrative
requirements, while specification used
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11341
oil is subject only to the analysis and
recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR
266.43(fa) (1) and (6).
• Characteristically hazardous used
oil is prohibited from being used as a
dust suppressant, unless it is hazardous
solely for exhibiting the ignitability
characteristic (see 40 CFR 266.23(b)}.
• Characteristically hazardous used
oil that is recycled in any manner other
than being burned for energy recovery
(e.g., by being rerefined) is exempt from
subtitle C regulation.
Therefore, today's rule will not affect
the regulatory status of most recycled
used oil. In fact, today's rule should
encourage the recycling of used oil, and
not discourage its recycling as suggested
by some commenters. It should also be
noted that some percentage of used oil
already is defined as hazardous (i.e.,
exhibits one or more of the hazardous
waste characteristics and is disposed).
Consequently, the amount of used oil
that is affected by this rule and is either
disposed of or recycled by being burned
for energy recovery or used as a dust
suppressant will be even less.
The Agency is currently determining
how best to deal with used oil listing
and management issues. Section 3014 of
RCRA also requires EPA to promulgate
management standards for used oil that
is recycled. Standards for controlling
used oil which is recycled were
proposed on November 29,1985 (50 FR
49212), but have not been finalized. The
Agency will be addressing these issues
as well as addressing the listing
determination in the near future.
7. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
EPA has decided to exempt from the
application of this rule certain
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) wastes
that are regulated under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) and
would be identified as hazardous
because of today's rule. Specifically,
PCB-containing dielectric fluids
removed from electrical transformers,
capacitors, and associated PC3-
contaminated electrical equipment may
exhibit the TC, and thus become
hazardous wastes when disposed, not
because they contain PCBs (which are
not among the constituents regulated
under the TC) but because they may
contain other TC constituents, such as
chlorinated benzenes. The Agency has
decided to exempt such wastes from the
subtitle C management standards
because new regulation of these wastes
under RCRA may be disruptive to the
mandatory phaseout of PCBs in certain
electrical transformers and capacitors.
In addition, the Agency believes that the
regulation of these wastes under TSCA
is adequate to protect human health and
the environment. However, the
exemption applies only to those
dielectric fluids (as described above)
that are fully regulated under TSCA.
Other PCB-containing wastes that are
hazardous (i.e., listed or exhibit a
hazardous waste characteristic
including the existing EPTC wastes—
waste codes D004 through D017) are
subject to all applicable subtitle C
standards. Furthermore, these non-TC
hazardous wastes that are (1) liquids
containing PCBs at concentration
greater than 50 ppm, or (2) solids
containing PCBs listed in Appendix III of
part 288 at concentrations greater than
1000 nig/Kg, are prohibited from land
disposal under 40 CFR part 263.
The disposal and storage of PCB
wastes is regulated under TSCA section
6(e)(l) authority rather than under
subtitle C of RCRA. Since the enactment
of TSCA, the manufacture, processing,
and distribution in commerce of PCBs
(without an exemption) has been
banned and the use of PCB without
authorization has been banned. In
addition, EPA has developed
comprehensive PCB disposal regulations
under TSCA. This regulatory framework
includes specific disposal requirements
for defined classes of PCB wastes,
specific marking requirements for PCB
items, facility recordkeeping
requirements, approval requirements for
disposers, and a proposed notification
and manifesting system modeled on the
subtitle C "cradle to grave" tracking
system.
One commenter stated that utility
transformer dielectric fluids are likely to
exhibit the revised TC and urged the
Agency to exempt PCB-containing utility
transformer dielectric fluids from the
rule. The commenter noted that the
regulation of PCBs is unique because the
manufacture of PCBs (without an
exemption) has been banned. Thus, the
critical regulatory concern with respect
to these PCB wastes is the need to
expedite safe disposal of the chemical.
The commenter stressed that if FCB
wastes were to be regulated now under
RCRA as well as under TSCA, serious
legal, practical and administrative
complications could result.
The Agency agrees with the
commenter. The most significant
potential negative impact of dual
regulation of these wastes under both
RCRA subtitle C and TSCA results from
the unique scope and timing of PCB
disposal. The Agency estimates that
approximately 312 million pounds of
PCBs are dispersed among nearly 30
million discrete units of electrical
equipment. The TSCA regulations
require the phaseout of certain PCB-
containing electrical transformers, and
EPA expects that the TSCA mandatory
phaseout requirements and restrictions
will render the next three years a peak
period for PCB disposal. Under the
authority of the TSCA mandatory
phaseout, by October 1,1990, owners of
secondary network higher voltage
transformers located in or near
commercial buildings are required to
either remove or reclassify these
transformers, ^classification
necessitates draining of all PCB fluids
from the unit, arid replacing them with
non-PCB fluids or low concentration
PCB fluids, and keeping the transformer
in full service, under loaded conditions,
for a minimum of three months.) !n
addition, the phaseout restrictions affect
lower secondary voltage network ur.its
of PCB-containing electrical
transformers located in or near
commercial buildings: by October 1,
1993, such transformers must either be
removed cr bs reclassified, or an
alternative option for lower voltage
units allows for providing enhanced
electrical protection on such units by
October 1,1990. Radial PCB-containing
electrical transformers must either have
enhanced electrical protection or be
removed.
The TSCA program, with which the
regulated community is familiar, is
specifically tailored to deal with the
problem of widely dispersed waste
generation and the timely disposal of a
chemical that is no longer commercially
produced. The confusion that could
result from the addition of requirements
under a separate regulatory disposal
system, and the RCRA disincentives to
waste production, would cause
significant disruption to the expeditious
disposal of large quantities of these PCB
wastes if these wastes were to become
subject to the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations.
In addition, the Agency believes that
the existing system for PCB disposal,
including the existing TSCA disposal
regulations and recent additions to the
program (e.g., the proposed notification
and manifesting rule, published at 53 FR
37436], are adequate to protect human
health and the environment with respect
to the disposal of these wastes. Thus,
further regulation under RCRA for PCB-
containing dielectric fluids and
associated PCB-contaminated electrical
equipment does not appear to be
necessary at this time. The Agency will
also evaluate the integration of the
TSCA PCB regulations with the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations for other
PCB-containing wastes which are
identified or listed as hazardous.
-------
11842 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday, March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
K. Implementation Issues
EPA received many comments
concerning implementation of the TC
rule. The comments addressed issues
including the schedule for companies
and municipalities to come into
compliance with subtitle C
requirements, exemptions and
applicability, implications for permit
modifications, and administrative
requirements. Major comments on
implementation are summarized and
addressed below. Section V of this
preamble further discusses how the
Agency will implement today's rule.
1. Notification
•In the June 13.1986 Federal Register
notice. EPA proposed to waive the
RCRA section 3010 notification
requirement for persons who manage TC
wastes and have already: (1) Notified
the Agency that they manage other
hazardous wastes and (2) received an
EPA identification number. Virtually all
commenters who addressed the
notification requirement supported
EPA's proposal. However, one state
agency opposed the proposal, on the
grounds that a waiver would hinder
efforts to develop a more accurate and
complete understanding of hazardous
waste management practices within the
United States.
EPA has decided, as proposed, to
waive the notification requirement for
TC waste handlers that have already
notified the Agency that they manage
hazardous wastes and have received an
EPA identification number. The Agency
believes that, given the vast scope of the
TC rule, a notification requirement for
persons already identified within the
hazardous waste management universe
would present an administrative burden
without providing any significant
benefits to human health and the
environment.
2. Effective Date
Several commenters claimed that the
6-month effective date of the TC rule
would not provide them with sufficient
time to come into compliance with the
full array of hazardous waste
regulations. Some commenters argued
that it would be impossible for
generators of TC wastes to test their
wastes, obtain EPA identification
numbers, arrange for transport and off-
site management of their wastes, modify
their short-term storage (i.e.,
accumulation] practices, and institute
the necessary recordkeeping and
reporting procedures within a 6-month
time frame. The commenters stated that
the time constraints are especially
unreasonable in light of the shortages of
laboratory and TSDF capacity that can
be expected to result from the TC
revisions. Other commenters claimed
that TSDFs will require more than 6
months to come into compliance with
the interim status standards of 40 CFR
part 265 (e.g., personnel training,
contingency planning, and financial
responsibility],
EPA appreciates the concerns of the
commenters, and the Agency is aware
that all of the commenters addressing
the effective date for the TC rule
encouraged EPA to adopt a delayed
effective date for most, if not all,
requirements. However, RCRA section
3010(b] requires that hazardous waste
regulations become effective 6 months
after the date of promulgation unless
EPA has good cause to establish an
earlier effective date. Thus, the effective
date for the final TC rule will be 6
months from the date of promulgation.
However, EPA is promulgating
different compliance dates for two
different categories of waste generators:
(1) All generators of more than 100 and
less than 1,000 kg/month of hazardous
waste (small-quantity generators) must
come into compliance with subtitle C
requirements for management of their
TC waste within one year of today; and
(2) all generators of 1,000 kg/month or
more of hazardous waste are required to
comply with all subtitle C requirements
for TC wastes within six months of
today, on the effective date of the rule.
All generators of over 1,000 kg/month
of hazardous waste are required to
comply with all applicable RCRA
regulations for their TC wastes on the
effective date of this rule. (The generator
quantity refers to all of a generator's
hazardous waste, not just newly
hazardous TC waste.) The Agency
recognizes that this compliance category
will include two groups of generators:
current hazardous waste generators,
including small quantity hazardous
waste generators who will be generating
additional hazardous wastes and
generators of large quantities of solid
wastes who will be regulated as
hazardous waste generators for the first
time. EPA believes that both of these
groups of generators should
predominantly be large businesses and
either be familiar with the waste
management regulations or be in a
position to come into compliance with
the requirements within the six month
period. These persons should have been
aware of the Agency's statutory
commitment and have had ample notice
of the impending TC rule through the
proposed rule and supplemental notices.
On the other hand, the Agency is
allowing an additional six months from
the effective date (i.e., one year from
today] for generators of greater than 100
but less than 1,000 kg/month of
hazardous waste (small quantity
generators] to comply with all
applicable subtitle C regulations. (As
with the over 1,000 kg/month category,
this quantity refers to the total quantity
of a generator's hazardous waste, not
just newly hazardous TC waste.) The
TC has the potential to affect an
extremely large number of handlers that
never before have been subject to the
hazardous waste regulations; many of
these firms are small businesses.
Handlers that will assume small
quantity generator status as a result of
the TC rule are most likely not regulated
under subtitle C at the present time.
Thus, these handlers are less likely to be
familiar with the waste management
regulations, or because of their small
business status, will need more than six
months to come into compliance with
the regulations.
As already indicated, these handlers
are likely to be small entities and may
be unaware that their practices, which
were not regulated in the past, will now
be regulated as a result of today's rule.
The Agency recognizes that these new
handlers of small quantities of TC
wastes (over 100 but less than 1.000 kg/
month) may have to test their wastes,
obtain EPA identification numbers,
arrange for transport and off-site
management of their wastes, modify
their short-term storage (i.e.,
accumulation) practices, and institute
the necessary recordkeeping and
reporting procedures. As recognized by
the Agency in establishing special
requirements for small quantity
generators, the burden of initial
compliance may fall relatively harder on
these generators (see 51 FR 10146,
March 24,1986). Thus, to lessen the
burden on the handlers of small
quantities of TC wastes, the Agency has
developed an outreach program targeted
for the small quantity generators which
will inform new generators of the
required steps necessary to enter the
hazardous waste management system.
Effective program outreach, however,
will take more than 6 months.
In amending RCRA in 1984, Congress,
in requiring EPA to promulgate
regulations for small quantity
generators, indicated that the Agency
should consider the impacts on small
businesses, while still providing
protection to human health and the
environment. While this rule is not
promulgated pursuant to this provision,
we believe the intent of Congress is for
the Agency (in promulgating any rule
substantially affecting small quantity
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11843
generators) to consider such impacts
and to provide procedural adjustments
where appropriate, EPA believes that
extending the compliance'date for this
group of generators will allow the
Agency time to provide necessary
assistance and outreach to these
generators and will allow sufficient time
for small quantity generators to comply
with the full range of applicable subtitle
C requirements. Finally, by delaying the
effective date of the TC for small
quantity generators, the Agency will be
able to concentrate its initial
implementation efforts on large quantity
generators, who will generate the vast
majority of waste brought into the
' RCRA subtitle C system under this rule.
Thus, because the delayed compliance
date for small quantity generators
enables the Agency to focus its attention
on the waste generators expected to
produce the largest volumes of waste, it
maximizes protection of human health
and the environment.
In summary, the Agency believes that
allowing an additional six months for
small quantity generators to come into
full compliance with the TC will serve
two purposes. First, it will allow the
Agency time to educate small quantity
generators on the RCRA rules, while at
the same time, allowing the Agency to
focus immediate implementation efforts
on large generators of hazardous waste.
Second, it will provide the necessary
time for small quantity generators to
comply with subtitle C requirements as
a result of the TC.
3. Permitting
Several commenters expressed
concern that they would not be able to
submit required permit modifications
before the effective date of the rule.
Some commenters also expressed
concern that the TC revisions could
place a significant burden on the system
for permitting hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities.
The commenters recommended a
number of different mechanisms for
reducing the prospective burdens on the
permitting system, such as (1) Allowing
permitted facilities to operate under
interim status with respect to newly
regulated wastes; (2) handling requests
from permitted facilities to manage TC
wastes as minor permit modifications,
rather than as major permit
modifications (especially in the case of
facilities that are already permitted to
manage listed wastes containing TC
constituents); (3) requiring permitted
facilities to apply for major permit
modifications by the effective date of
the TC rule, but not requiring them to
actually obtain the modification until a
later date; or (4) delaying the effective
date of the final rule.
EPA has promulgated amendments to
the procedures for permit modifications
for treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities on September 28,1983 (53 FR
37934). These changes to the regulations
should generally allay the concerns
expressed by the commenters. Although
the new permit modifications rule will
not automatically be effective in'
authorized states, EPA expects that
many authorized states will adopt the
provisions and EPA plans to use the
new permit modification procedures to
implement the TC. The new permit
modification procedures are further
explained in section V.
IV. Regulatory Levels
The regulatory levels established in
today's rule are based on two
elements—the toxicity of each
constituent and the expected fate of the
constituent when released into the
environment. The latter element is
expressed as a dilution/attenuation
factor (DAF), which, when multiplied by
the toxicity value, results in the
regulatory level. It is this level that.
when compared to the results of the
TCLP, defines a waste as hazardous. If
the waste leachate generated through
the TCLP contains constituents equal to
or above the regulatory levels in today's
rule, the waste is a hazardous waste.
This section summarizes the Agency's
basis for selecting the final list of
constituents and the regulatory levels
that are being promulgated in today's
rule.
A. List of Constituents
1. Proposed List
The Agency initially proposed
regulatory levels for 38 new organic
• constituents, proposed to modify the
regulatory levels for the six organic
constituents that are regulated under the
existing EPTC, and proposed to retain
the existing levels for the eight inorganic
constituents regulated in the existing
EPTC (see Table IV-1).
2. Constituents for Which Final
Regulatory Levels Are Not Now Being
Promulgated
The model used to predict DAFs for
today's rule accounts for hydrolysis.
which may occur during the transport of
a constituent through the environment. If
a constituent hydrolyzes during
transport, its concentration will
decrease more rapidly than it would if it
were influenced by dispersion alone.
Therefore, the DAF for a constituent that
hydrolyzes during transport will be
higher than that for a constituent that
does not hydrolyze. However, the
products that are formed because of
hydrolysis of the constituent also may
be toxic.
TABLE IV-1.—TC CONSTITUENTS AND REGULATORY LEVEUS PROPOSED JUNE 13,1986
HWNO1
D016 . . ... _ ,.
DQ04
0005 „.. „„
0019 .
0020 ™ , ..„__." ™™..,,
0006 .„_
D021 - _...... „
0022 .- . ~ ...
0023 .
0024 » ~. .. .
D02S „.,.. .
0007 „ _
0026 .... . ~ - ~
0027 . •
0028 „_ -...
0016 . . _
0029 _ _.
D03Q , . .
0031
Constituents
Benzene . . ....... -
BisC2-cMoroethyi; ether
Cadmium . ... . .. .. ~
Carbon (ffisuttide . . .... ... «. .7.
Carbon tetfachlorida..,. „ . , . ..
Chiordano...... ...... ..... . . . .
Chlorooenzene. . ....
Chloroform ...
Chromium ....... .,....„.„,
o-Cresol ....
m-Cresol . . . .
p-Crssol ..... .
2,4-D
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dicrik3robenzene ...
1,2-Dichloroethane
CASNO *
107-13-1
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
71-43-2
111-44-4
7440-43-9
75-15-0
58-23-5
57-74-9
108-90-7
67-66-3
1333-82-0
95-46-7
106-39-4
. 106-44-5
94-75-7
96-50-1
106-46-7
107-08-2
Regulatory
level (mg/U
50
50
1000
007
005
1 0
14 4
007
003
1 4
007
50
1C 0
100
100
1 4
43
108
O.-iO
-------
13844 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV-1.—TC CONSTITUENTS AND REGULATORY LEVELS PROPOSED JUNE 13,1986—Continued
HWNO'
DOSta ,.. ..
0033 ,„_„._ __. , _ _
DO12 ,.._,._.„„..,,„_ „--,,—, , ,- - , -
D034 ._._._ _ _
D035. _ _ ,. „ -
0036 „ _.
D037 _ .
Dffflft .... ,„. ,.,. „ , ,.,„,,, ,,,,,, ,„
0008 „, ... .. „_ „ ....
D013 _ „...„... _ _. ,„, .„. , . _„„ _
D009 _
0014 _.. „ . . _. .
0039 „.,..„„...„
0040 _...„
0041 „
0042 ..
D043 .. ........
0044 _ „ _. . ._
0010 „.. .. . _. ...
0045
0047 , _ „,
D048
r*UQ
0015. _ _ __ , .. _ .
D050 _ .__.__ _ _. __
0051 _.. .._ . _.
0052 „ ... , „_ „.. „ „ .
0053 ,_ _„„.
D054 . , „. „._
0017". „ _.._ _
0066 . _ _
Constituents
Heotachlor (and rts hydroxide) . ....... . ..... ,
Hflxacftforobenzefw ... . . .. ..... • ..
Isobutanol . « .... — .. .
Lead .. ....... __ _
Ufidarw ..... ....................... ..... .... .... ..„ ......... ..... .... . ...
Melhyien© chloride .. . . ..... ....... .
Methyl ethyl ketona
Nitrobenzene ..... „.. . .... ... ,
Perrtachioropheool..... .» .«.» ™
Phnnnl... .. ,. ,.
Pyridine . . . ... . ..... «... ™ .„ ... ,„.. .. .
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ..„_„._„_..„ „ „„,__ .
1,1,52-TBtraKhlofnetharo! . . .......
Tefrachloroethylene „ ~ .... ... .. . ^
2.3,4 6-Tetrachlorophenol ..... . .
Toxaphene
1 1 1-Tnchloroethane
1,1.2-Triehloroethane , „... „ „ . . ____
TrichlOfoetftvtene . ........ .. .. .... . ..... ... .... .......
2 4 5-TricftlorophBnol , .... „,. ,», .«. u. .... . .». .».. ».». ..». ...
9 4 5-TP (5iiv«»)._ ... , ., . „ , „.. „...,,..„.--.• - -,,-,-
Vinyl chloride. ... _ ._ _._ . . ._
CASNO1
75-35-4
121-14-2
72-20-8
76-44-2
118-74-1
87-«8-3
67-72-1
78-83-1
7439-92-1
7439-97-8
72-43-5
75-09-2
78-93-3
96-95-3
87-S6-5
106-95-2
110-€6-1
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
630-20-6
79.34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
106-88-3
8001-35-2
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-76-5
75-01-4
Regulatory
level (mg/L)
0.1
0.13
0.003
0.001
013
0.72
4.3
36.0
5.3
006
0.2
1.4
86
7.2
0.13
3.6
14.4
SO
1.0
5.0
10,0
1.3
0 1
1 5
144
0.07
300
1.2
007
5JS
030
0.14
0.05
1 EPA Hazardous Wasta Code Number.
* Chemical Aostracts Service number.
As explained in section III.E,2.a.vii,
the Agency does not have sufficient data
to address the formation and toxicity of
hydrolysis products. Therefore, in
today's rule, the Agency is not
establishing regulatory levels for those
new organic constituents that are
expected to appreciably hydrolyze and
thereby form potentially toxic by-
products. Rather, the Agency expects to
address these constituents in a future
Federal Register notice.
Three of the organic constituents
currently regulated by the EPTC may
hydrolyze to a significant extent.
However, due to uncertainties
associated with this mechanism, the
Agency believes that it would not be
prudent to remove these constituents
from regulation on a temporary basis
(Le., until their hydrolysis products can
be assessed). Therefore, these
constituents (endrin, methoxyehlor,. and
toxaphene) will continue to be regulated
at the existing EPTC levels in the
interim.
Also, as explained in section III.E.2.a,
the Agency has concluded that the
steady-state assumption used in the
ground water transport model may no!
be appropriate for all constituents. The
constituents for which a steady-state
solution may not be appropriate are
being deferred from the list of proposed
constituents. EPA will promulgate or
repropose (as warranted] regulatory
levels for these constituents in a future
Federal Register notice.
3. Final List of Constituents
a. Organic Constituents, The organic
constituents for which the Agency is
today establishing regulatory levels (Le.,
those that are on the current EP list, and
those that do not appreciably hydrolyze
and for which a steady-state assumption
is appropriate) are presented in Table
IV-2.
TABLE IV-2.—ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
TABLE IV-2.—ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS—
Continued
EPAHW
number1
pniR
Onia
nmm ,
D021
D022
0023 .......
D024.
0025.
0016
0027 , ....
0028 ...
D029.
ocrao.
D0t2......
Contaminant
Benzene
Carbon tetrscnloridc
CMordafM! ,....„....„. .....
Chlorabenzene
Chloroform
nvCresct
pv&esol „
2,4-D „
1 ,4-0zeoe ..
1 1 -Dichloroethytefte
2,4-Difstrotoliiert6
CAS
number*
71-43-2
56-23-5
57-74-8
106-90-7
67-66-3
85-46-7
106-33-4
106-44-5
94-75-7
106-46-7
107-06—2
75-35-4
tai-14-2
72-20-8
EPAHW
number '
003 1... ...„,..__..
0032 ._.____
D033
DQ34
D013..-______
D014 _ .,._,...
D035 ..-
Doge
nr»7
D038 .. „.__...
D039 _
0015 ...
D040...,
D041 ......_
D042
D017 „
0043.
Contaminant
Heptachlor (and its
hydroxideK
Hexachtorobenzena —
HexachJoro-1,3-
butadiene.
Hexacfiloroethane —
LJndane ... „
MethaxycMor .. ...
Methyl ethyt ketons,,.
P^ntachlotoptiflfiol ....
Pyridine „
Tetrachloroethylene....
Toxaphene ........ .
Trichtoroethytena
2,4,5-Trichloroplienot..
2,4,8-TricWorepnertat.,
2,4,S-TP (Sitvex)
CAS
number *
76-44-2
118-74-1
87-«8-3
67-72-1
58-89-9
72-43-S
78-33-3
96-95-3
87-86-5
110-86-1
127-18-4
8001-33-2
79-01-6
95-95-4
88-06-3
93-76-5
75-01-4
> Hazardous waste number.
* Chemical abstracts service number.
b. Inorganic Constituents. Among the
constituents that were proposed for
inclusion in the TC were eight inorganic
constituents that are currently regulated
in the EPTC. Because EPACML does not
currently accommodate metallic species,
it cannot be used to predict DAFs for
these constituents. Therefore, the
Agency is today retaining the regulatory
: I) * ,
4- JLV
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11845
levels for these constituents at their
current levels. When the MINTEQ
model (see III.B.S.c) is available to
accommodate these constituents, the
Agency will reconsider their regulatory
levels and propose new ones, if so
warranted.
B. Selection ofDAFs
The selection of the appropriate DAF
for the constituents addressed in today's
rule is based on the municipal landfill
scenario, as proposed. However, based
on comments on fate processes that
were not appropriately considered in the
model, several constituents have been
omitted from the proposed list of
constituents — specifically, those that
may hydrolyze to more than a negligible
extent and those for which the steady-
state assumption may not be
appropriate.
For the remaining constituents, the
Agency believes that a DAF of 100 is
appropriate for establishing regulatory
levels in today's rule. The basis for this
conclusion is explained in Section
C. Analytical Constraints
The regulatory levels for the
compounds proposed for inclusion in the
TC span approximately five orders of
magnitude (i.e., from the low parts per
billion to 100 parts per million). The
calculated regulatory levels for three of
these compounds (2,4-dinitrotoluene,
hexachlorobenzene, and pyridine) are
below the concentrations measurable
using currently available methods.
EPA believes that the appropriate
way to deal with a calculated regulatory
level that is below the analytical
detection limit is to use (for the
regulatory level) the lowest level of
detection that can be attained. The
lowest level of a particular chemical
that can be reliably measured within
acceptable limits of precision and
accuracy under routine laboratory
operating conditions is that chemical's
"quantitation limit." A quantitation limit
is determined through such studies as
method performance evaluations.
If data from Intel-laboratory studies
are unavailable, quantitation limits are
estimated based on the detection limits
and an estimated multiplier that
represents a practical and routinely
achievable level with relatively high
certainty that the reported value is
reliable. EPA proposed to use a value of
five times the analytical detection limit
as the quantitation limit and to set the
regulatory level at the quantitation limit
for those compounds for which the
calculated regulatory level is below the
quantitation limit, and interlaboratory
studies were not available.
Because TCLP extracts are aqueous in
nature, the quantitation limits used in
this rule are based on the presence of
these compounds in a water matrix. The
Agency received many comments on the
use of the quantitation limit as the
regulatory level for the three compounds
with health-based thresholds below that
level. Most commenters expressed
concern that quantitation limits based
on analysis of the constituent in a water
matrix may not be achievable in more
complex samples. The comments
discussed potential complications that
could hamper analysis of various kinds
of wastes and recommended that EPA
work toward determining actual
quantitation limits on real wastes.
The Agency agrees that the ability to
achieve the quantitation levels listed in
the proposed rule is strongly influenced
by the type of waste that is being
analyzed. However, determination of a
matrix-dependent quantitation limit
would require analysis of a wide variety
of wastes. EPA believes that it would be
impractical to perform such waste-
specific analyses at this time. Therefore,
EPA has chosen to use the proposed
definition (i.e., five times the method
detection limit) for the quantitation
limit.
A number of commenters addressed
the issue of the generic multiplier used
to derive the quantitation limit. Several
commenters recommended using 10 to
25 times the detection limit as the
regulatory level, while a few
commenters supported setting the
regulatory level at the detection limit
itself, to provide what they believe
would be greater environmental
protection.
The Agency is working to improve the
sensitivity of analytical methods to
provide increased protection of human
health and the environment. Analytical
detection limits are, by definition,-not
routinely achievable under average
laboratory conditions. Thus, a
regulatory level set at the detection limit
would be difficult for the Agency to
enforce and would make it difficult for
the regulated community to demonstrate
compliance. To provide a consistently
enforceable regulatory limit while
providing assurance that those wastes
that clearly pose hazards are subject to
subtitle C requirements, the Agency will
set the regulatory level at five times the
detection limit. The Agency has a high
degree of confidence in setting the
regulatory level at the quantitation limit
(i.e., five times the detection limit)
because other programs within the
Agency have successfully used this
method in the past to set regulatory
levels (e.g., the Contract Laboratory
Program under the Superfund Program).
Comments on the use of the
quantitation limit are addressed more
extensively in the testing methods
background document.
D, Final Regulatory Levels
The regulatory levels being
promulgated today are equal to the
product of each constituent's toxicity
threshold and the DAF or the
quantitation limit. These regulatory
levels are presented in Table IV-3.
These levels are designed to identify
wastes that clearly pose a hazard and
define those wastes as hazardous.
However, it should be noted that wastes
that do not exhibit this characteristic
(e.g., result in TCLP levels that are less
than the regulatory levels) are not
necessarily nonhazardous and may be
listed as a hazardous waste or become
hazardous under other hazardous waste-
characteristics.
TABLE IV-3.—TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC CONSTITUENTS AND REGULATORY LEVELS
EPA HW number >
D004 _
0005
0018
D006
0019 _ _
0020
0021 . _ - _
D022
0007 ~
O023
Constituent
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Cadmium
Cartoon tetrachlonde „
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene _
Chloroform
Chromium „
o-C'esol
CAS
Number '
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
71-43-2
7440-43-9
56-23-5
57.74-9
108-90-7
67-66-3
7440-47-3
95-48-7
Regulatory
level (mg/L)
5.0
1000
0.5
1 0
0.5
003
100.0
60
5.0
< 200.0
-------
11846
Federal Register / Vol 55. No. 61 / Thursday. March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV-3.—Toxicrrr CHARACTERISTIC CONSTITUENTS AND REGULATORY LEVELS—Continued
EPA HW number «
D024.. .. ..... .
0025 . .,— . ... .. , ..
D026,., _ . . .
0016 -» _ _
0027
D028 '.._ _ „
D029 ._ „„_ ,„ _
O030., „ ..
0012 . _. ,_ , ,_ ._ .
0031 .. ,.
0032..., „'. , „ - . .....
D033__
0034 _ .„ . _. . «. ..
0008 . ... _ „ _
0013 :
0009
0014- _ . .. .
D03S „ . .•
0038. , _
0037 _ ... «,,,.,
D03S „ „
0011 _„
0039 .
001 5
0040
r»41_.: -„— ,
D04Z
0017
D043 _ „ _.., „
Constituent
rfl-CnssoI.... „„,„ „„. -... , . * .. . , „
fMSrasOl , ._.
Cresol «......., .. .
24-D ..._.. _„ ...
t^-OiCFiiOfODeraene..™.-...,, . „ ... „ .„ ,
1 .2-DichlofQetharte. . .......„_... „.. . . _ « ™ „
T,1-Dichloroethyiene „ -,..._
Heptaehlor {.and its hydroxide) : -. .—
Hexachlorc— 1,3-bytadien0. ...... . . . ,....„ „ .,
Hexachloroetnafle......................... „ ......... ,
Lead.™™ .. .
Lindane , .- ™ ...... , .
Mercury ... .._..,.. .... . ........ . . . . .... ... .....
Methoxychlor —
Methyl ethyl ketone- „ _
PerrtacMoroprienol ~™ ™ .™™...... ™..., .
Pyridine ... „ „ . „._„. ... . .... ....
Selenium .„,..„ ,._.„. . ....
Silver
T
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11847
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the state (see 40 CFR
part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization).
Following authorization, EPA retains
enforcement authority under sections
3008, 7003 and 3013 of RCRA, although
authorized states have primary
enforcement responsibility. Prior to
HSWA, a state with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program entirely in lieu of the federal
program. The federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized state,
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities in a state that was authorized
to issue permits. When new, more
- stringent federal requirements were
promulgated or enacted, the state was
obligated to enact equivalent authority
within specified time frames. New
federal requirements did not take effect
in an authorized state until the state
adopted the requirements as state law.
In contrast, under section 3006(g) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C, 6926{g), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
states at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized states. EPA is
directed to carry out those requirements
and prohibitions in authorized states,
including the issuance of permits, until
the state is granted authorization to do
so. While states must still adopt HSWA-
related provisions as state law to retain
final authorization, the HSWA
requirements are implemented by EPA
in authorized states in the interim.
Today's rale is promulgated pursuant
to RCRA section 300l(gj and (h). These
provisions were added by HSWA.
Therefore, the Agency is adding the
requirement to Table 1 in § 271.1(j),
which identifies the federal program
requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA and that take effect
in all states, regardless of their
authorization status. States may apply
for either interim of final authorization
for the HSWA provisions identified in
Table 1, as discussed in the following
section of this preamble.
2. Effect on State Authorization
As noted above, EPA will implement
today's rale to authorized states until
they modify their programs to adopt
these rules and the modifications are
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 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 all
HSWA interim authorizations will
expire January 1,1993 [see 40 CFR
271.24(c)).
40 CFR 271.21(e){2) requires that
states with final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect federal
program changes, and they must
subsequently submit the modifications
to EPA for approval. The deadline for
state program modifications for this rale
is July 1,1991 (or July 1,1992, if a state
statutory change is needed). These
deadlines can be extended in certain
cases (40 CFR 271.21(e}{3)). Once EPA
approves the modification, the state
requirements become subtitle C RCRA
requirements. States with authorized
RCRA programs may already have
requirements similar to those in today's
rule. These state regulations have not
been assessed against the federal
regulations being promulgated today to
determine whether they meet the tests
for authorization. Thus, a state is not
authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
state program modification is approved.
Of course, states with existing standards
may continue to administer and enforce
their standards as a matter of state law.
In implementing the federal program,
EPA will work with states under
cooperative agreements to minimize
duplication of efforts. In many cases,
EPA will be able to defer to the states in
their program implementation efforts,
rather than take separate actions under
federal authority.
States that submit their official
applications for final authorization less
than 12 months after the effective date
of these standards are not required to
include standards equivalent to these
standards is their application. However,
the state must modify its program by the
deadline set forth in § 271.21le). States
that submit official applications for final
authorization 12 months after the
effective date of these standards must
include standards equivalent to these
standards in their application. The
process and schedule for final state
authorization applications is described
in 40 CFR 271.3,
B. Integration of Today's Final Rule
with Existing EPIC
As explained above, because this rule
is promulgated pursuant to HSWA, it
will be effective six months from today
in both authorized and unauthorized
states and will be implemented by EPA
until states receiv.e authorization for this
rule. Thus, beginning on the effective
date, large quantity generators that
generate TC waste in all states are
responsible for complying with the
appropriate requirements. However, the
rule promulgated today also revises an
existing RCRA rule defining hazardous
wastes that authorized states have been
implementing for some time. The two
principal changes in the rule are the
revision to the leaching procedure, by
replacing the EP with the TCLP, and the
addition of constituents for which the
leachate will be analyzed. The
discussion below and Table V-2
describe how state implementation of
the existing EPTC will be integrated
with EPA implementation of the TC as
promulgated today.
1. Facilities Located in Authorized
States
There are three types of facilities
located in authorized states which are
affected by today's rule: facilities which
are already operating under a RCRA
permit, facilities which are already
operating under interim status, and
facilities which are subject to RCRA
permit requirements for the first time as
a result of today's rule. Permitted and
interim status facilities can also be
affected by today's rule in three distinct
ways: (1) The facility may already be
managing wastes that are hazardous
under the existing EPTC, (2) the facility
may already be managing wastes that
are hazardous under the existing EPTC
but which also exhibit the toxicity
characteristic for a new constituent(s)
under today's rule (and thus the waste
would have a new waste code), or {3}
the facility may be managing a solid
waste which is newly subject to
regulation as a result of today's revision
of the TC. Table V-2 summarizes the
initial filing requirements and applicable
standards for each category of facility.
-------
11848 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V-2.—INTEGRATION OF TC WITH EXISTING EPIC
Status of State authorization
1, Authorized Stale
11. N0i>authoiizac State
Facility status
A. Permitted
8. Interim Status
C. Newly-regulated....
B. Interim Status
C. Newly-regulated....
Type at waste
1. Regulated EPA
waste w/no new
constituents under
revised TC.
2. Regulated EP waste
w/naw constituents.
3. Previously
• unregulated waste in:
-Already regulated
unit,
-Previously
unregulated unit
1. Regulated EP waste
w/no new
constituents under
revised TC.
2. Regulated EP waste
w/new constituents
under revised TC.
3. Previously
unregulated waste.
1 Regulated EP waste
w/no new
constituents under
revised TC.
2. Regulate EP waste
w/new constituents
under revised TC.
3. Previously
unregulated waste in:
-Already regulated
unit
-Previously
unregulated unit
1. Regulated EP waste
w/no new
constituents under
revised TC.
w/new constituents
under revised TC.
3. Previously
unregulated waste.
What to file
NA
Class 1 permit
modification under 40
CFR 270.42.
Class 1 permit
modification under 40
CFR 270.42.'
NA
Revised Part A under
40 CFH 270.72.
Revised Part A under
40 CFH 270.72. l
Part A and 3010 under
40 CFR 270.70.»
NA .. ..
Class 1 permit
modification under 40
CFR 270.42.
Class 1 permit
modification under 40
CFR 270.42. '
NA „ .
40 CFR 270.72.
Revised Part A under
40 CFR 270.72.«
Part A and 3010 under
40 CFR 270.70.»
Where to Me
NA »
EPA Regional Office
and State.
EPA Regional Office
and State.
NA
EPA Regional Office
and State.
EPA Regional Office
and State,
EPA Regional Office
NA
EPA Regional Office
EPA Regional Office
NA „.
EPA Regional Office .«
EPA Regional Office
EPA Regional Office........
Applicable permitting
standards
State permit standards.
State permit standards.
State permit standards.
40 CFR Part 265.
standards.
State interim status
standards.
40 CFR Part 265.
40 CFR Part 265
40 CFH Part 264
40 CFR Part 265.
40 CFH Part 264.
40 CFR Part 265.
40 CFH Part 265.
40 CFR Part 265
40 CFR Part 265.
40 CFH Part 265.
1 Facility may also need to receive a Class 2 or Class 3 modification under CFR 270.42.
3 If newly regulated waste is being managed in a land disposal unit, facility may need to submit certification of compliance within one year under 40 CFR 270.73.
»If facility is a land disposal facility, Part B permit application and certfication of complia "
and 40 CFH 270.73.
i of compliance must be submitted within one year under RCRA Section 3005(e)(3)
For facilities which have been
managing EPTC wastes under an
authorized state program and the
constituents exhibited by the wastes are
unchanged under today's rule, (i.e., no
waste code change is necessary), such
interim status and permitted facilities
have no changes to file with permitting
authorities. Similarly, since the
regulatory status of the waste is
unchanged, management of that waste
will continue to be regulated under the
authorized state standards. The only
effect of today's rule on such facilities is
that the facility must use the TCLP when
testing for toxic constituents. However,
use of the EP in addition to the TCLP
may continue to be required as a matter
of state law.
For facilities which have been
managing EPTC wastes under an
authorized state program and the
constituents exhibited by the wastes
have changed as a result of today's rule,
the facility will need to change the
waste code assigned to its TC wastes.
Permitted facilities must submit permit
modifications to EPA reflecting the new
wastes codes. Because EPA must
implement this rule until the state is
authorized to do so, the permittee must
comply with federal permit modification
procedures under 40 CFR 270.42 rather
than state permit modification
procedures. However, because the
permit undergoing modification is most
likely a joint EPA-state RCRA permit, a
copy of the modification request should
also be submitted to the authorized
state. Similarly, interim status facilities
must submit a revised part A permit
application to EPA pursuant to 40 CFR
270.72, with a copy to state permitting
authorities. Although these facilities
must make appropriate waste code
modifications to reflect the new TC
constituents, the wastes are already
regulated as EP wastes under the
authorized state program. Accordingly,
such wastes are not subject to any new
management requirements as a result of
this rule and must continue to comply
with appropriate authorized state
-------
OSWER DIR. MO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday. March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11849
requirements for management of these
wastes.
Some permitted and interim status
facilities in authorized states will be
managing wastes which will become
hazardous as a result of today's rule.
These facilities must-also submit permit
modifications or part A permit
application revisions to EPA, However,
because these wastes were previously
unregulated under RCRA. they also
were not regulated under the authorized
state program. As a result, if these
wastes are in a previously unregulated
unit, they will be subject to the self-
implementing Federal standards for
hazardous wastes management at 40
CFR part 265 until permit issuance (for
interim status facilities) or modification
(for permitted facilities). After permit
issuance or modification, the Federal
permitting standards at 40 CFR part 264
will apply to these wastes (or the state
permitting standards if the permit is
ultimately issued or modified by a state
authorized for the TC), However, if the
wastes are at a permitted facility in a
unit that is already regulated, that unit
will continue to comply with the
applicable 40 CFR part 264 (or state
equivalent) standards.
Facilities in authorized states which
are newly subject to RCRA permit
requirements as a result of today's rule
must obtain an EPA identification
number and submit their part A permit
application and section 3010 notification
to EPA in order to obtain interim status
(see 40 CFR 270.70). Such facilities are
subject to regulation under 40 CFR part
26S until a permit is issued by EPA or a
state authorized for the TC.
2. Facilities Located in Unauthorized
States
There are also three types of facilities
located in unauthorized states which are
affected by today's rule: already
permitted facilities, facilities operating
under interim status, and facilities
newly subject to RCRA permit
requirements under today's rule. As in
authorized states, some of the permitted
and interim status facilities have been
managing EPTC wastes.
For interim status and permitted
facilities which have been managing
EPTC wastes that will exhibit no new
constituents as a result of the
replacement of the EP with the.TCLP
and the addition of constituents to the
TC, there will be no waste code
changes. Accordingly, such facilities do
not need to submit permit modifications
or revised permit applications to EPA
and will continue to be subject to the
applicable federal standards for
hazardous wastp management.
Facilities which have been managing
EPTC wastes which exhibit the toxicity
characteristic for new constituents as a
result of today's changes to the TC must
notify EPA of the waste code changes
for its TC wastes. Permitted facilities
must submit permit modifications to
EPA as required under 40 CFR 270.42
that reflect the new wastes codes.
Interim status facilities must submit
'revised part A permit applications in
accordance with 40 CFR 270.72. These
facilities must continue to comply with
the applicable federal standards for
hazardous waste management.
Permitted and interim status facilities
which manage waste that is newly
defined as hazardous waste as a result
of today's rule must also submit permit
modification requests or part A permit
application revisions to EPA. Facilities
must manage these wastes in
accordance with 40 CFR part 265 or 40
CFR part 264 until permit modification
or issuance, depending on whether the
waste is managed in a newly regulated
or previously regulated unit.
Facilities which are newly subject to
RCRA permit requirements as a result of
today's rule must get an EPA
identification number and a part A
permit application to EPA in order to
obtain interim status. Such facilities are
subject to regulation under 40 CFR part
265 until a permit is issued.
C, Notification
Pursuant to RCRA section 3010, the
Administrator may require all persons
who handle hazardous wastes to notify
EPA of their hazardous waste
management activities within 90 days
after the wastes are identified or listed
as hazardous. This requirement may be
applied even to those generators,
transporters, and TSDFs who have
previously notified EPA with respect to
the management of other hazardous
wastes.
In the June 13,1986, Federal Register
notice, EPA proposed to waive the
notification requirement for persons
who manage TC wastes and have
already (1) notified the Agency that they
manage other hazardous wastes and (2)
received an EPA identification number.
EPA has decided to waive the
notification requirement as proposed.
The Agency believes that, given the vast
scope of the TC rale, a notification
requirement for persons already
identified within the hazardous waste
management universe is unnecessary,
EPA is not waiving the notification
requirement for TC waste handlers that
have neither notified the Agency that
they manage hazardous wastes nor
received an EPA identification number.
Those persons must notify EPA no later
than June 27,1990 of these activities
pursuant to section 3010 of RCRA.
Notification instructions are set forth in
45 FR12748, February 26,1980.
D, Permitting
Currently permitted facilities that
manage TC wastes must submit Class 1
permit modifications if they are to
continue managing the newly regulated
wastes in units that require a permit.
The facilities must obtain the necessary
modification by the effective date of the
rule, or they will be prohibited from
accepting additional TC wastes.
Interim status facilities that manage
TC wastes in units that require a permit
must file an amended part A permit
application under 40 CFR 270.10fg) if
they are to continue managing newly
regulated wastes. The facilities must file
the necessary amendments by the
effective date of the rule, or they will not
receive interim status with respect to the
TC wastes [i.e., they will be prohibited
from accepting additional TC wastes
until permitted).
Newly regulated facilities (i.e.,
facilities at which the only hazardous
wastes that are managed are newly
regulated TC wastes) must qualify for
interim status by the compliance date of
the rule in order to continue managing
TC wastes prior to receiving a permit.
Under 40 CFR 270.70, an existing facility
may obtain interim status by getting an
EPA identification number and
submitting a part A permit application.
To retain interim status, a newly-
regulated land disposal facility must
submit a part B permit application
within one year after the effective date
of the rule and certify that the facility is
in compliance with aO applicable ground
water monitoring and financial
responsibility requirements (see RCRA
section 3005(e)f3)).
EPA recently promulgated
amendments to the procedures for
permit modifications for treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities (see 53
FR 37934, September 28,1988). The
following discussion assumes
implementation in accordance with the
new rule. EPA will implement the TC by
using the new permit modification
procedures, consistent with EPA policy
(see 53 FR 37933, September 28,1986).
Under the new regulation in i 270.42.
there are now three classes of permit
modifications with different submittal
and public participation requirements
for each class. In § 270.42(g), which
concerns newly listed or identified
wastes, a permitted facility that is "in
existence" as a hazardous waste facility
for the newly listed or identified waste
on the effective date of the notice must
-------
11850 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday. March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
submit a Class 1 modification by that
date. Essentially, this modification is a
notification to the Agency that the
facility is handling the waste. As part of
the procedure, the permittee must also
notify the public within 90 days of
submittal to tfie Agency.
Next, within 180 days of the effective
date, the permittee must submit a Class
2 or 3 modification to the Agency. A
permittee may submit a Class 2
modification if the newly regulated
waste will be disposed in existing TSD
units and will not require additional or
different management practices from
those authorized in the permit. A Class 2
modification requires public notice by
the facility owner of the modification
request, a 60 day public comment
period, and an informal meeting
between the owner and the public
within the 60 day period. The rule
includes a "default provision," so that
for Class 2 modifications, if the Agency
does not make a decision within 120
days, the modification is automatically
authorized for 180 days. If the Agency
does not reach a decision by the end cf
that period, the modification is
permanently authorized. If the newly
regulated waste requires additional or
different management practices, a Class
3 modification is required. The initial
public notification and public meeting
requirements are the same as for Class
2. However, after the end of the public
comment period, the Agency will
develop a draft permit modification,
open a public comment period of 45
days and hold a public hearing.
E. Compliance Date
The Agency is promulgating two
different compliance dates for two
different categories of TC waste
generators: (1) All generators of greater
than 100 and less than 1,000 kg/month of
hazardous waste (small-quantity
generators) must come into compliance
with subtitle C requirements for
management of their TC waste within
one year from today; and (2) all
generators of 1,000 kg/month or more of
hazardous waste and TSDFs are
required to comply with all subtitle C
requirements for TC wastes within six
months from today, on the effective date
of the rule. Thus the EPTC remains in
effect until six months after today's date
for large quantity generators and TSDFs,
and remains in effect for 12 months after
today's date for small quantity
generators. The generator quantity
refers to all of a generator's hazardous
waste, not just newly hazardous TC
waste.
Further discussion of the Agency's
reasons for promulgating an extended
compliance date for small-quantity
generators is provided in section III.K of
this preamble. In summary, the Agency
believes that allowing an additional six
months for small quantity generators to
come into full compliance with the TC
will serve two purposes. First, it will
allow the Agency time to educate small
quantity generators on the RCRA rules
while, at the same time, allowing the
Agency to focus immediate
implementation efforts on large volumes
of hazardous waste. Second, it will
provide the necessary time for small
quantity generators to comply with
subtitle C requirements as a result of the
TC.
VI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Introduction
This portion of the preamble discusses
the analyses required by Executive
Order No. 12291 and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. The Agency is required
under the Executive Order to estimate
the costs, economic impacts, and
benefits of "major" rules by conducting
a regulatory impact analysis (RIA).
Recognizing the potential of the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) rule to affect a broad
spectrum of American industry, EPA
prepared an RIA comparing several
regulatory alternatives. Based on the
results of this analysis, the Agency
concluded that this final regulation is a
major rule. Section VLB presents the
methodology and results of the RIA.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires the Agency to assess small
business impacts resulting from
regulations. The analysis of small
business impacts indicated that the TC
rule would not have a significant impact
on small businesses, and therefore a
formal regulatory flexibility analysis
was not prepared. Section VI.C
addresses potential effects on small
businesses.
The Agency received many comments
on the RIA for the June 13,1986
proposal. A summary of comments,
along with Agency responses, is
included as section VI.D. Section VI.E
discusses requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
Details of the regulatory impact
analysis and small business analysis are
available in the RIA document for the
final rule (Ref. 8). This final rule was
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget for review as required by
E.O. No. 12291.
B. Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Executive Order No. 12291
Executive Order No. 12291 requires
EPA to assess the effect of Agency
actions during the development of
regulations. Such an assessment
consists of a quantification of the
potential costs, economic impacts, and
benefits of a rule, as well as a
description of any beneficial or adverse
effects that cannot be quantified in
monetary terms. In addition, Executive
Order No. 12291 requires that regulatory
agencies prepare a regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) for major rules. Major
rules are defined as those likely to result
in (1) an annual cost to the economy of
$100 million or more; (2) a major
increase in costs or prices for consumers
or individual industries; or (3) significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, innovation, or
international trade.
EPA prepared an RIA comparing the
final TC rule with several regulatory
alternatives. Based on the RIA, EPA
estimates that the final TC rule is a
major rule with annual compliance costs
of between $130 million and $400
million. The analysis was conducted
based on the Office of Management and
Budget's "Interim Regulatory Impact
Analysis Guidance" and EPA's
"Guidelines for Performing Regulatory
Impact Analyses."
2. Basic Approach
In the final rule, EPA is amending its
hazardous waste identification
regulations under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) by refining and expanding
the existing Extraction Procedure
Toxicity Characteristic (EPTC). The
resulting TC includes a new extraction
procedure (the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure or TCLP) and 25
new organic constituents in addition to
the 14 existing EPTC constituents.
Wastes exhibiting the TC, based on
concentrations of constituents in the
TCLP extract, are designated as
hazardous wastes and are brought under
subtitle C regulation.
EPA estimated the costs, economic
impacts, and benefits of the final rule
and of a number of major regulatory
alternatives to the rule. Only the
anticipated effects of the final rule are
presented in this preamble; results for
the regulatory alternatives are discussed
in the RIA. In presenting the results of
the analysis, the Agency has presented
range estimates for costs, economic
impacts, and benefits to express the
uncertainty associated with certain
analytical assumptions.
In order to gauge the effects of the
final rule, EPA first identified wastes
and industries which would be affected
by the rule. Incremental costs for
affected facilities were estimated based
on the change in waste management
practices which would be required once
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11851
the wastes became hazardous. These
incremental costs were aggregated to
estimate national costs of the rule.
Economic impacts on facilities were
based on a comparison of facility
compliance costs with costs of
production and cash from operations.
The potential for facility closures was
also examined.
Benefits, like costs, were based on
required changes in waste management
practices. Benefit measures included
human health risk reduction, resource
damage reduction, and cleanup costs
avoided. Facility-level benefit estimates
were aggregated to obtain national
benefits.
• Section VI.B.3, below, presents the
methodology used to estimate costs,
economic impacts, and benefits. It also
briefly describes the sensitivity analyses
that were conducted to determine the
significance of key analytical
assumptions; these sensitivity analyses
are discussed in more detail in the RIA,
Limitations of the analytical approach
(e.g., assumptions which are likely to
overstate, understate, or create
uncertainty in results) are discussed in
the R1A. Results of the analysis of costs,
economic impacts, and benefits are
provided in section VLB.4,
3. Methodology
The methodology for the RIA is
presented in several parts. First, the
procedure for identifying wastes and
facilities affected by the TC is
discussed. Next, the development of
national cost estimates is presented. The
section on economic impact
methodology describes the criteria used
In gauging impacts on the regulated
community. Following that is a section
that presents several alternative
measures of benefits of the rule. The last
section describes the methodology for
analysis of used oil.
a. Determination of Affected Wastes
and Facilities. The first step in
estimating the impacts of the rule was to
determine which wastes and facilities
would be affected by the rule, based on
waste characteristics, quantities, and
management practices. No single data
source caciained all of this information,
and none of the data were facility-
specific. Therefore, the Agency
assembled aggregated data (e.g., by
industrial sector) from separate sources
and used it to draw inferences on
facility-level impacts.
Data en waste characterization and
volume ca_ne primarily from a series of
TC industry studies. (Ref. 19 through 29)
These staizss were conducted for major
industria.1 categories identified as likely
to genera:* significant quantities of TC
wastes; -~gr sectors, generating smaller
quantities of potentially affected waste,
were not addressed. Standard Industrial
Classifications (SICs) for the industrial
sectors studied range between the two-
digit and four-digit levels. The industries
profiled are shown in Table VI-1.
TABLE VI-1 .—POTENTIALLY AFFECTED IN-
DUSTRIES CONSIDERED IN RiAs FOR
THE PROPOSED AND FINAL TC RULES
Industry
Textile Mills '
Lumber and Wood
Products.2
Pulp and Paper * ....
Printing and
Publishing.
Plastics Materials
and Hesins.*
Synthetic
Rubber.'.
Synthetic Fibers.3
Pharmaceuticals.3...
Cetargents.
Surface Active
Agents.
Paints and Allied
Products.
Organic
Chemicals.*
Agricultural
Chemicals.
Petroleum
Refining.2
Miscellaneous
Petroleum and
Coal Products.'
Rubber and
Miscellaneous
Plastics
Products.1
Non-Ferrous Wire
Drawing and
Insulation.
Machinery and
Mechanical
Products.
Pipelines, except
Natural Gas.1
Electrical Services ..
Wholesale
Petroleum
Marketing.*
SIC«
22
2421, 249i
261 , 262, 263,
288.
27
2821 .
2822
2823, 2824...
283
2841... . _
2843
2851
2865, 2369.......
2879
2911 .....
2992
30
3357
34 through 39..
461 .._ _
491 1
517
Pro-
posed
X
X
X
x
x
x
X
X
X
x
Final
X
x
X
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
1 SICs listed are those defining the group consid-
ered in this analysis. SICs given at trie Two-digit or
three-digit SIC level indicate that the analysis applies
to all four-digit SICs contained wimm the broader
category
1 included in detailed quantitative analysis for the
final RIA.
The industry studies provided data
including waste type (wastewater,
sludge, solid process residual, or organic
liquid), waste quantity, constituent
concentration ranges and distributions,
and number of generating facilities. The
data in the studies were based primarily
on EPA's effluent guidelines reports,
supplemented by best engineering
judgement and data received in
comments on the proposed rule or in
follow-up correspondence (Refs. 30 and
31). Most of the wastes which were
included were related to wastewater
treatment; there was relatively little
data on process residuals. Wastes which
were already hazardous by virtue of a
listing or characteristic (e.g., the EPTC)
were not included. Due to lack of data,
certain types of wastes were not
included in the analysis (e.g..
contaminated soil, off-spec products,
contaminated debris).
It is particularly difficult to predict the
behavior of oily wastes in the TCLP test.
For the purpose of deriving upper bound
estimates of costs, economic impacts,
and benefits, one assumption that EPA
adopted was that oily non-liquid wastes
would not present filtration problems in
the TCLP (i.e., that the oily phase passes
'through the filter and hazardous
constituents in the oil phase leach to the
test extract) and that if extract
concentrations exceeded regulatory
levels, these wastes would fail the TC.
As a basis for lower bound estimates for
costs, economic impacts and benefits.
the Agency assumed that no oily wastes
will be caught by TC regulation because
the oily phase (and corresponding high
levels of toxic constituents) would not
filter through to the extract in the TCLP.
Due to the lack of facility-specific
waste generation data, certain
assumptions had to be made to derive
the quantity of each wastestream per
facility. First, potentially affected
facilities within each industrial sector
were split between small (with less than
50 employees) and large (with 50
employees or more) facility size
categories based on 1932 Census of
Manufacturers data on the number of
facilities by size category. (The 1982
Census data were the most recent
available.) Second, the total quantity of
potentially affected waste was
distributed between small and large
facilities based on Census of
Manufacturers data on the value of
shipments for the small and large size
categories. Using the distribution of
facilities and of total waste quantity
between small and large size categories,
EPA estimated wastestream quantity
per facility for small and large facilities.
EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis
in order to test the sensitivity of results
to the assumed distribution of wastes
based on value of shipments. Since the
division of waste quantities based on
value of shipments resulted in most
waste being generated by large
facilities, EPA tested the alternative
assumption that waste quantities were
split evenly between the large and small
facility size categories in each industry.
(Results of sensitivity analyses are
presented in section VI.B.4.)
-------
11852 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Baseline management practices (i.e.,
management practices in the absence of
the regulation) were derived primarily
from the Screening Survey of Industrial
subtitle D Establishments. (Ref. 16.) This
survey provided information on the
percent of facilities, by industrial sector,
which manage non-hazardous wastes
on-site in landfills, surface
impoundments, waste piles, and land
application units. Other baseline
management practices were not
specifically identified in the survey;
therefore, EPA had to use knowledge of
potentially affected TC wastes to
identify these other practices and
estimate the percentage of facilities
using them.
In the case of non-wastewaters, the
other practices considered included
management in off-site landfills and
land application units. For wastswaters,
the other baseline practices included
management in tanks as part of a
wastewater treatment system, direct
discharge under a NPDE3 permit, or
indirect discharge to a Publicly Owned
Treatment Works. These other
wastewater management practices were
assumed to be permissible under
subtitle C therefore it was assumed that
facilities using these practices for
wastes which were identified as
hazardous by the TC would not be
affected by the TC rule. EPA examined
the sensitivity of results to this
assumption by assuming, alternatively,
that all wastewaters were managed on
site in subtitle D surface impoundments.
For organic liquids, EPA determined,
based on the Office of Solid Waste's
Industry Studies Database, that the most
likely baseline management practices
were recycling and burning. EPA
assumed that incremental management
costs for these wastes would not be
significant and therefore did not include
the wastes in the analysis.
By combining the waste
characterization and volume data with
the management practice data, it was
possible to estimate, by industrial
sector, the amount of waste and the
number of facilities potentially affected
by theTC.
In order to determine the quantity of
each wastestream which would be
affected by the TC, the regulatory levels
for constituents in the waste were
compared with the estimated
concentration distributions, derived
from the TC industry studies, for
constituents in the waste leachate. The
constituent which caused the largest
percentage of the wastestream to fail the
TC was designated as the "cost-driving"
constituent, and the quantity exhibiting
the TC due to the presence of that
constituent was used as the affected
quantity. EPA tested the sensitivity of
results to the assumption that waste
would fail for a single driving
constituent by adding the percentages
failing for all constituents (up to 100
percent).
Due to the lack of facility-specific
data, it was assumed that the
percentage of facilities affected by the
TC for a particular wastestream would
equal die percentage of the total waste
failing the TC. (For example, if 25
percent of a wastestream failed, it was
assumed that 25 percent of the facilities
generating the waste would be affected
and that all of the wastestream at each
affected facility would fail.) In order to
test the importance of this assumption,
EPA adopted two alternative
assumptions as sensitivity analyses: for
any percentage of waste failing (except
for 0 and 100 percent, where claarly no
facilities or all facilities would be
affected), the percentage of facilities
affected would be 10 percent or,
alternatively, 90 percent.
The effects of potential production
process changes in response to the rule
were not addressed.
b. Cost Methodology. EPA estimated
both the social costs and the compliance
costs cf the final rule. Social costs do
not include transfer payments between
different parties within society (i.e., they
do not include tax payments or above-
average profits); the social costs
therefore represent the real resource
costs imposed by the rule on society as
a whole. Compliance costs, which
include the effects of taxes and above-
average profits, more accurately reflect
the effect of the rale on particular
entities within society.
1. Social Costs
EPA estimated the national social
costs of the final rule by calculating
before-tax incremental management
costs for affected wastes at model
facilities and then summing the facility
costs across industrial sectors.
Before-tax incremental costs were
calculated by subtracting baseline
management costs from post-regulatory
costs. Baseline management practices
were determined as discussed
previously. Post-regulatory management
practices were developed based on
waste types and quantities; the least-
cost practice among those feasible for a
waste was chosen as discussed below.
The post-regulatory practices did not
include potential waste treatment
practices under the land disposal
restrictions program since land disposal
restrictions requirements for TC wastes
will not come into effect until after the
TC rale is promulgated. Possible post-
regulatory management practices, as
well as baseline practices, for TC
wastes are shown in Table VI-2.
TABLE VI-2.—BASEUNE AND POST-
REGULATOBY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Waste typo
Wasteweter
Non-
wastewatar.
Organic liquid
Baseline
practice
On-site Subtitle
D surf ace
impoundment
or
Practice
parmissit!3
under
SubStlaA
Ovsna Subtitla
D landfill or
land
application
unit or ctf-ste
Subtitle D
landfill.
Burning,
recycling.
Post-regulatory
practice
On-site tank
exempt from
Subtitle C,
Subtitle C
surface
impound-
ment.1
Same as
baseline.1
On-slte or oft-
srte SubrHSa
C landfiU or
land
application
unit
Same as
baseline.1
1 Dilution and deep-welt injection were also con-
sidered as post-requialory practices but were found
to be more expensive man tank management
•Includes management in Subtitle C-exempI
tanks, direct discharge under a NPDES permit or
indirect discharge to * Publicly Owned Treatment
Works.
9 Since the post-regulatory practice was me sane
as the baseline practice, in* rule would not afiact
management of these waste*.
To estimate before-tax baseline and
post-regulatory costs for wastes, EPA
first estimated the cost per metric ton
for the different on-site and off-Bits
waste management practices. Before-tax
costs for on-site management units
include operation and maintenance
(O&M] and capital costs. O&M costs are
incurred annually for operation and
maintenance of waste treatment or
disposal units. Capital costs include
costs for construction of the unit and for
depreciable assets; these costs, which
assumed an average operating life of 20
years, were restated as annual values
by using a capital recovery factor based
on a discount rate of three percent.
RCRA-related costs such as personnel
training, financial assurance, and
liability insurance were included as
indirect capital costs.
For the subset of subtitle D facilities
which could potentially become subtitle
C TSDFs in order to manage TC wastes
on-site, post-regulatory costs for on-site
management also included corrective
action costs. Corrective action costs for
units were based on data from the to-be-
proposed corrective action subpart S
rule RIA, which indicated the
probability of a unit requiring a RCRA
facility assessment, RCRA. facility
investigation, and corrective action
cleanup. Corrective action costs were
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Ruies and Regulations 11353
not assigned to facilities which were
determined to already be subtitle C
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities, since units at these facilities
would already be subject to corrective
action requirements under subparts S
and F. Like capital costs, corrective
action costs were converted to annual
values.
The annualized capital and (as
appropriate) corrective action costs
were added to yearly O&M costs to
derive overall annualized costs for on-
site units of various sizes. These
annualized costs were then divided by
the waste management capacities of the
units to obtain the costs per metric ton
for on-site management in different
units.
Off-site management costs were
based on commercial hazardous waste
management prices, adjusted for the
effects of above-average profits.
Shipping costs were included for wastes
sent off-site. Neither the on-site nor off-
site costs included the cost of waste
testing.
Since no data were available on the
combinations of wastestreams
generated at particular facilities, EPA
used an algorithm to create model
facilities. In estimating costs for the .
model facilities, wastes that were
amenable to co-management were
grouped to identify economies of scale.
Once the costs per metric ton for
different types of on-site and off-site
management had been developed and
waste quantities for the model facilities
had been determined, EPA estimated
each facility's baseline cost based on
the quantities of waste and the cost per
metric ton for the baseline management
practices identified for the wastes. The
post-regulatory cost for each facility
was estimated in a similar way. The
post-regulatory management practices
for facilities were selected by comparing
the cost per metric' ton for different
feasible post-regulatory practices for
wastes and selecting the least expensive
alternative. (This comparison was made
based on compliance costs, rather than
social costs, as discussed below). EPA
then subtracted baseline costs from
post-regulatory costs to obtain the
before-lax incremental cost for each
facility. These before-tax incremental
costs were then added across industrial
sectors to obtain the total (national]
social costs of the rule.
EPA examined the possibility that.
some facilities managing wastewaters
would incur costs over and above the
cost of switching from management in
unlined surface impoundments to
management in wastewater treatment
tanks that are exempt from subtitle C.
To calculate upper bound costs, the
Agency assumed that facilities
generating large quantities of TC
wastewater (over 400,000 metric tons
per year) would not be able to convert
existing'non-hazardous surface
impoundments to tanks by the effective
date of the rule (i.e., October 1.1990)
and therefore would become interim
status facilities under RCRA and subject
to subtitle C closure of any
impoundments. The upper bound cost
estimates included costs for subtitle C
"landfill closure" of the surface
impoundments currently used to manage
TC waste. Costs for surface
impoundment subtitle C closure
included pumping of free liquid,
solidification of sludges, construction of
a cover system, installation of
upgradient and downgradient ground
water monitoring wells, closure
certification, and potential corrective
action costs triggered by bringing
facilities with TC surface impoundments
into the subtitle C system,
2. Compliance Costs
EPA used the same basic approach to
estimate compliance costs that was used
to estimate social costs except that the
after-tax costs (or revenue
requirements) of management practices
were used rather than the before-tax
costs, and the price of off-site
management was used rather than the
cost of off-site management (to address
above-average profits). Since the
compliance costs reflect the cost of the
rule for particular entities within society
more accurately than the social costs do,
compliance costs were used in
determining whether it would be less
expensive for facilities to use on-site or
off-site post-regulatory management
practices.
Based on the cost analysis discussed
above, EPA estimated the number of
existing subtitle C treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities (TSDFs) electing
to manage TC non-wastewaters on site
and the number of subtitle D facilities
which would be likely to become
subtitle C TSDFs in order to manage
their non-wastewaters on-site. (The
focus was on on-site management of
non-wastewaters, since it was assumed
that most facilities would be able to
manage wastewaters on site without
becoming subtitle C TSDFs.) This was
done by first determining the number of
facilities that would be likely to choose
on-site management as the least-cost
management practice for non-
wastewaters and then estimating how
many of these would be likely to already
be subtitle C TSDFs. EPA also estimated
the number of new subtitle C generators,
by determining how many facilities
would generate in excess of 100
kilograms per month of TC waste and
then calculating how many of these
facilities would be likely to already be
subtitle C generators.
c. Economic Impact Methodology. To
gauge impacts, EPA compared
compliance costs (discussed previously)
with average facility costs of production
and with cash from operations.
Financial data were obtained primarily
from the Census and Annual Survey of
Manufacturers (.U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Census) and were
organized by Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code and facility
size. Impacts were estimated at the
facility level rather than the firm level,
due to lack of data on specific facilities
and the firms owning them.
Two ratios were used to identify
facilities likely to experience adverse
economic effects: compliance cost
divided by cost of production (the COP
ratio) and cash from operations divided
by compliance cost (the CFO ratio).
These ratios bound possible effects on
individual facilities by examining
impacts assuming complete pass-
through of compliance costs to
customers, on the one hand, and
assuming no pass-through of costs, on
the other. The COP ratio represents the
percentage product price increase for
facility output that would be necessary
if the entire compliance cost.
accompanied by facility profit, were to
be passed through to customers in the
form of higher prices. A change
exceeding five percent is considered an
indication of a significant adverse
economic impact on a facility. The CFO
ratio represents the number of times that
a facility's gross margin (profi*) would
cover the compliance cost if the facility
were to fully absorb the cost. For this
ratio, a value of less than 20 is
considered to represent a significant
adverse impact.
EPA then performed an analysis on
the facilities experiencing significant
economic impacts to identify the
potential for facility closures. Those
facilities for which the CFO ratio was
less than two were considered likely to
close.
Impacts on significantly affected
product markets were addressed
qualitatively by examining market
structure and the ability of facilities to
pass compliance costs on to customers.
d. Benefits Methodology. The benefits
of the final rule were evaluated by
considering the reduction in human
health risk, the reduction in resource
damage, and future cleanup costs
avoided that would result from required
changes in management practices for
affected wastes. These benefits
. it
*, M
-------
11854 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
measures centered primarily on the
exposure to contaminants via the
ground water medium, since this was
the route of exposure addressed by the
TC rule; however, a screening analysis
of risks via air, due to emissions from
surface impoundments, was also
conducted to gauge the significance of
these risks.
It is important to point out that the
benefits measures should not be added.
The measures provide alternative ways
of evaluating benefits of the rule, and
significant overlap between measures
does occur.
EPA estimated benefits on a
wastestream-by-wastestream basis. To
simplify the analysis of benefits. EPA
employed a screening analysis to
identify two "risk-driving" constituents
in each wastestream, one a carcinogen
and one a non-carcinogen. These
constituents were then used in
developing benefit estimates.
A Monte Carlo modeling approach
was used to simulate fate and transport
of the constituents and subsequent
exposure to them under a variety of
waste characterizations, hydrogeologic
settings, and exposure scenarios. Based
on data from EPA's National Survey of
Solid Waste Municipal Landfill
Facilities (the "Municipal Landfill
Survey"), it was assumed that only 46
percent of facilities had down-gradient
wells. EPA examined the sensitivity of
results to this assumption by assuming,
alternatively, that all facilities had
down-gradient wells.
Due to the way in which fate and
transport of constituents was modeled
(using an infinite source, steady-state
model), benefits estimates were
primarily a function of the number of
facilities estimated to manage each
wastestream and constituent
concentrations in the waste; •
wastestream volumes did not affect
benefits estimates. In contrast, cost
analysis results were a function of the
number of facilities, waste constituent
concentrations, and wastestream
volumes.
Worst-case estimates of baseline risk,
resource damage, and cleanup costs
were developed by assuming that the
baseline management practice for both
wastewaters and non-wastewaters was
an unlined, non-hazardous waste
landfill. This is the same assumption
that was employed by the Agency in
determining regulatory levels for TC
constituents. Post-regulatory risk,
resource damage, and cleanup costs
were estimated by assuming that the
wastes managed as hazardous under the
TC would be effectively prevented from
contaminating ground water and would
therefore result in no risk, resource
damage, or cleanup costs; only those
wastes continuing to be managed as
non-hazardous would pose a threat to
human health or the environment.
For wastewaters, the baseline risk,
resource damage, and cleanup cost due
to ground water contamination were
based on concentrations of constituents
in the influents to waste management
units. Consequently, since volatilization
of constituents from waste management
units was not accounted for, benefits
due to reduction in ground water
contamination may be overstated.
The three benefits measures used in
this analysis are discussed separately
below,
1. Human Health Risk Reduction
EPA estimated two types of human
health risk: risk to the most exposed
individual (MET) and population risk.
Human health risk is defined herein as
the probability of injury, disease, or
death over a given time (70 years) due to
responses to doses of disease-causing
agents. The human health risk posed by
a waste management practice is a
function of the toxicity of the chemical
constituents in the wastestream and the
extent of human exposure to the
constituents. The likelihood of exposure
is dictated by hydrogeologic and
climatic settings at land disposal units
and by the fate and transport of
chemical constituents in environmental
media.
a, MEI Risk Reduction, MEI risk was
based on exposure to the risk-driving
constituents. Concentrations of the risk-
driving constituents in the waste
leachate were selected randomly from
the constituents' concentration
distributions. A dilution-attenuation
factor (DAFJ, derived from EPA's
subsurface fate and transport model
[EPACML). was then randomly selected
and used to model the fate and transport
of the constituents in ground water. (The
DAFs were developed using data from
the Municipal Landfill Survey on landfill
size, hydrogeology, and distance from
the unit to the closest drinking water
well; see section III.E for further
discussion of the model.) By dividing the
initial leachate concentrations of the
risk-driving constituents by the DAF,
exposure concentrations at a down-
gradient well were estimated. Risks
from ingestion of contaminated ground
water were then calculated. The
carcinogenic MEI risk was expressed as
the probability of the MEI contracting
cancer over a 70-year lifetime, and the
non-carcinogenic MEI risk was
expressed as an exceedance of the
health-effects threshold.
Risk estimates were developed in this
way for baseline conditions and for the
final rule. The difference between the
final rule and baseline risk estimate"
yielded the MEI risk reduction (or
benefit).
EPA conducted a separate screening
analysis of baseline MEI risks due to air
emissions from surface impoundments
in order to assess whether potential air
risks were significant. This was done by
assuming that constituents in
wastewaters would potentially
volatilize to the air rather than leach to
ground water. EPA's Liner Location
Model (Ref. 32) was used to estimate
concentrations of constituents at an
exposure point 200 meters from the edge
of the surface impoundment. Both
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks
were estimated.
b. Population Risk Reduction.
Population risk was estimated in much
the same way as MEI risk, with the
exception that ground water plume
areas for risk-driving constituents were
used to model the exposure of
populations located downgradient from
units. The plume areas were developed
for a representative hydrogeologic
environment, based on data from the
Municipal Landfill Survey.
Each plume area contained a gradient
of exposure concentrations, with the
highest concentration near the unit
boundary and the lowest concentration
near the outside edge of the plume. By
assuming a uniform population density
of 1.8 persons per acre, based on the
Municipal Landfill Survey, it was
possible to estimate the number of
persons exposed to each of the
concentration levels within each plume.
The population risk for the
carcinogenic constituent, based on the
constituent's risk-specific dose (RSD),
was expressed as the number of cancer
cases over a 70-year lifetime. The
population risk for the non-carcinogenic
constituent, based on the constituent's
reference dose (RfO), was expressed as
the number of persons exposed to
average daily concentrations exceeding
the RfD over a 70-year period.
2, Resource Damage Avoided
Resource damage measures the cost
associated with replacing contaminated
ground water that had been used as a
source of drinking water. Resource
damage was assumed to result from any
contamination of ground water which
would render it unsuitable for human
consumption; other potential foregone
uses, such as industrial or agricultural
uses, were not addressed.
If the concentration of a constituent in
ground water exceeded a maximum
contaminant level (MCL), the ground
water was assumed to be damaged. If
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, Kfarch 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11855
the contaminant did not have an MCL
but the concentration exceeded a taste
and odor threshold or a health effects
threshold, the ground water was also
assumed to be damaged. Areas of
damaged ground water were derived
based on a comparison of the
constituent's concentration within the
plume with the constituent's MCL, taste
and odor threshold, or health-based
number, in an approach similar to that
used to estimate plume areas for
population risk.
To place a value on the damaged
resource, EPA assumed that an
alternative water supply system would
have to be built to provide water to
persons living above the area of the
damaged ground water. The costs of
constructing the water supply system
included capital and O&M costs; these
costs were discounted to the present at
a rate of three percent to obtain the
resource damage per facility. Addition
of resource damage across facilities
provided a national estimate.
3. Cleanup Costs Avoided
As an alternative measure of benefits,
EPA estimated the cleanup costs
avoided as a result of the TC rule. Costs
of cleanup of contaminated ground
water were estimated by assuming that
sites with resource damage in the
baseline would eventually require
cleanups. To develop an upper bound
estimate, it was assumed that sites with
resource damage greater than $1.000,000
(present value] would require cleanup.
Cleanup costs were based on an
average cost of $15 million per site, with
cleanups beginning in 15 years. EPA
estimated the average cost of cleanup
by examining recent Superfund records
of decision (RODs) for sites
contaminated with TC constituents that
required substantial ground water
cleanup efforts. Costs were discounted
to present values using a discount rate
of three percent.
e. Used Oil Methodology. EPA
addressed the impacts of the TC on used
oil separately from other wastes for
several reasons. First, used oil is
generated across a wide variety of
industrial sectors. Second, unlike other
wastes, it has economic value and can
be sold in intermediate or end-use
markets; this complicates any analysis
of the costs of regulating it as a
hazardous waste. Also, data on used oil
are quite limited. Finally, it is difficult to
accurately estimate quantities of used
oil that may exhibit the TC because in
practice TCLP filtration is sample-
specific and difficult to predict.
The analysis of costs, economic
impacts, and benefits associated with
used oi) was qualitative in nature: no
attempt was made to develop national
estimates. In determining the quantity of
used oil potentially affected, EPA
excluded used oil that was: (I) Already
hazardous because it exhibits a
hazardous waste characteristic (e.g.,
ignitability); (2) recycled; or (3)
generated by "do-it-yourselfers" (i.e.,
auto owners disposing of crankcase oil).
In order to develop worst-case estimates
of impacts on used oil, it was assumed
that used oil would filter in the TCLP. It
was also assumed that the facilities
managing used oil were subtitle D
facilities. Finally, estimated impacts on
used oil did not account for the possible
stigma associated with management of
used oil as a hazardous waste.
4. Results
Results of the RIA are presented
below. These results are approximations
that are intended to identify the most
significant impacts of the TC rule. As
discussed previously, there were no
data on the waste types and quantities
generated by specific facilities in the
different industrial sectors. Therefore,
EPA used more aggregated data and
focused on those industrial sectors
which were most likely to generate
significant quantities of TC wastes.
a. Affected Wastes and Facilities.
EPA estimated the amount of waste and
the number of facilities that would be
"affected" by the rule, i.e., that would
incur any incremental costs due to
required changes in management
practices for newly hazardous wastes.
1. Affected Wastes
The overall quantity of waste affected
by the TC was driven by wastewaters.
EPA estimated the quantity of affected
wastewaters to be approximately 730
million metric tons (MMT) per year and
the quantity of affected non-
wastewaters (sludges and solids) would
range from approximately 0.85 MMT/
year to 1.8 MMT/year. It should be
noted that the affected wastewaters,
which would be hazardous wastes, are
assumed to be exempt from subtitle C
regulation in the post-regulatory
scenario due to their management in
exempt tanks. However, they would be
affected wastes because a change in
management practice (from surface
impoundments to tanks) would be
required.
The industrial sectors with the largest
quantities of affected wastewaters were
Petroleum Refining (SIC 2911), Organic
Chemicals [SIC 286). Synthetic Rubber
(SIC 2822), and Cellulosic and Non-
Cellulosic Synthetic Fibers (SICs 2823
and 2824). For the lower bound estimate
of 0.85 MMT/year of non-wastewaters
affected, the sectors with the largest
quantities of affected non-wastewaters
were Pulp and Paper (SIC 26), Synthetic
Fibers, Organic Chemicals, and
Pharmaceuticals (SIC 283). For the upper
bound estimate of 1.8 MMT/year,
industry sectors generating the largest
quantities of affected non-wastewaters
were Petroleum Refining. Pulp and
Paper, Synthetic Fibers, Organic
Chemicals, and Wholesale Petroleum
Marketing (SIC 517). Certain sectors
generate significant quantities of both
wastewaters and non-wastewaters due
to the wastewater treatment sludges
associated with wastewater streams.
Most of the affected wastewaters and
non-wastewaters are believed to be
generated by large facilities.
A total of twelve constituents
appeared as "cost-driving" constituents
in the analysis. However, benzene was
the driving constituent for over 60
percent of the affected waste quantity.
Other volume-driving constituents
include chloroform (25%), vinyl chloride
(17%), and trichloroethylene (15%).
2. Affected Facilities
EPA estimated that between 15,000
and 17,000 generators would be affected
by the rule. Costs and additional
requirements among these affected
facilities will vary (e.g., some may
already be RCRA generators or TSDFs,
others may need to apply for RCRA
permits or send wastes off-site). Over 90
percent of these were small facilities
(with fewer than 50 employees). The
industries with the most affected large
facilities were Hosiery and Knit Fabric
Finishing (SIC 225). Wholesale
Petroleum Marketing, Organic
Chemicals. Petroleum Refining, and
Plastics Materials and Resins (SIC 2821).
The industries with the most affected
small facilities were Wholesale
Petroleum Marketing, Hosiery and Knit
Fabric Finishing, Miscellaneous
Petroleum and Coal Products (SIC 2992),
Organic Chemicals, and Plastics
Materials and Resins.
3. Sensitivity Analysis of Affected
Wastes and Facilities
Changes in certain analytical
assumptions had significant effects on
the quantity of waste and number of
facilities affected by the TC final rule.
(Refer to section VI.B.S.a for discussion
of the sensitivity analyses which were
conducted.} Some of the changes also
affected cost and benefit results, as
discussed below under cost results and
benefit results.
Assuming that oily wastes would not
filter in the TCLP, rather than assuming
that they would, would have a very
significant effect on the quantity of non-
-------
f-
11856 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
wastewaters affected by the TC. This
effect can be seen in the difference
between lower bound (assuming oily
wastes do not filter] and upper bound
(assuming oily wastes filter without
complications) estimates of affected
quantities of non-wastewaters. Nearly
all of the non-wastewattrs from
Petroleum Refining (including a very
large-volume primary treatment sludge).
Wholesale Petroleum Marketing, and
Petroleum Pipelines are oily wastes.
Assuming that all wastewaters were
managed in surface impoundments,
rather than some portion being managed
by practices exempt under subtitle C,
increased affected wastewater quantity
significantly to approximately 1,900
MMT/year. It also increased the number
of facilities affected in certain sectors,
Finally, assuming that only 10 percent
of the facilities would be affected for a
waste failing the TC, rather than using
the percent of the waste failing,
significantly reduced the number of
facilities affected by the TC in most
industrial sectors.
, b. Cost Results—1. Social Costs and
Compliance Costs. EPA estimated the
total social costs of the TC rule
(excluding taxes and above-average
profits) to be approximately $90 million
to $310 million per year (present value
$1.3 billion to SS.7 billion); this does not
include costs associated with used oil.
Compliance costs (which include taxes
and above-average profits) ranged from
$130 million to S400 million per year
(present value $1.9 billion to $8.0
billion). While affected waste quantities
were driven by wastewaters,
compliance costs (for the scenario
where oily wastes fail the TC and no
surface impoundment closure costs are
incurred) were driven by non-
wastewaters due to the significantly
higher incremental costs of managing
non-wastewaters. Non-wastewaters
accounted for over 95 percent of
compliance costs.
For the lower bound cost estimate, the
industrial sectors with the largest
compliance costs were Pulp and Paper,
Synthetic Fibers, Organic Chemicals,
and Synthetic Rubber. For the upper
bound cost estimate, the industrial
sectors with the largest compliance
costs were Petroleum Refining, Pulp and
Paper, Synthetic Fibers, Wholesale
Petroleum Marketing, and Organic
Chemicals. Constituents driving the cost
results were: benzene, chloroform,
trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, and
carbon tetra chloride.
Approximately 90 percent of the
compliance costs (for the scenario
where oily wastes fail the TC and no
surface impoundment closure costs are
incurred) were incurred by large
facilities and 10 percent by small
facilities across industrial sectors. A
relatively small number of large
facilities incurs the majority of
compliance costs because large facilities
are believed to have much greater waste
generation rates than small facilities.
The estimated number of subtitle D
facilities seeking permits to become non-
commercial subtitle C TSDFs was 40 to
250; this does not include facilities
seeking permits for storage or treatment
only. Most of the expected permit
applicants were in the Pulp and Paper
Industry in the lower bound estimate.
Most of these new TSDFs in the upper
bound estimate were in Petroleum
Refining.
The number of existing subtitle C non-
commercial TSDFs expected to seek
permit modifications to handle TC
wastes was between 45 and 220,
depending on whether permits are
considered for only disposal or for
treatment, storage, and disposal. Most of
these facilities in the upper bound
estimate were in the Wholesale
Petroleum Marketing and Petroleum
Refining industries.
The number of subtitle C commercial
TSDFs (SIC 4953) seeking permit
modifications or changes to interim
status could be as high as 360, the
estimated number of existing
commercial TSDFs. Many of these
commercial TSDFs are primarily storage
facilities.
In addition, the TC rule would result
in as many as 15,000 new subtitle C
generators. Most of the new generators
would be in Wholesale Petroleum
Marketing and Hosiery and Knit Fabric
Finishing.
2. Sensitivity Analysis of Costs.
Changes in certain analytical
assumptions had significant effects on
the social costs and compliance costs of
the TC final rule. (Refer to section
VI.B.3.3 for discussion of the sensitivity
analyses which were conducted.) Some
of the changes also affected benefit
results, as discussed below under
benefits results.
Assuming that oily wastes would not
filter in the TCLP, rather than assuming
that they would, would have a
significant effect on both social costs
and compliance costs. The Agency
estimated, as a lower bound assuming
that no oily wastes will fail the TC test,
social costs of about $80 million per year
and compliance costs of about $130
million per year. By comparison, if it
were assumed for the purpose of
predicting TCLP results that oily wastes
behave like other non-liquid wastes,
social costs would be $190 million per
year and compliance costs would be
$250 million per year.
Assuming that not all facilities would .
be able to convert within six months
from surface impoundments to tanks for
management of their TC wastewaters,
rather than assuming that all facilities
would be able to convert, significantly
increased the cost of the rule. Based on
landfill closure of impoundments, this
assumption added approximately S120
million to annual social costs and $140
million to annual compliance costs.
Splitting wastestream quantity evenly
between small and large facility size
categories, rathar than based on value of
shipments, shifted wastes from large to
small facilities. While this did not affect
the overall costs greatly, it significantly
decreased compliance costs for large
facilities and increased them for small
facilities.
Finally, assuming that only 10 percent
of the facilities would be affected for a
waste failing the TC, rather than using
the percent of the waste failing,
significantly reduced social costs and
compliance costs due to the larger
quantities of waste being managed at a
smaller number of facilities and the
resultant economies of scale. The
estimated number of new subtitle C
TSDFs, existing TSDFs seeking permit
modifications, and new subtitle C
generators also decreased significantly.
c. Economic Impact Results—1.
Significantly Affected Facilities. Based
on the economic impact criteria
discussed previously the estimated total
number of significantly affected
facilities was 65 to 81, of which most (51
to 66) are large. The fact that most of the
significantly affected facilities are large
can be partially explained by the fact
that data indicate there are no small
facilities in certain sectors (e.g.,
Cellulosic Synthetic Fibers). Another
reason for the preponderance of
significantly affected large facilities is
that for some wastes, total compliance
costs are less for small facilities than for
large facilities because large facilities
are believed to generate significantly
more waste.
In the lower bound estimates,
significantly affected facilities were
expected in four industrial sectors: Pulp
and Paper, Synthetic Rubber, Synthetic
Fibers, and Organic Chemicals, In the
lower bound estimates the Pulp and
Paper industry was predicted to have
the greatest number of significantly
affected facilities (35), of which 30 are
large facilities. The synthetic rubber
industry had the highest number of
significantly affected small facilities (6),
out of a total of 14 significantly affected
small facilities. None of the industries
examined were expected to suffer
facility closures as a result of the TC.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulation's 11857
In the upper bound estimates,
significantly affected facilities were
expected in seven industries: Puio and
Paper. Synthetic Rubber, Synthetic
Fibers, Organic Chemicals, Textiles,
Pharmaceuticals, and Plastics and
Resins. Pulp and paper had the largest
number of significantly affected
facilities—36 out of 80 for all facilities.
2. Effects on Product and Capital
Markets
The industries with significantly
affected facilities have very little
potential to pass compliance costs on to
consumers in the form of higher prices.
These industries produce primarily
intermediate goods (e.g., rubber, paper,
fibers, and chemicals) which are used in
a number of subsequent processes (e.g.,
manufacturing and fabrication) before
they reach consumer markets. The users
of these intermediate products have
access to similar or identical products
from U.S. suppliers that are not
significantly affected by the TC and
from foreign suppliers; because
substitutes are available, these users
would not be forced to pay higher prices
for the intermediate products.
While results suggest that prices in
product markets will not be affected, at
least some impact is likely on capital
markets. Because affected facilities will
not be able to pass compliance costs
through to buyers in the form of higher
prices, they will experience lower
profits. Lower profits will reduce the
value of capital tied up in these
facilities. However, as most of the
affected facilities are part of integrated
production systems and are owned by
large firms with significant asset
holdings, the effect on capital markets
(i.e.. stock prices and bond ratings)
should be relatively small.
3. Sensitivity Analysis of Economic
Impacts.
A change in one of the analytical
assumptions had significant effects on
economic impacts due to the TC final
rule. Refer to section VI.B.3.a for
discussion of the sensitivity analyses
which were conducted.
Splitting wastestream quantity evenly
between small and large facility size
categories, rather than based on value of
shipments, shifted wastes from large to
small facilities. Under the scenario
where oily wastes fail the TC and no
surface impoundment closure costs are
incurred, this resulted in nearly 40
additional small facilities with
significant economic impacts and 10
small facility closures.
d. Benefits Results. EPA estimated the
benefits of regulating TC wastes on a
wastestream by wastestream basis;
results of this analysis are presented in
Table VI-3. As discussed in the benefits
methodology section, results foi
different benefit measures (human
health risk, resource damage, and
cleanup costs avoided] are likely to
overlap and should not be added.
TABLE VI-3.—BENEFITS OF THE TC RULE
Reduction In MEI Risk:
• Reduction in Carcinogenic 370 to 780.
Risk (number of facilities with
risk greater ttian 1x10E-5 at
down-gradient well).
• Reduction in Non-Carcinogenic 8.
Risk (number of facilities with
exposure above a health-based
threshold at downgradient well).
Reduction in Population Risk:
• Reduction in Carcinogenic 6.
Risk (number of cancer cases
over 70 years).
• Reduction in Non-Carcinogenic 320.
Risk (number of persons with
exposure above a health-based
threshold at downgradient
wells).
Reduction in Resource Damage 3.800.
(present value, millions of 1983
dollars).
Cleanup Costs Avoided (present Up to 15,000.
value, millions of 1988 dollars).
1. MEI Risk
As can be seen from the table, there is
a potentially significant reduction under
the final rule in the carcinogenic risk to
the most exposed individual (MEI).
There are from 370-780 fewer facilities
managing wastes that present risks to
the most exposed individual (MEI)
greater than IXIOE"5 under the final
rule than there were under baseline
conditions. The industrial sectors
driving these benefits include Wholesale
Petroleum Marketing (SIC 517) and
Miscellaneous Plastics Products (SIC
3079J. The constituent driving most of
these benefits is benzene. The difference
between the lower and upper bounds
results from certain oily wastes that are
unregulated in the lower bound.
For non-carcinogenic MEI risk, there
are 8 fewer facilities managing
wastewaters where the exposure to a
non-carcinogenic constituent exceeds
the reference dose (RfD) under the final
rule than under baseline conditions.
Wastes from Wholesale Petroleum
Marketing drive these benefits results.
Cresols are the risk-driving constituents.
The Wholesale Petroleum Marketing
sector presents significant risks due to
the large number of facilities managing
wastewaters and non-wastewaters. The
number of facilities in this sector
estimated to manage wastewaters and
non-wastewaters are 1,290 and 1,050
facilities, respectively; this compares
with 1,900 and 8,600 facilities,
respectively, managing affected
wastewaters and non-wastewaters
across all industrial sectors.
A screening analysis of MEI risks due
to air emissions from surface
impoundments was conducted to gauge
the potential risk via the air medium.
This analysis indicated that in sectors
other than Wholesale Petroleum
Marketing approximately 20 percent of
modeled facilities had carcinogenic risks
greater than 1X10E"5 and 5 percent had
non-carcinogenic doses greater than the
RfD; MEI air risks from Wholesale
Petroleum Marketing were less than
1X10E"6. Benzene contribi ted most of
the carcinogenic risks while phenol was
responsible for most of the non-
carcinogenic risks.
The industries generating wastes with
high MEI air risks differ to some extent
from those generating wastes with high
MEI ground water risks. The industries
generating wastes with high MEI air
risks include Pulp and Paper, Plastics
Materials and Resins, Synthetic Rubber*
Cellulosic and Non-Cellulosic Synthetic
Fibers (SICs 2823 and 2824), and Organic
Chemicals.
There is some potential overlap in
estimates of air and ground water risk.
The wastewater MEI risks via ground
water were based on the assumption
that all the constituent mass was
available for leaching to ground water,
in contrast, the air risks assumed some
percentage of constituent mass would
volatilize from impoundments. As a
result, the wastewater MEI risks via
ground water are likely to be overstated.
2. Population Risk
Based on a very limited analysis of
population risk, EPA estimates that
there would be six fewer cancer cases
over the 70-year modeling period due to
the final rule. Wholesale Petroleum
Marketing (constituent: benzene] and
Plastics and Resins (SIC 2821)
(constituent: vinyl chloride) drive these
benefits. The reduction in number of
persons exposed to non-carcinogens at
concentrations greater than the RfDs
was estimated to be 320 over a 70-year
period. Sawmills and Planing Mills (SIC
2421) and Organic Chemicals
(pentachlorophenol and methyl ethyl
keytone) drive these results.
3. Resource Damage
The total reduction in resource
damage would be approximately $3.8
billion (present value). Wholesale
Petroleum Marketing and Miscellaneous
Plastics Products are the industrial
sectors driving resource damage
benefits. Benzene is the driving
constituent.
-------
ss
*
11858 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
4. Cleanup Costs Avoided
Estimated cleanup costs avoided due
to the final rule ranged up to $15 billion
(present value). Under the assumption
that all sites with significant resource
damage (i.e., resource damage greater
than $1,000,000 (present value)) would
require cleanup, approximately 1,600
facilities would require cleanup.
5. Sensitivity Analysis of Benefits
Changes in certain analytical
assumptions had significant effects on
the benefits of the TC final rule. (Refer
to sections VI.B.3. a and d for discussion
of the sensitivity analyses which were
conducted.) Some of the changes also
affected cost results, as discussed under
cost results.
Assuming that oily wastes would not
Filter in the TCLP, rather than assuming
that they would, would reduce the
benefits associated with non-
wastewaters, as can be seen in the
lower bound estimates indicated in the
results above. This would result
primarily from the significant reduction
in the number of facilities managing
non-wastewaters in Wholesale
Petroleum Marketing.
Assuming that all wastewaters were
managed in surface impoundments,
rather than some portion being managed
by practices exempt under subtitle C,
would increase the number of facilities
affected in many sectors and increase
benefits significantly. Benefits for
wastewaters could increase by
approximately 10 times since there
would be 10 times as many facilities
with surface impoundments.
Assuming that only 10 percent of the
facilities would be affected for a waste
failing the TC, rather than using the
percent of the waste failing, significantly
reduced the number of facilities affected
by the TC in all industrial sectors. This
would significantly reduce benefits as a
result, since fewer facilities would be
managing wastes.
Assuming that all facilities have
down-gradient wells, rather than
assuming only 46% have down-gradient
wells, would increase benefit results by
a factor of approximately two.
e. Cost-Effectiveness. The Agency
estimated the cost-effectiveness of the
final rule and of several regulatory
alternatives. This discussion is
presented in the regulatory impact
analysis document, which is part of the
public docket for the rule.
/. Used Oil Results, Used oil is
generated across a wide variety of ,
industrial sectors. Some generators
manage or dispose of their used oil
directly while others provide their used
oil to the used oil management system
(UOMS), a system of intermediate
collectors and processors (Ref. 33).
Firms in the UOMS then re-refine or
process the used oil and/or sell it for
various end uses.
Under the worst-case assumption that
used oil would not create TCLP filtration
problems, EPA found based on
constituent concentration data (see Ref.
8), that virtually all used oil would fail
the TC. EPA determined that three end-
use management practices for used oil ,
would be affected; landfilling/
incineration, dumping, and road oiling.
Once used oil became TC hazardous,
it would have to be shifted to other end-
use management practices. Much of the
used oil that is currently dumped or
applied directly to roads by generators
would probably be collected and sold to
the UOMS. Firms in the UOMS that
currently sell used oil for road oiling
would generally shift this oil to other
management practices, such as re-
refining or burning as a fuel. Used oil
that is managed by landfilling or
incineration in subtitle D units would
likely be shifted to management in
subtitle C units.
The shift in management practices
would impose costs on used oil
generators, the UOMS, and end-users of
used oil. Used oil generators currently
providing used oil to the UOMS would
be likely to pay somewhat higher
collection costs due to pass-through of
compliance costs by firms in the UOMS,
Generators that currently manage their
wastes by road oiling would incur
storage and collection costs for their
used oil as well as costs for a road-oiling
substitute. Generators directly managing
their wastes by dumping would incur
costs for storage and collection. Firms in
the UOMS that sell used oil for road
oiling would be forced to sell the oil in
less profitable markets, and some firms
could close if unable to enter another
market. Firms in the UOMS could also
incur costs for disposal of low quality
used oil and related wastes in subtitle C
(rather than subtitle D) units if these
wastes were TC hazardous; as
discussed above, some of these costs
could be passed on to used oil
generators. Firms that re-refine used oil
•could benefit from the TC rule, since a
greater volume of used oil would
potentially be available at a lower price.
Finally, end-users that purchase used oil
for road oiling would incur costs for an
alternative dust suppressant.
The shift in management practices
could also result in certain benefits. A
previous study of carcinogenic risks
from used oil management practices
(Ref. 34] indicates that dumping of used
oil may present significant risks relative
to other management practices (with the
possible exception of burning in boilers,
where risks are more comparable). Road
oiling appears to present more
significant risks than recycling and
comparable or fewer risks relative to
burning in boilers or landfill disposal. It
is difficult to draw definitive
conclusions concerning benefits due to
the different constituent profiles and
population densities associated with
each of the management practices in the
risk analysis.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Approach
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) requires that
whenever an agency publishes a notice
of rulemaking, it must prepare 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). An RFA 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.
EPA examined the final rule's
potential effects on small entities as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. Three measures, based on EPA ,
guidelines for conducting an RFA, were
used to determine whether the rule
would have a "significant economic
effect" on small entities: the ratio of
compliance cost to cost of production,
the ratio of compliance cost to value of
sales, and the ratio of cash from
operations to compliance cost (the last
ratio being used to assess potential
closures). Two of the three criteria, the
ratio of compliance cost to cost of
production and the ratio of cash from
operations to compliance cost, are
discussed in section VI.B.3.C. The third,
the ratio of compliance cost to value of
sales, was estimated for small and large
facilities; if the difference between these
ratios was greater than ten percent, this
indicated a significant impact.
The guidelines for conducting RFAs
are somewhat ambiguous with respect
to evaluating impacts based on the third
criterion. Determining whether the
difference between ratios exceeds ten
percent can be done by subtracting the
large facility ratio from the small facility
ratio or by dividing the small facility
ratio by the large facility ratio. Dividing
the small facility ratio by the large
facility ratio may incorrectly indicate
siqnificant impacts on small facilities
when both ratios are very small but the.
small facility ratio is larger than the
large facility ratio. (For example, a small
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29. 199Q / Rules and Regulations ' 11U59
facility ratio of 0.00002 divided by a_
large facility ratio of 0.00001 would
indicate a significant impact on small
businesses based on the division
approach, despite the fact that the very
low ratio of compliance cost to value of
sales for small facilities indicates little
impact on small facilities.) Therefore,
the division approach must be
interpreted with caution.
A "substantial number" of small -
entities was assumed to be 20 percent or
more of the population of small
businesses, small organizations, or small
government jurisdictions within the
universe of facilities affected by the
rule.
The Agency defined a small business
as a business employing 50 employees
or less. (Standard Small Business
Administration criterion is 500
employees.) EPA decided to use the 50
employee definition of a small business
because the RIA estimates facility-level
impacts, and the SBA definition applies
to entire firms. The SBA definition
would designate most of the facilities in
the examined industries as small
businesses, which would obscure
differential impacts on smaller facilities.
Impacts on small businesses related to
costs of compliance for used oil and
contaminated soils were not examined
due to lack of data on the facilities^
experiencing those costs.
2. Results
The only entities found to be affected
by the final rule were small businesses,
defined here as businesses employing
fewer than 50 persons. No small
organizations or small government
jurisdictions were identified as potential
TC waste generators in the TC industry
studies which form the foundation for
this analysis.
The Agency did not identify any
industries in which 20 percent or more
of the small businesses were
significantly affected based on the ratio
of compliance cost to cost of production,
the ratio of cash from operations to
compliance cost, or the ratio of
compliance cost to value of sales (using
the subtraction approach). Using the
division approach for the ratio of
compliance cost to value of gales
indicated that small businesses in four
sectors (including Pulp and Paper,
Synthetic Rubber, Organic Chemicals,
and Wholesale Petroleum Marketing)
would be significantly affected.
However, since the small facility and
large facility ratios were both quite
small (small facility ratios were less
than 0.03), the Agency does not expect
significant small business impacts in
these sectors. Based on these results,
EPA has concluded that today's final
rule will not have a significant effect on
a substantial number of small entities.
As a result of this finding, EPA has not
prepared a formal RFA in support of the
rule. More detailed information on small
business impacts is available in the RIA
for this rule.
D. Response to Comments on RIA for
June 13,1986 Proposal
EPA received many comments on the
RIA for the proposed TC rule. This
section presents a general summary and
analysis of the public comments
concerning the original RIA; all of the
comments are addressed in the
background document for this final rule.
Major issues addressed by eommenters
included consideration of particular
industries, specific aspects of cost and
benefit methodologies, cost and benefit
estimates, and the assessment of small
business impacts.
1. Industries Included in the Analysis
The majority of comments on the RIA
for the proposed rule concerned the
absence of specific industrial sectors
from the group examined for potential
impacts. Other eommenters criticized
the RIA for not considering the effects of
the TC on end users of products and on
facilities such as Publicly Owned
Treatment Works and Municipal
Landfills.
Industries that eommenters suggested
should have been evaluated included
natural gas production, manufacturing of
a variety of products, including forest
products, Pharmaceuticals, automobiles,
plastics, metals, polyvinyl chloride,
semi-conductors, wire and cables, and
waste management. The Agency agrees
with eommenters that a number of
industrial sectors were not addressed in
the RIA for the proposed rule. The
Agency notes, however, that several of
the wastestreams that eommenters
believed should have been included in
the RIA (based upon the proposed
regulatory levels) are not expected to be
defined as hazardous based upon the
final regulatory levels being
promulgated today. One of the
fundamental problems with determining
which industries would potentially be
affected by the TC is lack of data on
currently non-hazardous wastes. Since
these wastes are currently outside the
subtitle C system, requirements for
information gathering related to them
are minimal.
The Agency made extensive efforts, in
preparing the RIA for the TC final rule,
to obtain data on the industrial sectors
potentially affected by the TC. These
data were derived from a variety of
sources. The Agency contacted
numerous trade associations and
individual facilities and collected
pertinent EPA and other government
publications. In addition, EPA prepared
a series of TC industry study reports on
those sectors most likely to generate
significant quantities of TC wastes.
In preparing its TC industry studies,
EPA first conducted preliminary studies
which examined a large number of
industries, with emphasis on identifying
whether or not TC constituents -would
be likely to be present in industry
wastes. Based on the preliminary
studies. EPA completed detailed profiles
of potentially affected industries for use
in the final RIA. The Agency examined
the potential for impacts on a number of
industries that were not considered in
the RIA for the proposed rule, as well as
reconsidering some that were addressed
in that RIA. Table VI-1 in section VLB
compares the coverage of industries for
both the proposed rule RIA and the final
rule RIA and indicates the industries for
which detailed quantitative analysis
was conducted.
Commenters also criticized the
proposed rule RIA for not considering
effects on end-users of products
containing TC constituents. Examples of
such end-user industries include
agricultural chemical users, transporters,
automotive maintenance facilities,
petroleum retailers, medical facilities,
and research laboratories. The Agency
recognizes that TC toxicants exist in a
variety of substances, and that end-
users as well as producers of products
containing TC constituents could be
affected by the rule. Some end-users not
identified in the RIA may be affected,
but there is no information to quantify
these potential impacts. The Agency
believes that some of the impacts on
affected end users may be mitigated by
small quantity generator regulations
under 40 CFR 261.5,
Finally, several eommenters
questioned EPA's assessment of impacts
on Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs), resource recovery facilities,
public water suppliers, municipal
landfills, the electrical services industry,
and currently regulated RCRA facilities.
As discussed previously in section
III.K.2, the Agency has tested a number
of POTW sludges to determine whether
or not these sludges would be
considered hazardous under the TC; the
data generally indicate that these
wastes would not be affected by the TC
(Ref. 8). Because the final regulatory
level for chloroform is significantly
higher than originally proposed, EPA
believes that public water suppliers also
are unlikely to generate TC wastes. The
Agency analyzed wastestreams
generated by the Electrical Services
-------
11860
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
industry. These wastes were excluded
from the R1A because they are fossil fuel
combustion wastes, which are exempt
from subtitle C regulation until a
determination is made as to whether
they should be regulated as hazardous.
The Agency acknowledges that some
waste generated by waste management
facilities may exhibit the TC; however,
most of these wastestraams that
ccmmenters believed should be included
are not expected to exhibit the TC under
the final regulatory levels. Finally,
impacts on currently regulated RCRA
'facilities (in the industries included in
the RIA) were addressed in the RIA.
2. Estimation of Costs and Economic
Impacts
Many comir.enlers expressed concern
that the compliance cost estimates for
facilities included in the economic
impact analysis did not captars many of
the expenditures faced by handlers of
hazardous waste. The most common
criticism was directed at the omission of
the cost for actually performing the
TCLP. Other commenters mentioned
insurance costs and costs associated
with RCRA permit applications. Another
large group of comments concerned the
costs for permitting and retrofitting the
large universe of surface impoundments
containing wastewaters which would
exhibit the TC. In addition, a number of
commenters contended that the RLA
significantly underestimated potential
economic impacts of the TC.
Other commenters claimed that the
expense of the highly sophisticated
equipment and specially trained
personnel necessary for the testing of
wastes would pose a significant burden
on many firms, especially those without
on-site laboratory facilities. The Agency
recognizes that testing of wastes could
pose a significant expense for fines that
choose to test their wastes. On the other
hand, there is currently no RCRA
requirement for generators to test their
wastes; the determination of
hazardousness may be made based on
either laboratory analysis of the waste
or on knowledge of the waste, raw
materials, and production processes.
The Agency expects that many
generators will rely on the latter
method, and elect not to perform the
TCLP. The Agency is still considering
promulgating a testing requirement at a
future date. If a testing requirement is
proposed, potential costs of testing will
be analyzed in detail.
Recognizing that administrative and
insurance costs can constitute a
significant portion of waste management
costs* the Agency considered these in
cost estimates in the final RIA. In
addition, the "ost of preparing RCRA
permit applications is considered in the
cost of subtitle C waste management, as
are items such as liability insurance,
personnel training, and contingency
planning.
In response to comments that surface
impoundment impacts were understated,
the Agency examined the effect of the
TC rule on wastewaters and estimated
the costs of compliance with subtitle C
requirements. The Agency assumed in
the final RIA that, based on least-cost
management practices, surface
impoundments would not have to be
retrofitted. Instead, it was assumed that
affected wastewaters would be
segregated and treated in a separata
tank systam, while remaining non-
hazardous wastswaters could continue
to be managed in the impoundments. In
deriving an upper bound estimate of
costs, it was assumed that some
impoundments would have to undergo
subtitle C clean closure.
Given the broad scope of the TC rule
and the general lack of data on
industries and facilities managing
currently non-hazardous wastes, the
Agency agrees that economic impacts
on certain sectors may have been
underestimated in the RIA for the
proposed rule. As discussed above, the
Agency has made significant efforts in
the final RIA to more accurately
characterize the sectors potentially
affected by the TC and to estimate the
actual impacts on affected facilities.
3. Estimation of Benefits
Several commenters remarked en the
original methodology used for the
estimation of benefits. The most
frequent target of criticism was the
assumption that all contaminated
aquifers would be cleaned up as a result
of the TC. Commenters also questioned
the validity of assuming that ground
water resource conditions in North
Carolina were representative of
conditions across the entire United
States.
Commenters on the use of aquifer
cleanup as the basis for estimating
benefits of the proposed rule asked for
justification of the assumption that all
aquifers would be cleaned up and an
explanation of the benefits to human
health and the environment which
would result from the cleanup. The
Agency used a different methodology to
estimate benefits for the final RIA than
was used for the original RIA. For the
final RIA, EPA examined three potential
types of benefits: human health risk
reduction, resource damage avoided,
and cleanup costs avoided. The
assumption that all aquifers would be
cleaned up was not used in the final
RIA. In estimating benefits based on
cleanup costs avoided through
controlled subtitle C management of TC
wastes, EPA assumed in the RIA for the
final rule that, for the near term, the
subtitle D facilities with down-gradient
wells and with at least some resource
damage (as predicted by the resource
damage analysis) would be the most
likely candidates for cleanup.
The Agency agrees with the comments
that ground water resource conditions in
North Carolina may not be
representative of conditions across the
entire United States. As a result, in the
final RIA EPA used distributions of
hydrogeologic parameters which were
representative of nationwide conditions,
rather than relying on hydrogeologic
information from one state.
4. Cost-Benafit Comparisons
In general, commenters argued that
the RIA overestimated likely benefits of
the proposed rule while underestimating
the potential impacts. Commenters
believed that the TC would bring large
quantities of waste into the subtitle C
system with little or no attendant
environmental or health benefit. One
commenter claimed that after all
indirect impacts are considered, the net
benefits of the rule could be negative.
Another commenter, however, stated
that benefits were actually
underestimated because of assumptions
in the baseline scenario.
The Agency has used an improved
methodology and additional data in the
final RIA. EPA believes that the final
RIA provides reasonable estimates of
the potential costs and benefits of the
rule. As presented in this section, the
final RIA does indicate that the TC will
bring relatively large quantities of waste
into the subtitle C system, and also
indicates that there will be attendant
benefits. The Agency used cost and
benefit estimates to compare relative
costs and benefits of the various
regulatory options. The analyses were
conducted separately using approaches
constructed to make the best possible
use of available data. The separate
analyses were not meant to be used to
produce absolute measures of cost
effectiveness. The RIA contains
discussion of the Agency's evaluation
and comparison of cost and benefit
results.
5. Small Business Analysis
The Agency received many comments
on its assessment of the effects of the
proposed TC on small businesses. One
group of comments focused on the
definition chosen by EPA for small
businesses. The Agency was also
criticized for its threshold for
. '-<*..
A. ••*••• x:
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday. March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11881
determining if a "substantial number" of
small businesses would suffer
significant economic impacts, and
therefore necessitate the preparation of
a full Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
Finally, many commenters felt that the
analysis severely underestimated the
Impact of the rule on small businesses.
Commenters asked why the Agency
did not use the standard Small Business
Administration (SBA) criterion of 500
employees to define a small business.
The Agency decided to use the 50
employee definition of a small business
because the RIA estimates facility-level
impacts, and the SBA definition applies
to entire firms. In the absence of data to
estimate firm-level impacts, the Agency
chose the 50 employee cutoff as an
appropriate small facility definition for
the RIA. The SBA definition would
designate most of the establishments in
most of the examined industries as
small facilities, which would obscure
differential impacts on smaller facilities.
The Agency was criticized for using a
20 percent threshold for determining if a
"substantial number" of small
businesses would be significantly
affected. Commenters claimed that it
was arbitrary to consider the small
business impact negligible if "only 19.9
percent" of small business were
significantly affected. The Agency
recognizes that, for an individual
facility, the magnitude of impacts is not
altered by the number of other facilities
which are significantly affected.
Nevertheless, the Agency believes that
20 percent is a reasonable benchmark
for defining a "substantial number" of
small businesses. The 20 percent
threshold is commonly applied in RIAs
conducted by EPA.
A large number of commenters
criticized the overall conclusions of the
small business analysis, declaring that
the analysis severely underestimated
the economic effects of the TC on small
businesses. Commenters maintained
that the universe of small businesses
was inadequately addressed. Examples
of small businesses not included in the
analysis which commenters felt should
have been considered included service
stations and vehicle maintenance
facilities. Commenters also mentioned
the expense of performing the TCLP,
claiming that it was an especially
significant hardship for small
businesses.
As explained in the general discussion
of the industrial sectors included in the
RIA, the Agency made extensive efforts
to identify and include sectors
potentially affected by the TC rule,
including end users of products. And, as
discussed under the comments on
incorporating testing costs, these costs
were not included since generators are
not currently required to test their
wastes. Although EPA maintains that a
full RFA is not necessary for the TC
rule, it realizes that the impact of the
rule could be significant for individual
small enterprises.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paper
Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
and have been assigned the following
OMB control numbers: 2050-0007, Land
Disposal Permitting Standards; 2050-
0008, RCRA Closure/Post-Closure; 2050-
0009, Hazardous Waste Storage and
Treatment Facilities; 2050-0011,
Contingency Plans for Hazardous Waste
Facilities; 2050-0012, General Facility
Operating Requirements; 2050-0013,
Operating Record for Hazardous Waste
Facilities; 2050-0028, Notification of a
Hazardous Waste Activity; 2050-0033,
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Planning
for Ground-Water Monitoring; 2050-
'0034, RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit
Application Part A; 2050-0036, RCRA
Financial Assurance Requirements;
2050-0037, Recordkeeping and Reporting
for RCRA Permitees; and 2050-0039,
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for
Generators and Transporters.
VII. References
1. U.S. EPA, "Response to Public Comments
Background Document for the Subsurface
Fate and Transport Model Used in the
Toxicity Characteristic Rule", 1980,
2. U.S. EPA, "Response to Comments
Background Document for the Toxicity
Characteristic", 1989.
3. U.S. EPA. 'Technical and Response to
Comments Background Document for
Chronic Toxicity Reference Levels",
1990.
4. U.S. EPA, 'Technical and Response to
Comments Background Document for the
TCLP (Method 1311)", 1989.
5, U.S. EPA, "State Subtitle D Regulations on
Solid Waste Landfills", Final Volume I,
1988.
8. U.S. EPA, "National Survey of Solid Waste
(Municipal) Landfill Facilities", Final
Report, EPA/530-SW-88-034.198a
7, U.S. EPA, "Summary of Data on Industrial
Non-hazardous Waste Disposal
Practices", Final Report, December 1985.
8. U.S. EPA. 'Toxicity Characteristic
Regulatory Impact Analysii", 1989.
9. U.S. EPA. "Background Document for
EPA's Compoiite Landfill Model
(EPACML)", 1990.
10. Simkins. S. and M. Alexander, "Models
for Mineralization Kinetics with the
Variables of Substrate Concentration
and Population Density", "Applied and
Environmental Microbiology", 1984, Vol.
47, No. 6, pp. 1299-1308.
11. Lewis, D. L and D. K. Gattie. "Prediction
of Substrate Removal Rates of Attached
Microorganisms and of relative
Contributions of Attached and
Suspended Communities at Field Sites",
"Applied and Environmental
Microbiology", 1988, Vol. 54, No. 2. pp.
434-440.
12. Robinson, J, A. and W. G. Characklis.
"Simultaneous Estimation of Vmax, Km,
and the Rate of Endogenous Substrate
Production (R) from Substrate Depletion
Data", "Microbial Ecology, 1984, Vol. 10,
pp. 185-178.
13. Karickhoff. S. W. "Chapter 11: Sorption
Kinetics of Hydrophobic Pollutants in
Natural Sediments", "Contaminants and
Sediments, Vol. 2: Fate and Transport,
Case Studies, Modeling, Toxicity, Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Ann
Arbor, Michigan, 1980. pp. 193-205.
14. Kohring, G., J. E. Rogers and J, Wiegel.
"Anaerobic Biodegradation of 2,4-
Dichlorophenol in Freshwater Lake
Sediments at Different Temperatures",
"Applied and Environmental
Microbiology", 1989, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp.
34a-353.
15. Hwang, H., R. E. Hodson, and D. L Lewis.
"Assessing Interactions of Organic
Compounds During Biodegradation of
Complex Waste Mixtures by Naturally
Occurring Bacterial Assemblages",
"Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry", 1989, Vol. 8, pp. 209-214.
16. U.S. EPA, "Screening Survey of Industrial
Subtitle D Establishments", Draft Final
Report. December 1987.
17. U.S. EPA, "Analysis of U.S. Municipal
Waste Combustion Operating Practices",
May 1989.
18. U.S. EPA, "Cooperative Testing of
Municipal Sewage Sludges by the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure and Compositional Analysis",
Draft Final. 1988.
19. U.S. EPA, "Estimates of Waste Generation
by Cellulosic Manmade Fibers, Synthetic
Organic Fibers, Petroleum Refining.
Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastic
Products, Leather Tanning and Finishing,
Oil and Gas Transportation Industries.
and the Laundry, Cleaning and Garment
Services", May 27,1987.
20. U.S. EPA, "Estimates of Waste Generation
by the Lumber and Wood Products
Industry", December 9,1987. -
21. U.S. EPA, "Estimates of Waste Generation
by the Organic Chemical Industry",
December 1987.
22. U.S. EPA, "Estimates of Waste Generation
by Petroleum Crude Oil and Petroleum
Products Distribution and Wholesale
Systems", November 13,1987.
23. U.S. EPA, "Estimates of Waste Generation
by Plastic Materials and Resins",
November 1987.
24. U.S. EPA, "Estimates of Waste Generation
by the Petroleum Refining Industry",
November 13,1987.
25. U.S. EPA, "Estimates of Waste Generation
by the Pharmaceutical Industry",
November 18,1987.
-------
11862 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
26. US, EPA, "Estimates of Waste Generation
by the Pulp and Paper Industry", August
12.1987.
27, U.S. EPA, "Estimates of Waste Generation
by the Synthetic Fibers Industry",
November 18,1987.
23. U,S. EPA, "Estimates of Waste Generation
by Textile Mills", December 15,1987.
29. U.S. EPA, "Synthetic Rubber industry",
November 1987.
30. U.S. EPA. "Wastewater Treatment
Profiles for Industrial Sectors Impacted
by Proposed Toxicity Characteristic",
August 19,1983.
31. U.S. EPA, "Wastewater Treatment
Profiles for Industrial Sectors Impacted
by Proposed Toxicity Characteristic",
August 24,1988.
32. U.S. EPA, "Liner Location Risk and Cost
Analysts Model, Phase II", Draft Report,
1988,
33. U.S. EPA, "Composition and Management
of Used Oil Generated in the United
States", September 1984.
34. U.S. EPA, "Risk Assessment of Proposed
Waste Oil Standards for the
Management of Used Oil", August 1985.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 261,264,
2S5,268,271, and 302
Administrative practice and
procedure. Air pollution control.
Chemicals, Confidential business
information. Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous substances,
Hazardous waste, Indian lands.
Intergovernmental relations. Natural
resources, Nuclear materials. Penalties,
Pesticides and pests, Radioactive
materials, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund.
Water pollution control, Water supply,
Waste treatment and disposal.
Dated; March 5,1990.
William K. Reilly,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, Chapter I of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 8905,6912(a), 8921, and
8922.
2, Section 261.4 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(6)(i)
introductory text, and (b)(9) and by
adding paragraph (b)(10) to read as
follows:
§ 261.4 Exclusions.
* * * * *
(b) * • •
(6}(i) Wastes which fail the test for the
Toxicity Characteristic because
chromium is present or are listed in
subpart D due to the presence of
chromium, which do not fail the test for
the Toxicity Characteristic for any other
constituent or are not listed due to the
presence of any other constituent and
which do not fail the test for any other
characteristic, if it is shown by a waste
generator or by waste generators that:
*****
(9) Solid waste which consists of
discarded wood or wood products
which fails the test for the Toxicity
Characteristic solely for arsenic and
which is not a hazardous waste for any
other reason or reasons, if the waste is
generated by persons who utilize the
arsenical-treated wood and wood
products for these materials' intended
end use.
(10) Petroleum-contaminated media
and debris that fail the test for the
Toxicity Characteristic of § 261.24 and
are subject to the corrective action
regulations under part 280 of this
chapter.
3, Section 261.8 is added to subpart A
to read as follows:
§ 2S1.8 PC3 Wastes Regulated Under
Toxic Substance Control Act
The disposal of PCB-contalning
dielectric fluid and electric equipment
containing such fluid authorized for use
and regulated under part 761 of this
chapter and that are hazardous only
because they fail the test for the
Toxicity Characteristic (Hazardous
Waste Codes D01B through D043 only)
are exempt from regulation under parts
261 through 265, and parts 288,270, and
124 of this chapter, and the notification
requirements of section 3010 of RCEA.
4. Section 261.24 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 261.24 Toxicity characteristic.
(a) A solid waste exhibits the
characteristic of toxicity if, using the test
methods described in Appendix II or
equivalent methods approved by the
Administrator under the procedures set
forth in §§ 260.20 and 260.21, the extract
from a representative sample of the
waste contains any of the contaminants
listed in Table 1 at the concentration
equal to or greater than the respective
value given in that Table. Where the
waste contains less than O.S percent
filterable solids, the waste itself, after
filtering using the methodology outlined
in Appendix II, is considered to be the
extract for the purpose of this section.
(b) A solid waste that exhibits the
characteristic of toxicity, but is not
listed as a hazardous waste in subpart
D, has the EPA Hazardous Waste
Number specified in Table 1 which
corresponds to the toxic contaminant
causing it to be hazardous.
TABLE 1.—MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION OF
CONTAMINANTS FOR THE Toxsenr
CHARACTERISTIC
EPA
HW
No.1
D004
DC05
D018
0006
0019
D020
0021
0022
0007
D023
0024
D025
D026
0016
0027
C028
D029
0030
0012
0031
0032
0033
0034
0008
0013
0009
DQ14
0035
0036
0037
D038
D010
0011
D039
0015
0040
0041
0042
D017
D043
Contaminant
Arsenic .
Barium ~*
B@nzene..«..u.«.....
Cadmium
Carbon
tetrachlotide.
Chlordafid
Chlorcbenisno. —
Chloroform..,.
Chromium _. .
c-Cresol
m-Cresol _.
p-Cresal... . „..
Cresol
2.4-0
1,4-
Oichloroben-
zene.
1,2-
Dichtoroath-
ane.
i,1-
Dichloroethy-
tane.
2.4-
DMrotoluena,
Efidrin ~~ .,
Heptaehtor (and
rts hydroxide).
HexscfUoroben-
zene.
Hexachlorobuta-
diena.
Hexachioroeth-
ana.
Lead .
Undane _ ,
Mercury
MethoxycMw
Methyl ethyl
Netorm
Nitrobenzene
PentrachJoro-
phenoL
Pyridine ...
Selenium ., ..
Silver
Tetractilofoetrryl-
ene.
Toxaphene
Trichtoroethyl-
ene.
2.4,5-
Trichloro- —
phenol
2,4.6-
Trichloro-
phanol.
2,4.5-TP CShex)..,
Vinyl chloride
CAS No.'
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
71-43-2
7440-43-9
56-23-5
57-74-9
103-90-7
67-65-3
7440-47-3
95-48-7
108-39-4
106-44-5
94-75-7
1QS-46-7
107-06-2
75-35-4
121-14-2
72-20-8
78-44-8
118-74-1
87-58-3
67-72-1
7439-92-1
58-S9-9
7439-97-6
72-43-5
78-93-3
98-95-3
87-86-5
110-86-1
7782-<9-2
7440-22-4
127-18-4
8001-35-2
79-01 -6
95-95-4
88-06-2
93-72-1
75-01-4
Regula-
tory
Level
(mg/L)
5.0
100.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
003
1000
6-0
50.
• 200.0
• 200.0
•zooo
•200.0
10.0
7.5
0.5
0.7
'0.13
0.02
O.C08
»013
0.5
3.0
50
0.4
0.2
10.0
200.0
2.0
100,0
'5.0
1.0
5.0
0,7
0.5
0.5
400.0
2.0
1.0
0.2
1 Hazardous waste number.
* Chemical abstracts service number.
•Quantitauon limit is greater man the calculated
regulatory level. The guanwaoon limit tneretore be-
comes trie regulatory level
4 If o-, nv. and p-CrescH concentrations cannot be
differentiated, the total crasot {0026) concentration
is used. The regulatory level of total cresot is 200
mg/l.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 81 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11883
5. Section 261.30 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
§261.30 General.
*****
(b) The Administrator will indicate hia
basis for listing the classes or types of
wastes listed in this subpart by
employing one or more of the following
Hazard Codes:
ignitable Waste (!)
Corrosive Waste — (C)
Reactive Waste — (R)
Toxicity Characteristic Waste (E)
Acufe Hazardous Waste (H)
Toxic Waste _ (T)
Appendix VII identifies the constituent
which caused the Administrator to list
the waste as a Toxicity Characteristic
Waste (E) or Toxic Waste (T) in
§§261.31 and 261.32.
*****
6. Appendix II of part 201 is revised to
read as follows:
Appendix II—Method 1311 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
multiphasic wastes.
1.2 if a total analysis of the waste
'demonstrates that individual contaminants
are not present in the waste, or that they are
present but at such low concentrations that
the appropriate regulatory thresholds could
not possibly be exceeded, the TCLP need not
he run.
1.3 If an analysis of any one of the liquid
fractions of the TCLP extract indicates that a
regulated compound is present at such high
ieveis that even after accounting fur dilution
from tha other fractions of tha extract the
concentration would be above the regulatory
threshold for that compound, then the waste
is hazardous and it is not necessary to
analyze the remaining fractions of the
extract.
1.4 if an analysis of extract obtained
using a bottie extractor shows that the
concentration of any regulated volatile
contaminant exceeds the regulatory threshold
for that compound, then the waste is
hazardous and extraction using the ZHE is
not necessary. However, extract from a bottle
extractor cannot be used to demonstrate that
the concentration of volatile compounds is
beiow the regulatory threshold,
2.0 Summary of Method {see Figure 1}
2.1 For liquid wastes (i.e., those
containing less than 0,5 percent dry solid
material), the waste, after nitration through a
0.8 to 0.8-um glass fiber filter, is defined as
the TCLP extract,
2.2 For wastes containing greater than or
equal to 0.5 percent solids, the liquid, if any,
is separated from the solid phase and stored
for later analysis; the solid phase, if
necessary, is reducsd in particle size. The
solid phase is extracted with an amount of
extraction fluid nqual 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 volatile
contaminants (see Table 1 for a list of volatile
compounds). Following extraction, the liquid
extract is separated from the solid phase by
filtration through a 0.6 to 0.8-um glass fit-tr
filter.
BILLING CODE 656O-5O-M
-------
11884 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday. March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Figure 1 M.thod 1311 Flowchart
U»a m sub-»*apl* of wa*t«
Solid
Separata extract
iron »olld «/
0 , 6-Q- 8 um 0I««*
fib.r filt.r
lic^uxEJ and analyze
{•atheoalicaUy
eomntrw r««ult »/
r*syit ot MKtract.
.iquid
BILUNO CODE (StO-50-C
-------
<-*-*.-* OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11865
TABLE 1.—VOLATILE CONTAMINANTS '
Compound
Acetone .„..„., . „,„.„.-.„,«...„
Bertzene. ........».,...._. ....,„,,.,... „.-......
n-Butyt alcohol...™-..,-,.... ..,...,m....,™.....
Cartxjn disuftida..™....- „„„... ......
Carbon tetrachlondo ,„,
Cfiiorobenzcne. — «..* «.
Chloroform,—..,,™. .... ... „.._.
1 ,2-Dicfitoroethar*e ...... ......_......
1 , 1 -Dicftlcffoetttyiene ... .. .. .
Ethyl acetate .,™......,™,.,,,..».™.........,..
Ethyi beniene ....*.,..«,.,. „...
Eihyi ether,™..,..............,.... ..... .
isobutafioi .,.-...„.....„.,*.......„...,....,„. .
Methgnc!
Methyl «ttM ketone...... ......... ...................
Tstracnlorcsthytena .,„....„.....„„.,........„..,..
Tcluene,,, .......... , . ....
1,1,1 -Trtchforoethane ............
TrichlQftX'ftylene .
Tfictilorciluccorr ethane. ....... „.„„„.,
1 , 1 ,2-Tricfi'cro- 1 .2,2-triiluoroethane
CASna
67-B4-1
71-43-2
71-36-3
75-15-0
56-23-5
1 03-90-7
67-66-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
141-78-V
100-41-4
60-29-7
78-83-1
S7_gg_l
75-09-2
73-93-3
106-10-1
127-18-4
108-88-3
71-55-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
76-13-1
75-01— S
TABLE 1.—VOLATILE CONTAMINANTS >—
Continued
Compound
CAS no.
Xylene.
1330-20-7
'When testing for any Of all of thesa contami-
nants, the zero-neadspace axtractot vessel shall ba
used instead of the bottle extractor.
2,3 If compatible (i.e., multiple phases will
not form on combination), the initial liquid
phase of the waste is added to the liquid
extract, and these are analyzed together. If
incompatible, the liquids are analyzed
separately and the results are mathematically
combined to yield 3 volume-weighted
average concentration.
3.0 Interferences
3.1 Potential interferences th-'it may be
encountered during analysis are discussed in
the individual analytical methods.
4.0 Apparatus and Materials
4.1 Agitation apparatus: The agitation
apparatus must be capable cf 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 Vessel:
4.2.1 Zero-Headspace Extraction Vessel
(ZHEJ. This device is for use only wh«n the
waste is being tested for the mobility of
volatile constituents (i.e., those listed in
Table 1). The ZKE (depicted in Figure 3) .
allows for liquid/solid separation within the
device, and effectively precludes headspace.
This type of vessel allows for initial liquid/
solid separation, extraction, and final extract
filtration without opening the vessel {sue step
4.3.1). The vessels shall have an intarnal
volume of 500-fiOO rnL and be equipped to
accommodate a 90-110 mrn filter. The devices
contain VITON " * O-rings which should be
replaced frequently. Suitable ZHE dsvitas
known to EPA are identified in Table 3.
BILLING CODE 6580-SO-ll
1 VITON " is a trai!«n.-irk of Du Punt.
-------
11868 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Motor
(30 ± 2 fpm)
Extraction Vassal Holder
Rgure 2. Rotary Agitation Apparatus
BILLING CODE swo-so-c
-------
A-^C OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday, March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11867
TABLE 2.—SUITABLE ROTARY AGITATION APPARATUS >
Company
Analytical Testing and Consulting Services, Inc
Associated Design and Manufacturing Company
Environmental Machine and C3S'gn Inc
IRA Machine Shop and Laboratory
Lars Lande Manufacturing _
Millipore Corp
Location
Warrington, PA (215) 343-4490..
Alexandria, VA (703) 549-5999 ..
Lynchburg VA (804) 845-6424
Santurce PR (809) 752-4004
Whitmore Lake, Ml (313) 449-
4116.
Bedford, MA (800) 225-3384
Model no.
2-ZHE or 4-bottle extractor (DC20S); 4-ZHE or
8-botUe extractor (DC20); 6-ZHE of 12-bottle
extractor (DC20B).
2-vesse) (3740-2). 4-vessel (3740-4). 6-vessel
(3740-6). 8-vessel (3740-8). 12-vessel
(3740-12). 24-vessel (3740-24).
8-vessel (08-00-00) 4-vessel (04-00-00)
8-vessel (011001)
10-vessel (10VRE) 5-vessel (5 VRE).
4-ZHE or 4 1 -liter bottle extractor
(YT300RAHW).
1 Any device that rotates the extraction vessel in an end-over-end fashion at 30 +2 rpm is acceptable.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
11868 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Uquid Inlet/Outlet Valve
"
Top Flange
Support Screen-^
Fltte
Support Scree
Vlton o-rings-
Bottom Range—^C
Pressurized Gas-
iniet/Oytiet Valve
Piston
c
c
Gas
Pressure
Gauge
Figure 3, Zero-Headspace Extractor (ZHE)
BIUJNQ CODE 8560-50-C
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday. March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11869
TABLI 3.—SUITABLE ZEHO-HEADSPAGE EXTRACTOR VESSELS '
Company
Analytical Tasting & Consulting Services, Inc
Associated Design and Manufacturing Company ..
Lars Lands Manufacturing * ....... ...... ...
Millipore Corporation „
Environmental Machine and Design, Inc . . ....
Location
Warrtngton, PA (215) 343-4490..
Alexandria, VA (703} 549-5999 ..
Whitmora LaKe. Ml (313) 449-
4116.
Bedford MA (800) 325-3384
Lynchburg, VA (804) 845-6424 ..
Model no.
C102, Mechanical Pressure Device.
3745-ZHE, Gas Pressure Device.
ZHE-11, Gas Pressure Device.
YT30090HW, Gas Pressure Device.
VOLA-TQX1, Gas Gas Pressure Device.
' Any device that meets the specifications listed in Section 4.2.1 of trie method is suitable.
1 This device usas a 110 mm filter.
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
O-rings in the device should be replaced. If
this does not solve the problem, the ZHE is
unacceptable for TCLP analyses and the
manufacturer should be contacted.
The ZHE should be checked for leaks after
every extraction. If the device contains a
built-in pressure gauge, pressurize the device
to 50 psi, allow it to stand unattended for 1
hour, and recheck the pressure. If the device
does not have a built-in pressure gauge,
pressurize the device to 50 psi, submerge it in
water, and check for the presence of air
bubbles escaping from any of the fittings. If
pressure is lost check all fittings and inspect
and replace O-rings, if necessary. Retest the
device. If leakage problems cannot be solved,
the manufacturer should be contacted.
Some ZHEs use gas pressure to actuate the
ZHE piston, while others use mechanical
pressure (see Table 3). Whereas the volatiles
procedure (see section 9.0) refers to pounds-
per-square-inch (psi), for the mechanically
actuated piston, the pressure applied is
measured in torque-inch-pounds. Refer to the
manufacturer's instructions as to the proper
conversion.
4^2 Bottle Extraction Vessel. When the
waste is being evaluated using the
nonvolatile extraction, a jar with sufficient
capacity to hold the sample and the
extraction fluid is needed. Headspace is
allowed in this vessel.
The extraction bottles may be constructed
from various materials, depending on the
contaminants to be analyzed and the nature
of the waste (see Step 4,3.3). It is
recommended that borosilicate glass bottles
be used instead of other types of glass,
especially when inorganics are of concern.
Plastic bottles, other than polytetrafluoro-
ethylene, shall not be used if organics are to
be investigated. Bottles are available from a
number of laboratory suppliers. When this
type of extraction vessel is used, the filtration
device discussed in Step 4.3.2 is used for
initial liquid/solid separation and final
extract filtration.
4.3 Filtration Devices: It is recommended
that all filtrations be performed in a hood,
4.3,1 Zero-Headspaee Extractor Vessel
(ZHE): When the waste is evaluated for
volatiles. the zero-headspace extraction
vessel described in section 4.2.1 is used for
filtration. The device shall be capable of
supporting and keeping in place the glass
fiber filter and be able to withstand the
pressure needed to accomplish separation (50
psi).
Note: 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.
4.3.2 Filter Holder: When the waste is
evaluated for other than volatile compounds,
any filter holder capable of supporting a glass
TABLE 4.—SUITABLE FILTEB HOLDERS »
fiber filter and able to withstand the pressure
needed to accomplish separation may be
used. Suitable filter holders range from
simple vacuum units to relatively complex
systems capable of exerting pressures of up
to 50 psi or more. The type of filter holder
used depends on the properties of the
material to be filtered (see Step 4.3.3). These
devices shall have a minimum internal
volume of 300 mi and be equipped to
accommodate a minimum filter size of 47 mm
(filter holders having an internal capacity of
1.5 L or greater and equipped to
accommodate a 142 mm diameter filter are
recommended). Vacuum filtration can only be
used for wastes with low solids content (< 10
percent) and for highly granular liquid-
containing wastes. All other types of wastes
should be filtered using positive pressure
filtration. Suitable filter holders known to
EPA are shown in Table 4.
4.3.3 Materials of Construction:
Extraction vessels and filtration devices shall
be made of inert materials which will not
leach or absorb waste components. Glass.
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), or type 310
stainless steel equipment may be used when
evaluating the mobility of both organic and
inorganic components. Devices made of high-
density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene,
or polyvinyl chloride may be used only when
evaluating the mobility of metals. Borosilicate
glass bottles are recommended for use over
other types of glass bottles, especially when
inorganics are constituents of concern.
Company
Nucieopore Corporatiofi — ... ... , ., .«.
Micro Filtration Systems „-. ... . „«.,
Millipore Corporation .... .._.«.» «.- ~.~
Location
Pleasanton CA (800) 882-7711
Dublin CA (800) 334-7132 (415) 828-6010
Bedford, MA (800) 225-3384
Model/Catalogue no.
425910 410400 - -
302400 31 1400
YT30142HW XX10Q47QO
Size (urn)
142 mm
47 mm
142 mm
47 rnm
142mm
47 mm
< Any devica capable of separating me liquid from tho solid phase of ina wast* is suitable, providing that it is chemically compatible with the waste and the
constituents to be analyzed. Plastic devices (not listed above) may be used when only inorganic contaminants are of concern. The 142 mm size filter holder is
recommended.
4.4 Filters: Filters shall be made of
borosilicate glass fiber, shall contain no
binder materials, and shall have an effective
pore size of 0.8 to 0.8-um or equivalent Filters
known to EPA which meet these
specifications are identified in Table 5. Pre-
filters must not be used. When evaluating the
mobility of metals, filters shall be acid-
washed prior to use by rinsing with IN nitric
acid followed by three consecutive rinses
with deionized distilled water (a minimum of
1-L per rinse is recommended). Class fiber
filters are fragile and should be handled with
care.
4.S pH meters: The meter should be
accurate to +0.05 units at 25 "C.
-------
11870 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 /Thursday. March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 5.—SurrABLE FILTER MECMA *
Cowpafty
MHIipore Corporation «..„ -~.«. ,..™™,.™,..
Nucleoporo Cofpof^tion.«.«..«. .~_. .,„,....., ....
Whatman laboratory Products, Inc. ..»»»„, ..,»,,,. 1,J1.Jllil,,.J
Micro Filtration Systems
Location
Bedford, MA (800) 225-3384
Pleasamon, CA (415) 463-2530
Qilton, NJ C01) 773-5800..
Dublin, CA (800) 334-7132 (415) 828-6010
Model
AP40 ._
211625 ___. , . ,.__ ._,
Qff . . .. j
GF7S
Pore size
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1 Any titter mat meets the specifications in Section 4.4 of trie Method is suitable.
4.8 ZHE extract collection devices:
TEDLAR" bags or glass, stainless steel or
PTFE gas-tight syringes are used to collect
the initial liquid phase and the final extract of
the waste when using the ZHE device. The
devices listed are recommended for use
under the following conditions:
4.8.1 If a waste contains an aqueous
liquid phase or if a waste does not contain a
significant amount of nonaqueoua liquid (i.e..
1 percent of total waste),
the syringe or the TEDLAR* bag may be used
for both the initial solid/liquid separation
and the final extract filtration. However,
analysts should use one or the other, not
both.
4.0.3 If the waste contains no initial liquid
phase (is 100 percent solid) or has no
significant solid phase (is 100 percent liquid),
either the TEDLAR* bag or the syringe may
be used. If the syringe is used, discard the
first 5 mL of liquid expressed from the device.
The remaining aliquots are used for analysis.
4.7 ZHE extraction fluid transfer devices:
Any device capable of transferring the
extraction fluid into the ZHE without
changing the nature of the extraction fluid is
acceptable (e.g., a positive displacement or
peristaltic pump, a gas tight syringe, pressure
filtration unit (See Step 4.3.2), or other ZHE
device).
4.0 Laboratory balance: Any laboratory
balance accurate to within +0.01 grams may
be used (all weight measurements are to be
within 4-0.1 grams).
5,0 Reagents
5,1 Reagent water. Reagent water is
defined as water in which an interferant is
not observed at or above the methods
detection limit of the analyte(s) of interest
For nonvolatile extractions, ASTM Type 11
water or equivalent meets the definition of
reagent water. For volatile extractions, it is
recommended that reagent water be
generated by any of the following methods.
Reagent water should be monitored
periodically for impurities.
5.1.1 Reagent water for volatile
extractions may be generated by passing tap
water through a carbon filter bed containing
about 500 grams of activated carbon (Calgon
Corp.. Filtrasorb-300 or equivalent).
5.1.2 A water purification system
(Millipore Super-Q or equivalent) may also be
used to generate reagent water for volatile
extractions.
* TEDLAR" is a registered trademark of Du Pont
5.1.3 Reagent water for volatile
extractions may also be prepared by boiling
water for 15 minutes. Subsequently, while
maintaining the water temperature at 90 +5
*C, bubble a contaminant-free inert gas (e.g,
nitrogen) through the water for 1 hour. While
still hot transfer the water to a narrow mouth
screw-cap bottle under zero-headspace and
sea! with a Teflon-lined septum and cap.
5.2 Hydrochloric acid (IN), HO. made
from ACS reagent grade.
5.3 Nitric acid (IN), HNO», made from
ACS reagent grade.
5.4 Sodium hydroxide (IN), NaOH, made
from ACS reagent grade.
5.5 Glacial acetic acid. HOAc, ACS
reagent grade.
5.8 Extraction fluid.
5.6.1 Extraction fluid #1: Add 5.7 mL
glacial HOAc to 500 mL of the appropriate
water (See Step 5.1). add 84 J mL of IN
NaOH. and dilute to a volume of 1 liter.
When correctly prepared, the pH of this fluid
will be 4.93 +0,05.
5.8.2 Extraction fluid #2 Dilute 5-7 mL
glacial HOAc with ASTM Type 11 water (See
Step 5.1) to • volume of 1 liter. When
correctly prepared, the pH of this fluid will be
2.88+005.
Note: These extraction fluids should be
monitored frequently for impurities. The pH
should be checked prior to use to ensure that
these fluids are made up accurately. If
impurities are found or the pH is not within
the above specification*, the fluid shall be
discarded and fresh extraction fluid
prepared.
5.7 Analytical standards prepared
according to the appropriate analytical
method.
5.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, and
Handling
8.1 All samples shall be collected using
an appropriate sampling plan.
82 The TCLP may place requirements on
the minimal size of the field sample
depending upon the physical state or states of
the waste and the contaminants of concern.
An aliquot is needed for preliminary
evaluation of which extraction fluid is to be
used for the nonvolatile contaminant
extraction procedure. Another aliquot may be
needed to actually conduct the nonvolatile
extraction (see section 1.4 concerning the use
of this extract for volatile organic*). If
volatile organics are of concern, another
' aliquot may be needed. Quality control
measures may require additional aliquots.
Further, it is always wise to collect more
sample just in case something goes wrong
with the initial attempt to conduct the test
8.3 Preservatives shall not be added to
samples.
8.4 Samples may be refrigerated unless
refrigeration results in irreversible physical
change to the waste. If precipitation occurs,
the entire sample (including precipitate)
should be extracted.
6.5 When the waste is to be evaluated for
volatile contaminants, care shall be taken to
minimize the loss of volatile*. Samples shall
be taken and stored in a manner to prevent
the lost of volatile contaminants (e.g..
samples should be collected in Teflon-lined
septum capped vials and stored at 4 "C, until
ready to be opened prior to extraction).
8.8 TCLP extracts should be prepared for
analysis and analyzed as soon as possible
following extraction. Extracts or portions of
extracts for metallic contaminant
determinations must be acidified with nitric
acid to a pH <2» unless precipitation occurs
(see section 8.14 if precipitation occurs).
Extracts or portions of extract* for organic
contaminant determinations shall not be
allowed to come into contact with the
atmosphere (i.e., no headspace) to prevent
losses. See section 10.0 (QA requirements) for
acceptable sample and extract holding times.
7,0 Preliminary Evaluations
Perform preliminary TCLP evaluations on a
minimum 100 gram aliqout of waste. This
aliquot may not actually undergo TCLP
extraction. These preliminary evaluations
include; (1) determination of the percent
solids; (2) determination of whether the waste
contain* insignificant solids and is, therefore.
its own extract after filtration; (3)
determination of whether the solid portion of
the waste requires particle size reduction:
and (4) determination of which of the two
extraction fluids are to be used for the
nonvolatile TCLP extraction of the waste.
7.1 Preliminary determination of percent
solids: Percent solids is defined as that
fraction of a waste sample (as a percentage
of the total sample) from which no liquid may
be forced out by an applied pressure, as
described below.
7.1.1 If the waste will obviously yield no
free liquid when subjected to pressure
filtration (i.e., is 100% solids) proceed to Step
7.X
7,1.2 If the sample is liquid or multiphasic,
liquid/solid separation to make a preliminary
determination of percent solids is required.
This involves the filtration device described
in Step 4.3.2 and is outlined in Steps 7.1.3
through 7.1.9,
7.1 J Pre-weigh the filter and the
container that will receive the filtrate.
7.1.4 Assemble the filter holder and filter
following the manufacturer's instructions.
Place the filter on the support screen and
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 81 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11871
7.1.5 Weigh out a aubsample of the waste
(100 grant minimum) and record the weight
7.1.8 Allow slurries to stand to permit the
solid phase to settle. Wastes that settle
slowly may be centrifuged prior to filtration.
Centrifugation is to be used only as an aid to
filtration. If used, the liquid should be
decanted and filtered followed by filtration of
the solid portion of the waste through the
same filtration system.
7.1.7 Quantitatively transfer the waste
sample to the filter holder (liquid and solid
phases). Spread the waste sample evenly
over the surface of the filter. If filtration of
the waste at 4 *C reduces the amount of
expressed liquid over what would be
expressed at room temperature then allow
the sample to warm up to room temperature
in the device before filtering.
Note: If waste material (>1 percent of
original sample weight) has obviously
adhered to the container used to transfer the
sample to the filtration apparatus, determine
the weight of this residue and subtract it from
the sample weight determined in Step 7.1.5 to
determine the weight of the waste sample
that will be filtered.
Gradually apply vacuum or gentle pressure
of 1-10 psi, until air or pressurizing gas moves
through the filter. If this point is not reached
under 10 psi. and if no additional liquid has
passed through the filter in any 2-minute
interval, slowly increase the pressure in 10-
psi increments to a maximum of SO psi. After
each incremental increase of 10-psi. if the
pressurizing gas has not moved through the
filter, and if no additional liquid has passed
through the filter in any 2-minute interval,
proceed to the next 10-psi increment. When
the pressurizing gas begins to move through
the filter, or when liquid flow has ceased at
SO psi (i.e., filtration does not result in any
additional filtrate within any 2-minute
period), stop the filtration.
Note: Instantaneous application of high
pressure can degrade the glass fiber filter and
may cause premature plugging.
7,1.8 The material in the filter holder is
defined as the solid phase of the waste, and
the filtrate is defined as the liquid phase.
Note: Some wastes, such as oily wastes
and some paint wastes, will obviously
contain some material that appears to be a
liquid. Even after applying vacuum or
pressure filtration, as outlined in Step" 7.1,7,
this material may not fitter. If this is the case.
the material within the filtration device is
defined as a solid. Do not replace the original
filter with a fresh filter under any
circumstances. Use only one filter.
7.1.9 Determine the weight of the liquid
phase by subtracting the weight of the filtrate
container (see Step 7.1,3) from the total
weight of the filtrate-filled container.
Determine the weight of the solid phase of
the waste sample by subtracting the weight
of the liquid phase from the weight of the
total waste sample, as determined in Su>p
7.1.5 or 7.1,7,
Record the weight of the liquid and solid
phases. Calculate the portent solids as
follows:
Percent solids = •
Weight of solid (Step 7.1.9)
Total weight of waste (Step 7.1.5 or 7.1.7)
X 100
7.2 If the percent solids determined in
Step 7.1,9 is equal to or greater than 0.5%,
then proceed either to Step 7.3 to determine
whether the solid material requires particle
size reduction or to Step 7.2.1 if it is noticed
that a small amount of the filtrate is
entrained in wetting of the filter. If the
percent solids determined in Step 7.1.9 is less
than 0,3%, then proceed to Step 8.9 if the
nonvolatile TCLP is to be performed and to
section 9.0 with a fresh portion of the waste if
the volatile TCLP is to be performed.
7.2.1 Remove the solid phase and filter
from the filtration apparatus.
7.2.2 Dry the filter and solid phase at 100
+ 20 "C until two successive weighing yield
the same value within +1 percent Record
the final weight.
Note: Caution should be taken to ensure
that the subject solid will not flash upon
heating. It is recommended that the drying
oven be vented to a hood or other
appropriate device.
7.2.3 Calculate the percent dry solids as
follows:
Percent dry solids =
(Weight of dry waste 4-filter)—tared weight of filter
Initial weight of waste (Step 7.14 or 7.1.7)
X 100
7.2.4 If the percent dry solids is less than
0.3 percent then proceed to Step 8.9 if the
nonvolatile TCLP is to be performed, and to
Section 9.0 if the volatile TCLP is to be
performed. If the percent dry solids is greater
than or equal to 0.5%, and if the nonvolatile
TCLP is to be performed, return to the
beginning of this Section (7.0) and, with a
fresh portion of waste, determine whether
particle size reduction is necessary (Step 7.3)
and determine the appropriate extraction
fluid (Step 7.4). If only the volatile TCLP is to
be performed, see the note in Step 7.4.
7,3 Determination of whether the waste
requires particle-size reduction (particle-size
is reduced during this step): Using the solid
portion of the waste, evaluate the solid for
particle size. Particle-size reduction is
required, unless the solid has a surface area
per gram of material equal to or greater than
3.1 cm2, or is smaller than 1 cm in its
narrowest dimension (i.e., is capable of
passing through a 9.5 nun (0.37S inch)
standard sieve). If the surface area is smaller
or the particle size larger than described
above, prepare the solid portion of the waste
for extraction by crushing, cutting, or grinding
the waste to a surface area or particle-size as
described above. If the solids are prepared
for organic volatiles extraction, special
precautions must be taken, see Step 9.6.
Note: Surface area criteria are meant for
filamentous (e.g., paper, cloth, and similar)
waste materials. Actual measurement of
surface area is not required, nor is it
recommended. For materials that do not
obviously meet the criteria, sample-specific
methods would need to be developed and
employed to measure the surface area. Such
methodology is currently not available,
7,4 Determination of appropriate
extraction fluid: If the solid content of the
waste is greater than or equal to O.S percent
and if TCLP extraction for nonvolatile
constituents will take place (Section 8.0),
perform the determination of the appropriate
fluid (Step 5.6) to use for the nonvolatiles
extraction as follows:
Note: TCLP extraction for volatile
constituents uses only extraction fluid *1
(Step 5.6.1). Therefore, if TCLP extraction for
nonvolatiles i« not required, 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 approximately
1 mm in diameter or less, and transfer 5.0
grams of the solid phase of the waste to a
500-mL beaker or Erlenmeyer flask.
7.4.2 Add 96,5 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 pH. If the pH is 5.0. add
3.5 mL IN HC1, slurry briefly, cover with a
watchglass, heat to SO °C. and hold at 50 *C
for 10 minutes.
7.4.4 Let the solution cool to room
temperature and record the pH. if the pH is
<5.0, use extraction fluid wi. If the pH is
> 5.0, use extraction fluid #2. Proceed to
Section 8.0.
7.5 If the aliquot of the waste used for the
preliminary evaluation (Steps 7.1-7.4) was
determined to be 100% solid at Step 7.1.1,
then it can be used for the Section 8.0
extraction (assuming at least 100 grams
-------
11872 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday. March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
remain), and the section 9.0 extraction
(assuming at least 25 grams remain). If the
aliquot was subjected to the procedure in
Step 7.1,7, then another aliquot shall be used
for the volatile extraction procedure in
Section 9,0. The aliquot of the waste
subjected to the procedure in Step 7.1,7 might
be appropriate for use for the section 8,0
extraction if an adequate amount of solid (as
determined by Step 7.1.9) was obtained. The
amount of solid necessary is dependent upon
whether a sufficient amount of extract will be
produced to support the analyses. If an
adequate amount of solid remains, proceed to
Step 8.10 of the nonvolatile TCLP extraction.
8.0 Procedure When Volatiles Are Not
Involved
A minimum sample size of 100 grams (solid
and liquid phases) is required. In some cases,
a larger sample size may be 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 inorganics, semi volatile
organics, pesticides, and herbicides are all
analytes of concern. Enough solids should be
generated for extraction such that the volume
of TCLP extract will be sufficient to support
all of the analyses required. If the amount of
extract generated by a single TCLP extraction
will not be sufficient to perform all of the
analyses, more than one extraction may be
performed and the extracts from each
combined and aliquoted for analysis.
8.1 If the waste will obviously yield no
liquid when subjected to pressure filtration
(i.e., is 100 percent solid, see Step 7.1), weigh
out a subsample of the waste (100 gram
minimum) and proceed to Step 8.9.
8.2 If the sample is liquid or multiphasic.
liquid/solid separation is required. This
involves the filtration device described in
Step 4.3.2 and la outlined in Steps 8.3 to 8.8.
8.3 Pre-weigh the container that will
receive the filtrate.
8.4 Assemble the filter holder and filter
following the manufacturer's instructions.
Place the filter on the support screen and
secure. Acid wash the niter if evaluating the
mobility of metals (see Step 4.4).
Note: Acid washed filters may be used for
all nonvolatile extractions even when metals
are not of concern.
8 J Weigh out a subsample of the waste
(100 gram minimum) and record the weight. If
the waste contains <0.5 percent dry solids
(Step 72), the liquid portion of the waste.
after filtration, is defined as the TCLP
extract. Therefore, enough of the sample
should be filtered so that the amount of
filtered liquid will support all of the analyses
required of the TCLP extract. For wastes
containing >0.5 percent dry solids (Step 7.1
or 7,2), use the percent solids information
obtained in Step 7.1 to determine the
optimum sample size (100 gram minimum] for
filtration. Enough solids should be generated
by filtration to support the analyses to be
performed on the TCLP extract
8.8 Allow slurries to stand to permit the
solid phase to settle. Wastes that settle
slowly may be centrifuged prior to filtration.
Use centrifugation only as an aid to filtration.
If the waste is centrifuged. the liquid should
be decanted and filtered followed by
filtration of the solid portion of the waste
through the same filtration system.
8.7 Quantitatively transfer the waste
sample (liquid and solid phases) to the filter
holder (see Step 4.3.2). Spread the waste
•ample evenly over the surface of the filter. If
filtration of the waste at 4 *C reduces the
amount of expressed liquid over what would
be expressed at room temperature, then
allow the sample to warm up to room
temperature in the device before filtering.
Not« If waste material (>l percent of the
original sample weight] has obviously
adhered to the container used to transfer the
sample to the filtration apparatus, determine
the weight of this residue and subtract it from
the sample weight determined in Step 8.5, to
determine the weight of the waste sample
that will be filtered.
Gradually apply vacuum or gentle pressure
of 1-10 psi, until air or pressurizing gas moves
through the filter. If this point is not reached
under 10 psi, and if no additional liquid has
passed through the filter in any 2-minute
interval, slowly increase the pressure in 10-
psi increments to a maximum of SO psi. After
each incremental increase of 10 psi. if the
pressurizing gas has not moved through the
filter, and if no additional liquid has passed
through the filter in any 2-minute interval
proceed to the next 10-psi increment When
the pressurizing gas begins to move through
the filter, or when the liquid flow has ceased
at SO psi (i.e., filtration does not result in any
additional filtrate within a 2-minute period),
stop the filtration.
Note: Instantaneous application of high
pressure can degrade the glass fiber filter and
may cause premature plugging.
8.8 The material in the filter holder is
defined as the solid phase of the waste, and
the filtrate is defined as the liquid phase.
Weigh the filtrate. The liquid phase may now
be either analyzed (See Step 8.12) or stored at
4 *C until time of analysis.
Note: Some wastes, such as oily wastes
and some paint wastes, will obviously
contain some material that appears to be a
liquid. Even after applying vacuum or
pressure filtration, as outlined in Step 8.7, 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. Do not replace the
original filter with a fresh filter under any
circumstances. Use only one filter.
8.9 If the waste contains <0.5 percent dry
solids (see Step 7.2), proceed to Step 8.13. If
the waste contains >0.5 percent dry solids
(see Step 7.1 or 72), and if particle-size
reduction of the solid was needed in Step 7.3.
proceed to Step 8.10, If the waste as received
passes a 9.S nun sieve, quantitatively transfer
the solid material into the extractor bottle
along with the filter used to separate the
initial liquid from the solid phase, and
proceed to Step 6.11.
8.10 Prepare the solid portion of the waste
for extraction by crushing, cutting, or grinding
the waste to a surface area or particle-size as
described in Step 7.3. When the surface area
or particle-size has been appropriately
altered, quantitatively transfer the solid
material into an extractor bottle. Include the
filter used to separate the initial liquid from
the solid phase.
Note: Sieving of the waste is not normally
required. Surface area requirements are
meant for filamentous (e.g., paper, cloth) and
similar waste materials. Actual measurement
of surface area is not recommended. If
sieving is necessary, a Teflon-coated sieve
should be used to avoid contamination of the
sample.
8.11 Determine the amount of extraction
fluid to add to the extractor vessel as follows;
Weight of extraction fluid
20 X percent solids (Step 7.1 )X weight of waste filtered (Step 8,5 or 8,7]
100
Slowly add this amount of appropriate
extraction fluid (see Step 7.4) to the extractor
vessel. Close the extractor bottle tightly (it is
recommended that Teflon tape be used to
ensure a tight seal), secure in rotary agitation
device, and rotate at 30+2 rpm for 18+2
hours. Ambient temperature (i.e., temperature
of room in which extraction takes place) shall
be maintained at 22 +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 (e.g., after 15 minutes, 30
minutes, and 1 hour) and vented into a hood.
8,12 Following the 18+2 hour extraction,
separate the material in the extractor vessel
into its component liquid and solid phases by
filtering through a new glass fiber filter, as
outlined in Step 8.7. For final filtration of the
TCLP extract, the glass fiber filter may b*
changed, if necessary, to facilitate filtration.
Filters) shall be acid-washed (see Step 4.4) if
evaluating the mobility of metals.
8,13 Prepare the TCLP extract as follows:
8.13.1 If the waste contained no initial
liquid phase, the filtered liquid material
obtained from Step 8.12 is defined as the
TCLP extract Proceed to Step 8,14.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 61 / Thursday. March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11873
8.13.2 If compatible (e.g.. multiple phases
will not result on combination), combine the
filtered liquid resulting from Step 8.12 with
the initial liquid phase of the waste obtained
in Step 8,7. This combined liquid is defined as
!he TCLP extract. Proceed to Step 8,14.
8.13.3 If the ini lial liquid phase of the
waste, as obtained from Step 8.7, ia not or
may not be compatible with the filtered liquid
resulting from Step 8.12. do not combine these
liquids. Analyze these liquids, collectively
defined as the TCLP extract, and combine the
results mathematically, as described in Step
8.14.
8.14 Following collection of the TCLP
extract, the pH of the extract should be
recorded. Immediately aliquot and preserve
the extract for analysis. Metals aliquots must
be acidified with nitric acid to pH<2. If
precipitation is observed upon addition of
nitric acid to a small aliquot of the extract,
then the remaining portion of the extract for
metals analyses shall not be acidified and the
extract shall be analyzed as soon as possible.
All other aliquots must be stored under
refrigeration (4 *C) until analyzed. The TCLP
extract shall be prepared and analyzed
according to appropriate analytical methods.
TCLP extracts to be analyzed for metals shall
be acid digested except in those instances
where digestion causes loss of metallic
contaminants. If an analysis of the
undigested extract shows that the
concentration of any regulated metallic
contaminant exceeds the regulatory level,
then the waste is hazardous and digestion of
the extract is not necessary. However, data
on undigested extracts alone cannot be used
to demonstrate that the waste is not
hazardous. If the individual phases are to be
analyzed separately, determine the volume of
the individual phases (to +0.5 percent],
conduct the appropriate analyses, and
combine the results mathematically by using
a simple volume-weighted average:
Final analyte concentration
where:
Vi =The volume of the first phase (L).
Ci =The concentration of the contaminant of
concern in the first phase (mg/L).
Vj =The volume of the second phase (L).
Ca=The concentration of the contaminant of
concern in the second phase fmg/L).
8,15 Compare the contaminant
concentrations in the TCLP extract with the
thresholds identified in the appropriate
regulations. Refer to { 10-0 for quality
assurance requirements.
9.0 Procedure When VolatHes Are Involved
Use the ZHE device to obtain TCLP extract
for analysis of volatile compounds only.
Extract resulting from the use of the ZHE
shall not be used to evaluate the mobility of
nonvolatile analytes (e.g., metals, pesticides,
etc.).
The ZHE device has approximately a 500-
mL internal capacity. The ZHE can thus
accommodate a maximum of 25 grams of
solid (defined as that fraction of a sample
from which no additional liquid may be
forced out by an applied pressure of 50 psi),
due to the need to add an amount of
extraction fluid equal to 20 times the weight
of the solid phase.
Charge the ZHE with sample only once and
do not open the device until the final extract
(of the solid) has been collected. Repeated
filling of the ZHE to obtain 25 grams of solid
is not permitted.
Do not allow the waste, the initial liquid
phase, or the extract to be exposed to the
atmosphere for any more time than is
absolutely necessary. Any manipulation of
these materials should be done when cold (4
°C) to minimize loss of volatiles.
9.1 Pre-weigh the (evacuated) filtrate
collection container (See Step 4.G) and set
aside. If using a TEDLAR" bag. express ail
liquid from the ZHE device into the bag,
whether for the initial or final liquid/solid
separation, and take an aliquot from the
liquid in the bag for analysis. The containers
listed in Step 4.6 are recommended for use
under the conditions stated in 4.8.1—1.6,3.
92 Place the ZHE piston within the body
of the ZHE (it may be helpful first to moisten
the piston O-rings slightly with extraction
fluid]. Adjust the piston within the Zl IE body
to a height that will minimize the distance the
piston will have to move once the ZHE is
charged with sample (based upon sample size
requirements determined from Section 9.0,
Step 7.1 and/or 7.2). Secure the gas inlet/
outlet flange (bottom flange) onto the ZHE
body in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions. Secure the glass fiber filter
between the support screens and set aside.
Set liquid inlet/outlet flange (top flange)
aside,
9.3 If the waste is 100 percent solid {seu
Step 7.1), weigh out a subsainpie (25 gram
maximum) of the waste, record weight, and
proceed to Step 9.5.
9.4 If the waste contains <0,5 percent dry
solids (Step 7.2), the liquid portion of waste,
after filtration, is defined as the TCLP
extract. Filter enough of the sample so that
the amount of filtered liquid will support atl
of She volatile analyses required. For wastes
containing >0.5 percent dry solids (Steps 7.1
and/or 7.2), use the percent solids
information obtained in Step 7,1 to determine
the optimum sample size to charge into ths
ZHE. The recommended sample size is as
follows:
9.4.1 For wastes containing e Step 7,1), weigh out a 500-gram
subsampte of waste and record the weight.
9.4.2 For wastes containing >0.5 percent
sulids (see Step 7.1), determine the amount of
waste to charge into the ZHE as follows:
Weight of waste to change ZHE = •
25
Percent solids (Step 7.1)
•— Y, ino
Weigh out a subsample of the waste of the
appropriate size and record the weight
9.5 If particle-size reduction of the solid
portion of the waste was required in Step 7.3,
proceed to Step 9.9. If particle-size reduction
was not required in Step 7.3. proceed to Step
9.7.
9,9 Prepare the waste for extraction by'
crushing, cutting, or grinding the solid portion
of the waste to a surface area or particle-size
as described in Step 7,3,1, Wastes and
appropriate reduction equipment should be
refrigerated, if possible, to 4 °C prior to
particle-size reduction. The means used to
effect particle-size reduction must not
generate heat in and of itself. If reduction of
the solid phase of the waste is necessary,
exposure of the waste to the atmosphere
should be avoided to the extent possible.
Note: Sieving of the waste is not
recommended due to the possibility that
volatiles may be lost. The use of an
appropriately graduated ruler is
recommended as an acceptable alternative.
Surface area requirements are meant for
filamentous (e.g., paper, cloth) and similar
waste materials. Actual measurement of
surface area is not recommended.
Whim the surface area or particle-size has
been appropriately altered, proceed to Step
9.7.
9.7 Waste slurries need not be allowed to
stand to permit the solid phase to settle. Do .
not centrifuge wastes prior to filtration.
9.8 Quantitatively transfer the entire
samole (liquid and solid phases) quickly to
the ZHE. Secure the filter and support
screens onto the top flange of the device and
secure the top flange to the ZHE body in
accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions. Tighten all ZHE fittings and
place the device in the vertical position (gas
-------
11874
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
inlet/outlet flange on the bottom). Do not
attach the extract collection device to the top
plate.
Note: If waste material (>1% of original
sample weight) has obviously adhered to the
container used to transfer the sample to the
ZHE, determine the weight of this residue
and subtract it from the sample weight
determined in Step 9.4 to determine the
weight of the waste sample that will be
filtered.
Attach a gas line to the gas inlet/outlet
valve (bottom flange) and, with the liquid
inlet/outlet valve (top flange) open, begin
applying gentle pressure of 1-10 psi (or more
if necessary) to force all headspace slowly
out of the ZHE device into a hood. At the first
appearance of liquid from the liquid inlet/
outlet valve, quickly close the valve and
discontinue pressure. If filtration cf the waste
at 4 *C reduces the amount of expressed
liquid over what would be expressed at room
temperature, then allow the sample to warm
up to room temperature in the device before
filtering. If the waste is 100 percent solid (see
Step 7,1). slowly increase the pressure to a
maximum of SO psi to force most of the
headspace out of the device and proceed to
Step 9.12.
9.9 Attach the evacuated pre-weighed
filtrate collection container to the liquid
inlst/outlet valve and open the valve. Begin
applying gentle pressure of 1-10 psi to force
the liquid phase of the sample 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 increments to a maximum of SO psi. After
each incremental increase of 10 psi, if no
additional liquid has passed through the filter
in any 2-minute interval, proceed to the next
10-psi increment. When liquid flow has
ceased such that continued pressure filtration
at 50 psi does not result in any additional
filtrate within a 2-minute period, stop the
filtration. Close the liquid inlet/outlet valve.
discontinue pressure to the piston, and
disconnect and weigh the filtrate collection
container.
Note; Instantaneous application of high
pressure can degrade the glass fiber filter and
may cause premature plugging.
9.10 The material in the ZHE is defined as
the solid phase of the waste and the filtrate is
defined as the liquid phase.
Note: Some wastes, such as oily wastes
and some paint wastes, will obviously
contain some material that appears to be a
liquid. Even after applying pressure filtration.
this material will not filter. If this is the case,
the material within the filtration device is
defined as a solid and is carried through the
TCLP extraction as a solid.
If the original waste contained <0,5
percent dry solids (see Step 7.2), this filtrate
is defined as the TCLP extract and is
analyzed directly. Proceed to Step 9.15.
9.11 The liquid phase may now be either
analyzed immediately (See Steps 9.13 through
9.15) or stored at 4 *C under minimal
headspace conditions until time of analysis.
Determine the weight of extraction fluid «1 to
add to the ZHE as follows:
Weight of extraction fluid = •
20Xpercent solids (Step 7.1)x weight of waste filtered (Step 9.4 or 9.8)
100
9.12 The following steps detail how to
add the appropriate amount of extraction
fluid to the solid material within the ZHE and
agitation of the ZHE vessel. Extraction fluid
=1 is used in all cases (See Step 5.0).
9.12,1 With the ZHE in the vertical
position, attach a line from the extraction
fluid reservoir to the liquid inlet/outlet valve.
The line used shall contain fresh extraction
fluid and should be preftushed with fluid to
eliminate any air pockets in the line. Release
gas pressure on the ZHE piston (from the gas
inlet/outlet valve], open the liquid inlet/
outlet valve, and begin transferring extraction
fluid (by pumping or similar means) into the
ZHE. Continue pumping extraction fluid into
the ZHE until the appropriate amount of fluid
has been introduced into the device.
9.12.2 After the extraction fluid has been
added, immediately close the liquid inlet/
outlet valve and disconnect the extraction
fluid line. Check the ZHE to ensure that all
valves are in their closed positions. Manually
rotate the device in an end-over-end fashion
2 or 3 times. Reposition the ZHE in the
vertical position with the liquid inlet/outlet
valve on top. Pressurize the ZHE to 5-10 psi
(if necessary) and slowly open the liquid
inlet/outlet valve to bleed out any headspace
(into a hood) that may have been introduced
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 fittings to ensure that
they are closed.
9.12J Place the ZHE in the rotary
agitation apparatus (if it is not already there)
and rotate at 30+2 rpm for 18+2 hours.
Ambient temperature (i.e.. temperature of
room in which extraction occurs) shall be
maintained at 22-f 3 *C during agitation.
9.13 Following the 18+2 hour agitation
period, check the pressure behind the ZHE
piston by quickly opening and closing the gas
inlet/outlet valve and noting the escape of
gas. If the pressure has not been maintained
(i.e., no gas release observed), the device is
leaking. Check the ZHE for leaking as
specified in Step 4.2.1, and perform the
extraction again with a new sample of waste.
If the pressure within the device has been
maintained, the material in the extractor
vessel is once again separated into its
component liquid and solid phases. If the
waste contained 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 the
waste. A separate filtrate collection container
must be used if combining would create
multiple phases, or there is not enough
volume left within the filtrate collection
container. Filter through the glass fiber filter.
using the ZHE device as discussed in Step
9.9. All extract shall be filtered and collected
if the TEDLAR* bag is used, if the extract is
multiphasic, or if the waste contained an
initial liquid phase (see Steps 4.6 and 9.1).
Note: An in-line glass fiber filter may be
used to filter the material within the ZHE if it
Is suspected that the glass fiber filter has
been ruptured.
9.14 If the original waste contained no
initial liquid phase, the filtered liquid
material obtained from step 9.13 is defined as
the TCLP extract. If the waste contained an
initial liquid phase, the filtered liquid
material obtained from Step 9.13 and the
initial liquid phase (Step 9.9) are collectively
defined as the TCLP extract.-
9.15 Following collection of the TCLP
extract, immediately prepare the extract for
analysis and store with minimal headspace at
4 °C until analyzed. Analyze the TCLP extract
according to the appropriate analytical
methods. If the individual phases are to be
analyzed separately (i.e.. an not miscibie),
determine the volume of the individual
phases (to 0.5%), conduct the appropriate
analyses, and combine the results
mathematically by using a simple volume-
weighted average:
Final analyte concentration
fVil (C.)+(V3) [C.1
V,+V,
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 61 / Thursday, March 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11875
where:
Vi =The volume of the first phases (1).
Ci =The concentration of the contaminant of
concern in the first phase (mg/l).
Vj=The volume of the second phase {!).
d=The concentration of the contaminant of
concern in the second phase (mg/l),
9.18 Compare the contaminant
concentrations in the TCLP extract with the
thresholds identified in the appropriate
regulations. Refer to section 10.0 for quality
assurance requirements.
10.0 Quality Assurance Requirements
10.1 Maintain all data, including quality
assurance data, and keep it available for
reference or inspection.
10.2 A minimum of one blank (extraction
fluid *l) for every 10 extractions that have
been conducted in an extraction vessel shall
be employed as a check to determine if any
memory effects from the extraction
equipment are occurring.
10.3 A matrix spike shall be performed for
each waste unless the result exceeds the
regulatory level and the data is being used
solely to demonstrate that the waste property
exceeds the regulatory level. If more than one
sample of the same waste is being tested, a
matrix spike needs to be performed for every
twenty samples and the average percent
recovery applied to the waste
characterization.
10.3.1 Matrix spikes are to be added after
filtration of the TCLP extract and before
preservation. Matrix spikes should not be
added prior to TCLP extraction of the sample.
10.3.2 Matrix spike levels should be made
at the appropriate regulatory threshold limits.
However, if the extract contaminant
concentration is less than one half the
threshold limit, the spike level may be one
half the contaminant concentration but not
less than the quantitation limit or a fifth of
the threshold limit.
10.3.3 The purpose of the matrix spike is
to monitor the adequacy of the analytical
methods used on the TCLP extract and to
determine whether matrix interferences exist
in analyte detection. If the matrix spike
recoveries are less than 50%, then the
analytical methods are not performing
adequately or use of the methods is
inadequate. Use of internal calibration
quantitation methods, modification of the
analytical methods, or use of alternate
analytical methods may be needed to
accurately measure the contaminant
concentration in the TCLP extract.
10.3.4 Use of internal quantitation
methods is also required when the
contaminant concentration is within 20% of
the regulatory level. (See section 10.5
concerning the use of internal calibration
methods.)
10.3.5 Matrix spike recoveries are
calculated by the following formula:
Percent recovery =
A-B
X 100%
where A=the concentration of the spiked
sample,
B = the concentration of the unspiked
sample, and
C=the spike level
10.4 All quality control measures
described in the appropriate analytical
methods shall be followed,
10.5 The use of internal calibration
quantitation methods shall be employed for a
contaminant if: (1) Recovery of the
contaminant from the TCLP extract is not at
least 50% and the concentration does not
exceed the regulatory level, and (2) The
concentration of the contaminant measured
in the extract is within 20% of the appropriate
regulatory level.
10.5.1 The method of standard additions
shall be employed as the internal calibration
SAMPLE MAXIMUM HOLDING TIMES
[Days]
quantitation method for each metallic
contaminant.
10.5.1.1 The method of standard additions
requires preparing calibration standards in
the sample matrix rather than reagent water
or blank solution. It requires taking four
identical aliquots of the solution and adding
known amounts of standard to three of these
aliquots. The fourth aliquot is the unknown.
Preferably; the first addition should be
prepared so that the resulting concentration
is approximately 50% of the expected
concentration of the sample. The second and
third additions should be prepared so that the
concentrations are approximately 100% and
150% of the expected concentration of the
sample. All four aliquots are maintained at
the same final volume by adding reagent
water or a blank solution, and may need
dilution adjustment to maintain the signals in
the linear range of the instrumental
technique. All four aliquots are analyzed.
10.5.1.2 Prepare a plot, or subject data to
linear regression, of instrumental signals or
external-calibration-derived concentrations
as the dependent variable (y-axis) versus
concentrations of the additions of standard
as the independent variable (x-axis). Solve
for the intercept of the abscissa (the
independent variable, x-axis) which is the
concentration in the unknown.
10.5.1.3 Alternately, subtract the
instrumental sipal or extemal-calibration-
derived concentration of the unknown
(unspiked) sample from the instrumental
signals or external-calibration-derived
concentrations of the standard additions. Plot
or subject data to linear regression of the
corrected instrumental signals or external-
calibration-derived concentrations as the
dependent variable versus the independent
variable. Derive concentrations for unknowns
using the internal calibration curve as if it
were an external calibration curve.
10.6 Samples must undergo TCLP
extraction within the following time periods:
Volatile* . . __... .....
Seitii-vototiies « «..,...«- , . «. . _~«.
Mercury ............. ..«.«.™™ v^v.. ...Mll, . „.„,,.,.
Metals, except mercury.™.™... „
From:
Reid collection
To:
TCLP extraction
14
7
28
180
From:
TCLP extraction •
To:
Preparative extraction
NA
7
NA
NA
From:
Preparative extraction
To:
Determinative analysis
14
40
28
180
Total elapsed tima
28
54
56
360
NA = Not applicable.
If sample holding times are exceeded, the
values obtained will be considered minimal
concentrations. Exceeding the holding time is
not acceptable in establishing that a waste
does not exceed the regulatory level.
Exceeding the holding time will not
invalidate characterization if the waste
exceeds the regulatory level.
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
7. The authority citation for part 284
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912. 6924, and
6925.
8. Section 264.301 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(l) to read as
follows:
§ 264.301 Design and operating
requirements.
-------
11878 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 199Q / Rules and Regulations
(a) * ' *
(1) The monofill contains only
hazardous wastes from foundry furnace
emission controls or metal casting
molding sand, and such wastes do not
contain constituents which would
render the wastes hazardous for reasons
other than the Toxicity Characteristic in
I 261,24 of this chapter, with EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers D004
through D017; and
PART 2SS—INTERIM STATUS*
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTi
TREATMENT STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
. 9. The authority citation of part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905.6912(a). 6924,
6925, and 6935.
10, Section 285.221 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(l) to read as
follows:
§ 265.221 Design requirements.
*****
(d)' * *
(1) The monofill contains only
hazardous wastes from foundry furnace
emission controls or metal casting
molding sand, and such wastes do not
contain constituents which would
render the wastes hazardous for reasons
other than the Toxicity Characteristic in
§ 261.24 of this chapter, with EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers D004
through D017; and
*****
11. Section 281.273 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows;
§265.273 Waste analysis.
*****
(a) Determine the concentrations in
the waste of any substances which
equal or exceed the maximum
concentrations contained in Table 1 of
§ 261.24 of this chapter that cause a
waste to exhibit the Toxicity
Characteristic;
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
12. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912[a), 6921. and
6924.
13. Appendix I of part 268 is revised to
read as follows:
Appendix I—Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
Note: The TCLP is published in Appendix II
of part 261.
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
14. The authority citation for part 271
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6925.
15. Section 271.1, paragraph (j), the
heading of Table 1 is republished, and
Table 1 is amended by adding the
following entry in chronological order
by date of promulgation to read as
follows:
§ 271.1 Purpose and scop*.
*****
0) * ' *
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date
Title of regulation
Federal Register reference
Effective date
March 29,1990..._
....—....— Toxicity characteristic..
[Insert FR reference on date of publi-
cation].
September 25,1990
PART 302—DESIGNATION,
REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND
NOTIFICATION
16. The authority citation for part 302
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602; 33 U.S.C. 1321
and 1361.
17. Section 302,4 is amended by
revising under the column Hazardous
Substance the entry "Unlisted
Hazardous Wastes Characteristic of EP
Toxicity" to read "Unlisted Hazardous
Wastes Characteristics:" and by
revising the entry "Characteristic of EP
Toxicity" and its sub entries to read as
follows:
§ 302.4 Designation of hazardous
substances.
TABLE 302.4.—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES
Hazardous substance
CASRN
Regulatory synonyms
HQ
Statutory
final RQ
Cadet
RCRA
waste
numoer
Category Pounds (Kg)
Characteristic of Toxicity:
Arsenic (D004)
Barium (D005),.
Benzene (0018)..
Cadmium (0006) ...—
Carbon teirachloride (D019)...
Chtonfane (DQ20)
Chtorobenzene (D021).™_—
Chloroform (0022) ,
Chromium (COOT)
o-Cresol (0023)
m-Cresol (D024)..-.«....««—
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
*1
•1
100O
*1
5.000
1
100
5,000
*1
1,000
1,000
4
4
1, 2, 3, 4
4
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2,4
4
1.4
1,4
0004
D005
D01S
DOOB
0019
D020
0021
D022
D007
0023
0024
X
c
A
A
A
X
B
A
A
C
C
1 (0.454)
1,000 (454)
10 (4.54)
10 (4.54)
10 (4.54)
1 (0.454)
100 (45.4)
10 (4.54)
10 (4.54)
1.000 (454)
1,000 (454}
-------
OSWER D1R. iMU.
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 11877
TABLE 302.4.—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND HEPORTABLE QUANTITIES—Continued
Statutory
Hazardous substance
p-Cresol (0025),.,
Creso) (DQ26)
24-0(0016)
1,4-Dichlofobenzene (D027)
1.2-DJchtoroattiarw (0028)
1,1-Dtehloroetnylene (D029)..._
2,4-Dinitrototuene (D030)
Endrin (001 2) .
Heptachtor (and hydroxide) (0031)....
Hexachforobenzene (D032)
Hexachtorobutadiene (D033)
Hexachtoroethane (0034)
Lead (0008)
Lindana (0013)
Mercury (DQ09)
Msthoxyehter (0014)
Methyl ethyl ketona (0035)
Nitrobenzene (D038)
Pentachlorophenol (D037) .-...,
Pyridine (0038) ,
Selenium (001 0) „...,
Silver (0011)
Tetrachloroethyleng (D039)._
Toxaphene (D01 5).. .
Thrichloroethylena (0040)
2.4,5-Trichloroethylene (D041)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (0042)
2,4,5-TP (001 7)
Vinyi chloride (0043)
CASHN Regulatory synonyms
.... NA
N A
N A
.... N.A.
NA
.... N.A. _
_. NA. „
.... N.A. .
.... N.A.
.... N.A.
.... N,A. .. ,
.... N.A.
.... N.A. _
.. N A
.. NA
.... N.A. ..... .
.... NA _
.... N.A.
.. NA
.... N.A.
.... NA.
.... NA
.... N.A.
.... NA •
.... N.A.
.. . N A
.„ NA _.. . . „
.... N.A, ...... _,
.... N.A. -
* •
RQ
1.000
1,000
100
100
5,000
5,000
1,000
1
1
M
"1
'1
'1
1
M
... 1
'1
1.000
10
'1
M
'1
*1
1
1000
10
10
. 100
'1
*
Codet
1,
1,
1
1,2.
1,2,
1, 2,
1. 2,
1,
1,2,
2.
2.
2,
1,
1,
1,2,
1,2,
2,
1,
1,2,
1,
1,2,
1,
2,3,
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
RCRA
wasta
number
D025
D026
D016
0027
0028
D029
D030
0012
0031
0032
D033
0034
D008
0013
0009
0014
0035
0036
0037
0038
D010
0011
0039
D015
0040
0041
0042
0017
D043
*
Final HQ
Category
C
C
B
B
B
B
A
X
X
A
X
8
X
X
X
D
C
A
C
A
X
B
X
B
A
A
B
X
Pounds (Kg)
1,000 (454)
1,000 (45-4)
100 (45 4)
100 (45.4)
100 (45.4)
100 (454)
10 (4 54)
1 (0.454)
1 (0.454)
10 (4.54)
1 (0.454)
100 (454)
iff)
1 (0454)
t (0454)
1 (0454)
5.000 (2270)
1.000 (454)
10 (4 54)
1.000 (454)
10 (454)
1 (0454)
100 (454)
1 (0.464)
tOO (45.4)
10 (4 54)
10 (454j
100 (45.4)
1 (0.454)
*
t—indicates the statutory source as defined by 1, 2, 3, or 4 below.
"'—indicates that the 1-pound HQ is a CEHCLA statutory HQ.
#—indicates that the RQ is subject to change whan the assessment of potential carcmogemcity is completed.
|FR Doc. 90-6104 Filed 3-28-90: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE «SW-SO-M
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Friday
June 29, 1990
Part V
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265, 268, 271 and
302
Hazardous Waste Management System;
identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Toxiclty Characteristic Revisions;
Final Rule
-------
26986 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261,264,265,268,271
and 302
[SWH-FRL-3792-2;EPA/OSW-FR-90-014]
RIN 2050-AA78
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Toxicity
Characteristic Revisions
AOENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION; Final rule; corrections.
SUMMARY: On March 29,1990 (55 FR
11798), the Environmentl Protection
Agency (EPA) promulgated a rule to
revise the existing toxicity
characteristics, which are used to
identify those wastes which are
hazardous and thus subject to regulation
under subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
due to their potential to leach significant
concentrations of specific toxic
constituents. Since promulgation, the
Agency has found the need to make
corrections to the rale in order to ensure
consistency of the toxicity characteristic
leaching procedure (TCLP), Method
1311, with other methods contained in
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste (Physical/Chemical Methods),
SW-846 and to clarify the section on
quality assurance. This notice also
corrects several errors in the March 29,
1990 notice
DATES: Effective date: September 25,
1990. The effective date and compliance
dates are not changed by this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information about this
notice, contact the RCRA/Superfund
Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll free) or
(202) 382-3000 in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area. For information on
specific aspects of this notice, contact
Steve Cochran, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-332), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street SW, Washington,
DC 20460, (202) 475-8551.
I. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
On March 29,1990 (55 FR 11798), EPA
promulgated a rule to revise the existing
toxicity characteristics, which are used
to identify those wastes which are
hazardous and thus subject to regulation
under subtitle C of RCRA. The rule
broadened and refined the scope of the
hazardous waste regulatory program
and fulfilled specific statutory mandates
under the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984.
Today's notice makes corrections to
appendix II of the regulatory language of
the March 29,1990 final rule. Method
1311, the TCLP. The method has been
reorganized to correspond to the current
version of Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste (Chemical/Physical
Methods), SW-846. In addition, the
quality assurance section has been
renumbered and has been clarified to
eliminate confusion. Today's notice also
corrects several typographical errors
and other omissions that appeared In
the final rule revising the toxicity
characteristics.
The preamble to the March 29,1990
final rule stated that any person that
would like to use the TCLP before the
effective date of the rule (September 25,
1990) may do so in order to determine
whether the eight heavy metals and six
pesticides that are currently regulated
under the Extraction Procedure (EP)
Toxicity Characteristic leach at levels of
regulatory concern. This language was
included because the TCLP is required
for both waste determination (on
September 25,1990, the TC effective
date) and the land disposal restrictions
program. The Agency today is clarifying
that, while it is appropriate to use just
one leach test to fulfill both
requirements, persons that would like to
continue using the EP leach test until the
effective date of the TC rule may do so.
It should be notei however, that the EP
test may still be required as a matter of
state law, and this regulation does not
affect such state law requirements.
B. Method 1311 and Quality Assurance
Today's notice makes technical
corrections to mistakes made in Method
1311, and to errors made during
typesetting, and provides clarifications
to specific procedures of the method.
The method also is being reorganized by
placing the leaching procedure in one
section and the quality assurance in a
separate section to conform with the
format used in SW-846.
A correction is being made in the
calculation for the weight of waste to
charge the Zero-Headspace Extractor
(ZHE). In the final rule published March
29,1990, the method incorrectly stated
that the optimum sample size to charge
into the ZHE should be determined for
wastes containing >0.5% solids. This
calculation results in a charge sample
greater than the capacity of the ZHE.
The Agency today is correcting the
procedure to require a determination on
wastes containing >5% solids. The
sample holding times and errors made
during typesetting are also being
corrected by today's notice.
The Agency received inquiries
indicating that confusion exists
concerning correction Factors and how
they should be applied. Therefore, the
Agency is making a technical correction
in | 8.2.5 of Method 1311, published in
today's notice, by adding a formula for
correcting measured values for
analytical bias. Also, inquiries indicate
that EPA's discussion of the appropriate
GC and GC/MS methods to be used was
improper. The preamble language is
corrected by today's notice to indicate
the appropriate GC and GC/MS
methods to be used.
Method 1311 is also being reorganized
by today's notice by placing the leaching
procedure itself in one section, 7.0. (The
steps of the leaching procedure were
previously presented in sections 7, 8,
and 9 in the March 29,1990 final rule.) In
addition, this notice makes minor
corrections to the quality assurance
section and it is renumbered 8.0. This
reorganization provides consistency
with SW-846.
Appendix II, Method 1311 of the
March 29,1990 final rale is replaced in
its entirety by Method 1311 of this notice
In order to incorporate the corrections,
reorganizations, and clarifications
which are being made by today's notice.
The March 29,1990 final rule provided
an exclusion under 40 CFR 261.4 for
petroleum-contaminated media and
debris that fail the Toxicity
Characteristic. This exclusion applies
only to petroleum-contaminated media
and debris which exhibit the TC for any
one or more of the newly identified
organic constituents, and which are
subject to corrective action under part
280. The regulatory language of this
exclusion in the final rule is revised by
today's notice to correctly reflect this
application.
C Corrections
1. On page 11798, column one, under
"DATES," in the second line of the
compliance dates paragraph, change
"generators: September 25,1990. Small"
to "generators and treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities (TSDFs):
September 25,1990. Small".
2. On page 11804, Table D.2—Toxicity
Characteristics Constitutents and
Regulatory Levels, change the column
heading "Constituent (mg/L)" to
"Constituent".
3. On page 11804, Table II.2—Toxicity
Characteristic Constituents and
Regulatory Levels, line twenty, change
"Heptachlor (and its hydroxide)" to
"Heptachlor (and its epoxide)".
4. On page 11815, column three, Table
C-l—Chronic Toxicity Reference
Levels, lines nineteen and twenty,
change "Heptachlor (and its hydroxide)"
to "Heptachlor (and its epoxide)".
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register /Vol. 55, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 1390 / Rules and Regulations 28937
5, On page 11825, column one, fourth
bullet, first line, change "The data
extracted from RFSs" to "The data
extracted from RFAs".
8. On page 11829, columnn one, the
first full paragraph (lines twenty-four)
through thirty-six) is replaced by the
following: "The Agency agrees that the
GC method (Method 8040) or the GC/MS
method (Method 8270J for phenols and
the GC/Electron Capture Detection
(GC/ECD) for phenoxyacid herbicides
(Method 8150) are more advantageous
for the analysis of these analytes
because the equipment is more readily
available than the HPLC, despite the
associated difficulties. HPLC methods
for phenols and phenoxyacid herbicides
are not included in the third edition of
SW-846 because of a lack of validation
data. The Agency will allow only the
use of the previously mentioned GC and
GC/MS methods (Methods 8040 or 8270)
ot their equivalents for phenols and
Method 8150 for phenoxyacid herbicides
until such time that the Agency proposes
an HPLC method."
7. On page 11831, column two,
paragraph b, seventh line, change "rule
of 40 CFR 262.3{a)(2)(iv) or the" to "rule
of 40 CFR 281.3{a)(2)(iv) or the",
8. On page 11335, column one, first
and second line, change "July 25,1985"
to "July 15,1983".
9, On page 11837, column one, third
complete paragraph, thirteenth line,
change "for TSDFs on February 5,1987
(53 FR" to "for TSDFs on February 5,
1987 (52 FR".
10, On page 11840, column three, first
bullet of second complete paragraph,
first line, change "Solid waste that is a
hazardous waste" to "Used oil that is a
hazardous waste".
11, On page 11844, Table IV-1,—TC
Constituent and Regulatory Levels
Proposed June 13,1988—Continued,
fourth line, change the CASNO for D034
from "76-44-2" to "70-44-8".
12. On page 11844, Table IV-1.—TC
Constituent and Regulatory Levels
Proposed June 13,1988—Continued, line
twenty-one, change to read as follows:
B045. . . . 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
. , . ,630-20-fl. , . .10.0.
13. On page 11844, column two, Table
IV-2.—Organic Constituents, fourth line,
change the CASNO for D021 from "106-
90-7" to 108-90-7",
14. On page 11844, column three,
Table IV-2.—Organic Constituents-
Continued, first line, change "D031....
Heptachlor (and its hydroxide).... 76-
44-2" to "D031.... Heptachlor (and its
epoxide). . . .78-44-8".
15. On page 11848, Table IV-3—
Toxicity Characteristic Constituents and
Regulatory Levels—Continued, tenth
line, change "Heptachlor (and its
hydroxide)" to "Heptachlor (and its
epoxide)".
16. Also on page 11846, column two,
third line, change "270 of chapter 40." to
"270 of title 40.".
PART 261—[AMENDED]
§261.4 [Corrected]
17. On page 11882, column two, in
§ 261.4 paragraph (b){10), is corrected to
read as follows:
10. Petroleum-contaminated media
and debris that fail the test for the
Toxicity Characteristic of | 281.24
(Hazardous Waste Codes D018 through
D043 only) and are subject to the
corrective action regulations under part
280 of this chapter.
§261.24 [Corrected]
18. Also on page 11882, column three,
in § 281.24 Table 1.—Maximum
Concentration of Contaminants for the
Toxicity Characteristic, lines twenty-
eight and twenty-nine, change
"Heptachlor (and its hydroxide)" to
"Heptachlor (and its epoxide)".
PART 271—{AMENDED]
§ 271.1 [Corrected]
19. On page 11876, in | 271.1(j) Table
1—Regulations Implementing the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984, the Federal
Register reference should be "55 FR
11798-11877".
PART 302—{AMENDED]
5302.4 [Corrected]
20. On page 11877, in § 302,4, Table
302.4, List of Hazardous Substances and
Reportable Quantities, in the first
column, make the following corrections;
A. In the ninth line, change
"Heptachlbr (and hydroxide) (D031)" to
"Heptachlor (and epoxide) (D031)."
B. In line twenty-five, change
"Thrichloroethylene (D040)" to
"Trichloroethylene (D040)".
C. In line twenty-six change "2,4,5-
Trichlorethylene (D041)" to "2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol (D041)".
Dated: June 22,1990.
Mary A. Gads,
Acting Assistant Administrator,
In addition to the corrections made
above, part 261 is amended by revising
appendix II to read as follows;
Appendix II—Method 1311 Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP)
1,0 Scopa and Application
1.1 The TCLP is designed to determine the
mobility of both organic and inorganic
analytes present in liquid, solid, and
multiphasic wastes.
1.2 If a total analysis of the waste
demonstrates that individual analytes are not
present to the waste, or that they are present
but at luch low concentrations (hat the
appropriate regulatory levels could not
possibly be exceeded, the TCLP need not be
run.
1.3 If an analysis of any one of the liquid
fractions of the TCLP extract indicatss that a
regulated compound is present at such high
concentrations that, even after accounting for
dilution from the other fractions of the
extract, the concentration would be equal to
or above the regulatory level for that
compound, then the waste is hazardous and it
is not necessary to analyze the remaining
fractions of the extract.
1.4 If an analysis of extract obtained
using a bottle extractor shows that the
concentration of any regulated volatile
analyte equals or exceeds the regulatory
level for that compound, then the waste is
hazardous and extraction using the ZHE is
not necessary. However, extract from a bottle
extractor cannot be used to demonstrate that
the concentration of volatile compounds is
below the regulatory level.
2.0 Summary of Method
2,1 For liquid wastes (i.e., those
containing less than 0.5% dry solid material),
the waste, after filtration through a 0.9 to 0.8
ftm glass fiber filter, is defined as the TCLP
extract
2.2 For wastes containing greater than or
equal to 0.5% solids, the liquid, if any, is
separated from the solid phase and stored for
later analysis; the particle size of the solid
phase is reduced, if necessary. 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 volatile
analytes (see Table 1 for a list of volatile
compounds). Following extraction, the liquid
extract is separated from the solid phase by
filtration through a 0.0 to 0.8 jim glass fiber
filter.
2.3 If compatible (i.e.. multiple phases will
not form on combination), the initial liquid
phase of the waste is added to the liquid
extract, and these are analyzed together. If
incompatible, the liquids are analyzed
separately and the results are mathematically
combined to yield « volume-weighted
average concentration,
3.0 Interferences
3.1 Potential interferences that may be
encountered during analysis are discussed in
the individual analytical methods,
4.0 Apparatus and Materials
4.1 Agitation apparatus: The agitation
apparatus must be capable of rotating the
extraction vessel in an end-over-end fashion
(see Figure 1) at 30 ±2 rpm. Suitable device*
known to EPA are identified in Table 2.
4.2 Extraction Vessels.
4.2.1 Zero-Headspace Extraction Vessel
{ZHE). This device is for use only when fee
waste is being tested for the mobility of
-------
26988 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
volatile analytes (i.e., those listed in Table 1).
The ZHE (depicted in Figure 2) allows for
liquid/solid separation within the device, and
effectively precludes headspace. This type of
vessel allows for initial liquid/solid
separation, extraction, and final extract
filtration without opening the vessel (see
section 4.3.1). The vessels shall have an
internal volume of 500-600 mL. and be
equipped to accommodate a 90-110 mm filter.
The devices contain VTTON®1 O-rings which
should be replaced frequently. Suitable ZHE
devices known to EPA are identified in Table
3.
For the ZHE to be acceptable for use, the
piston within the ZHE should be able to be
moved with approximately IS pounds per
square inch (psi) or less. If it takes more
pressure to move the piston, the O-rings in
the device should be replaced. If this does not
solve the problem, the ZHE is unacceptable
for TCLP analyses and the manufacturer
should be contacted.
The ZHE should be checked for leaks after
every extraction. If the device contains a
built-in pressure gauge, pressurize the device
to 50 psi, allow it to stand unattended for 1
hour, and recheck the pressure. If the device
does not have a built-in pressure gauge,
pressurize the device to SO psi, submerge it in
water, and check for the presence of air
bubbles escaping from any of the fittings. If
pressure is lost check all fittings and inspect
and replace O-rings, if necessary. Retest the
device. If leakage problems cannot be solved,
the manufacturer should be contacted.
Some ZHEs use gas pressure to actuate the
ZHE piston, while others use mechanical
pressure (see Table 3). Whereas the volatiles
procedures (see section 7.3) refers to pounds
per square inch (psi), for the mechanically
actuated piston, the pressure applied is
measured in torque-inch-pounds. Refer to the
manufacturer's instructions as to the proper
conversion.
4.Z2 Bottle Extraction Vessel When the
waste is being evaluated using the
nonvolatile extraction, a jar with sufficient
capacity to hold the sample and the
extraction fluid is needed. Headspace is
allowed in this vessel.
The extraction bottles may be constructed
from various materials, depending on the
analytes to be analyzed and the nature of the
waste (see section 4.3.3). It is recommended
that borosilicate glass bottles be used instead
of other types of glass, especially when
inorganics are of concern. Plastic bottles.
other than polytetrafluoroethylene, shall not
be used if organics are to be investigated.
Bottles are available from a number of
laboratory suppliers. When this type of
extraction vessel is used, the filtration device
discussed in section 4.3.2 is used for initial
liquid/solid separation and final extract
filtration.
4.3 Filtration Devices: It is recommended
that all filtrations be performed in a hood.
4.3.1 Zero-Headspace Extractor Vessel
(ZHE): When the waste is evaluated for
volatiles, the zero-headspace extraction
vessel described in section 4.2.1 is used for
nitration. The device shall be capable of
supporting and keeping in place the glass
fiber filter and be able to withstand the
pressure needed to accomplish separation (50
psi).
Note: 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.
4.3.2 Filter Holder: When the waste is
evaluated for other than volatile analytes,
any filter holder capable of supporting a glass
fiber filter and able to withstand the pressure
needed to accomplish separation may be
used. Suitable filter holders range from
simple vacuum units to relatively complex
systems capable of exerting pressures of up
to 50 psi or more. The type of filter holder
used depends on the properties of the
material to be filtered (see section 4.3.3).
These devices shall have a minimum internal
volume of 300 mL and be equipped to
accommodate a minimum filter size of 47 mm
(filter holders having an internal capacity of
1.5 L or greater, and equipped to
accommodate a 142 mm diameter filter, are
recommended). Vacuum filtration can only be
used for wastes with low solids content
(<10%) and for highly granular, liquid-
containing wastes. All other types of wastes
should be filtered using positive pressure
filtration. Suitable filter holders known to
EPA are shown in Table 4.
4.3.3 Materials of Construction:
Extraction vessels and filtration devices shall
be made of inert materials which will not
leach or absorb waste components. Class.
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), or type 316
stainless steel equipment may be used when
evaluating the mobility of both organic and
inorganic components. Devices made of high
density polyethylene (HOPE), polypropylene
(PP), or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) may be used
only when evaluating the mobility of metals.
Borosilicate glass bottles are recommended
for use over other types of glass bottles,
especially when inorganics are analytes of .
concern.
4.4 Filters: Filters shall be made of
borosilicate glass fiber, shall contain no
binder materials, and shall have an effective
pore size of 0.6 to 0.8 jim, or equivalent
Filters known to EPA which meet these
specifications are identified in Table 5. Pre-
filters must not be used. When evaluating the
mobility of metals, filters shall be acid-
washed prior to use by rinsing with IN nitric
acid followed by three consecutive rinses
with deionized distilled water (a minimum of
1 L per rinse is recommended). Class fiber
filter are fragile and should be handled with
care.
4.5 pH Meters: The meter should be
accurate to ± 0.05 units at 25*C,
4.S ZHE Extract Collection Devices:
TEDLAR® • bags or glass, stainless steel or
PTFE gag-tight syringes are used to collect
the initial liquid phase and the final extract of
the waste when using the ZHE device. The
devices listed are recommended for use
under the following conditions:
4.8.1 If a waste contains an aqueous
liquid phase or if a waste does not contain a
significant amount of nonaqueous liquid (i.e.,
1% of total waste), the
syringe or the TEDLAR® bag may be used
for both the intitial solid/liquid separation
and the final extract filtration. However,
analysts should use one or the other, not
both.
4.6.3 If the waste contains no initial liquid
phase (is 100% solid) or has no significant
solid phase (is 100% liquid), either the
TEDLAR® bag or the syringe may be used. If
the syringe is used, discard the first 5 mL of
liquid expressed from the device. The
remaining aliquots are used for analysis.
4.7 ZHE Extraction Fluid Transfer
Devices: Any device capable of transferring
the extraction fluid into the ZHE without
changing the nature of the extraction fluid is
acceptable (e.g. a positive displacement or
peristaltic pump, a gas tight syringe, pressure
filtration unit (see section 4.3.2), or other ZHE
device).
4.8 Laboratory Balance: Any laboratory
balance accurate to within ± 0.01 grams may
be used (all weight measurements are to be
within ± 0.1 grams).
4.9 Beaker or Erlenmeyer flask, glass, 500
mL.
4.10 Watchglass. appropriate diameter to
cover beaker or erlenmeyer flask.
4.11 Magnetic stirrer.
5.0 Reagents
5.1 Reagent grade chemicals shall be used
in all tests. Unless otherwise indicated, it is
intended that all reagents shall conform to
the specifications of the Committee on
Analytical Reagent* of the American
Chemical Society, where such specifications
are available. Other grades may be used.
provided it is first ascertained that the
reagent is of sufficiently high purity to permit
its use without lessening the accuracy of the
determination.
5.2 Reagent water. Reagent water is
defined as water in which an interferant is
not observed at or above the methods
detection limit of the analyte(s) of interest.
For nonvolatile extractions, ASTM Type II
water or equivalent meets the definition of
reagent water. For volatile extractions, it is
recommended that reagent water be
generated by any of the following methods.
Reagent water should be monitored
periodically for impurities.
5.2.1 Reagent water for volatile
extractions may be generated by passing tap
water through a carbon filter bed containing
about 500 grams of activated carbon (Calgon
Corp., Filtrasorb-300 or equivalent).
5.2.2 A water purification system
(Millipore Super-Q or equivalent) may also be
used to generate reagent water for volatile
extractions.
5.2.3 Reagent water for volatile
extractions may also be prepared by boiling
water for 15 minutes. Subsequently, while
maintaining the water temperature at 90 + 5
degrees C bubble a contaminant-free inert
gas (e.g., nitrogen) through the water for 1
hour. While still hot transfer the water to a
narrow mouth screw-cap bottle under zero-
I.+7
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register /Vol. 55. No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 26980
headspace and seal with a Teflon-lined
septum and cap,
5.3 Hydrochloric acid (IN), HCl, made
from ACS reagent grade.
5.4 Nitric acid (IN), HNO,. made from
ACS reagent grade.
5.S Sodium hydroxide (IN), NaOH, made
from ACS reagent grade.
5.8 Glacial acetic acid, CHaCH-OOH,
ACS reagent grade,
5,7 Extraction fluid.
5.7.1 Extraction fluid #1: Add 5.7 mL
glacial CHjCHsOOH to 500 mL of reagent
water (See section 5,2), add 84.3 mL of IN
NaOH, and dilute to a volume of 1 liter,
When correctly prepared, the pH of this fluid
will be 4.93±0.05.
5.7.2 Extraction fluid #2: Dilute 5.7 mL
glacial CHjCHsOOH with reagent water (See
section 5.2) to a volume of 1 liter. When
correctly prepared, the pH of this fluid wfll be
2.88±0.05.
Note: These extraction fluids should be
monitored frequently for impurities. The pH
should be checked prior to use to ensure that
these fluids are made up accurately. If
impurities are found or the pH is not within
the above specifications, the fluid shall be
discarded and fresh extraction fluid prepared.
5.8 Analytical standards shall be
prepared according to the appropriate
analytical method.
6.0 Sample Collection. Preservation, and
Handling
6,1 All samples shall be collected using
an appropriate sampling plan.
6-2 The TCLP may place requirements on
the minimal size of the field sample,
depending upon the physical state or states of
the waste and the analytes of concern. An
aliquot is needed for preliminary evaluation
of which extraction fluid is to be used for the
nonvolatile aaalyte extraction procedure.
Another aliquot may be needed to actually
conduct the nonvolatile extraction (see
section 1.4 concerning the use of this extract
for volatile organics). If volatile organics are
of concern, another aliquot may be needed.
Quality control measures may require
additional aliquots. Further, it is always wise
to collect more samples just in case
something goes wrong with the initial attempt
to conduct the test
6.3 Preservatives shall not be added to
samples before extraction.
6.4 Samples may be refrigerated unless
refrigeration results to irreversible physical
change to the waste. If precipitation occurs,
the entire sample [including precipitate)
should be extracted.
6.S When the waste is to be evaluated for
volatile analytes, care shall be taken to
minimize the loss of volatiles. Samples shall
be collected and stored in a manner intended
to prevent the loss of volatile analytes (e.g..
samples should be collected In Teflon-lined
septum capped vials and stored at 4 "C.
Samples should be opened only immediately
prior to extraction).
6.6 TCLP extracts should be prepared for
analysis and analyzed as *oon as possible
following extraction. Extracts or portions of
extracts for metallic analyte determinations
must be acidified with nitric acid to a pH <2,
unless precipitation occurs (see section 7.2.14
if precipitation occurs). Extracts should be
preserved for other analytes according to the
guidance given in the individual analysis
methods. Extracts or portions of extracts for
organic analyte determinations shall not be
allowed to come into contact with the
atmosphere (i.e., no headspace} to prevent
losses. See section 8.0 (QA requirements) for
acceptable sample and extract holding times.
W Procedure
7.1 Preliminary Evaluations. Perform
preliminary TCLP evaluations on a minimum
100 gram aliquot of waste. This aliquot may
not actually undergo TCLP extraction. These
preliminary evaluations include: (1)
Determination of the percent solids (section
7.1.1): (2) determination of whether the waste
contains insignificant solids and is, therefore,
its own extract after filtration (section 7.1-2);
(3) determination of whether the solid portion
of the waste requires particle size reduction
(section 7.1.3); and (4) determination of which
of the two extraction fluids are to be used for
the nonvolatile TCLP extraction of the waste
(section 7.1.4.).
7.1.1 Preliminary determination of percent
solids: Percent solids is defined as that
fraction of a waste sample (a* a percentage
of the total sample) from which no liquid may
be forced out by an applied pressure, as
described below,
7.1.1.1 If the waste will obviously yield no
liquid when subjected to pressure filtration
(i.e., is 100% solids) proceed to section 7.1 J.
7.1.1.2 If the sample is liquid or
raultiphasic, liquid/solid separation to make
« preliminary determination of percent solids
is required. This involves the filtration device
described in section 4.3.2 and is outlined in
sections 7.1.13 through 7.1.1.9.
7.1.1.3 Pre-weigh the filter and the
container that will receive the filtrate.
7.1.14 Assemble the filter holder and
filter following the manufacturer's
instructions. Place the filter on the support
screen and secure.
7.1.1.5 Weigh out a subsample of the
waste (100 gram minimum) and record the
weight
7.1.1.0 Allow slurries to stand to permit
the solid phase to settle. Wastes that settle
slowly may be centrifuged prior to filtration.
Centrifugation is to be used only as an aid to
* filtration. If used, the liquid should be
decanted and filtered followed by filtration of
the solid portion of the waste through the
same filtration system.
7.1,1.7 Quantitatively transfer the waite
sample to the filter holder (liquid and solid
phases). Spread the waste sample evenly
over the surface of the filter. If filtration of
the waste at 4 "C reduces the amount of
expressed liquid over what would be
expressed at room temperature then allow
the sample to warm up to room temperature
in the device before filtering.
Note: If waste material (>1% of original
sample weight] has obviously adhered to the
container used to transfer the sample to the
filtration apparatus, determine the weight of
this residue and subtract it from the sample
weight determined in section 7.1.1.5 to
determine he weight of the waste sample that
will be filtered
Gradually apply vacuum or gentle pressure
of 1-10 psi, until air or pressurizing gas moves
through the filter. If this point is not reached
under 10 psi, and if no additional liquid has
passed through the filter in any 2 minute
interval, slowly increase the pressure in 10
psi increments to a maximum of 50 psi. After
each incremental increase of 10 psi, if the
pressurizing gas has not moved through the
filter, and if no additional liquid has passed
through the filter in any 2 minute interval,
proceed to the next 10 psi increment When
the pressurizing gas begins to move through
the filter, or when liquid flow has ceased at
SO psi (i.e., filtration does not result in any
additional filtrate within any 2 minute
period), stop the filtration.
Note: Instantaneous application of high
. pressure can degrade the glass fiber filter and
may cause premature plugging.
7.1.1.8 The material in the filter holder is
defined as the solid phase of the waste, and
the filtrate is defined as the liquid phase.
Note: Some wastes, such as oily wastes
and some paint wastes, will obviously
contain some material that appears to be a
liquid. Even after applying vacuum or
pressure filtration, as outlined in section
7.1.1,7, this material may not filter. If this is
the case, the material within the filtration
device is defined as a solid. Do not replace
the original filter with a fresh filter under any
circumstances. Use only one filter.
7.1.1.9 Determine the weight of the liquid
phase by subtracting the weight of the filtrate
container (see section 7.1,1.3) from the total
weight of the filtrate-filled container.
Determine the weight of the solid phase of
the waste sample by subtracting the weight
of the liquid phase from the weight of the
total waste sample, ai determined in section
7.1.1 J or 7.1.1.7.
Record the weight of the liquid and solid
phases. Calculate the percent solids as
follows:
Percent solids
Weight of solid (section 7.1.1 M]
Total weight of waste (section 7.1.1.5 or 7.1.1.7)
X100
-------
26990 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 128 / Friday. June 29, 1990 /Rules and Regulations
7.1.2 If the percent solids determined in
section 7.1.1.9 is equal to or greater than 0.5%,
then proceed either to section 7.1.3 to
determine whether the solid material requires
particle size reduction or to section 7.1.2.1 if it
is noticed that a small amount of the filtrate
is entrained in wetting Of the filter. If the
percent solids determined in section 7.1.1.9 is
less than 0.5%, then proceed to section 7.2.9 if
the nonvolatile TCLP is to be performed and
to section 7.3 with a fresh portion of the
waste if the volatile TCLP is to be performed.
7.1.2.1 Remove the solid phase and filter
from the filtration apparatus.
7.1.2.2 Dry the filter and solid phase at
1QQ± 20°C until two successive weighings
yield the same value within ± 1%. Record the
final weight
Note: Caution should be taken to ensure
that the subject solid will not flash upon
heating. It is recommended that the drying
oven be vented to a hood or other
appropriate device.
7.1.2.3 Calculate the percent dry solids as
follows:
dry solids
(Weight of dry waste-I-filter]—tared weight of filter
Initial weight of waste (section 7.1.1.5 or 7.1.1.7)
'XlOO
7.1.2.4 If the percent dry solids is less
than 0.5%, then proceed to section 7.2.9 if the
nonvolatile TCLP is to be performed, and to
section 7.3 if the volatile TCLP is to be
performed. If the percent dry solids is greater
than or equal to 0.5%, and if the nonvolatile
TCLP is to be performed, return to the
beginning of this section (7.1) and, with a
fresh portion of waste, determine whether
particle size reduction is necessary (section
7.1.3) and determine the appropriate
extraction fluid (section 7.1.4). If only the
volatile TCLP is to be performed, see the note
in section 7.1.4.
7.1.3 Determination of whether the waste
requires particle size reduction (particle size
is reduced during this step): Using the solid
portion of the waste, evaluate the solid for
particle size. Particle size reduction is
required unless the solid has a surface area
pur gram of material equal to or greater than
3.1 cm3, or is smaller than 1 cm in its
narrowest dimension (i.e.. is capable of
passing through a 9.5 mm (0.375 inch)
standard sieve). If the surface area is smaller
or the particle size larger than described
above, prepare the solid portion of the waste
for extraction by crashing, cutting, or grinding
the waste to a surface area or particle size as
described above. If the solids are prepared
for organic volatites extraction, special
precautions must be taken (see section 7.3.6).
Note: Surface area criteria are meant for
filamentous (e.g., paper, cloth, and similar]
waste materials. Actual measurement of
surface area is not required nor is it
recommended. For materials that do not
obviously meet the criteria, sample-specific
methods would need to be developed and
employed to measure the surface area. Such
methodology is currently not available.
7.1,4 Determination of appropriate
extraction fluid: If the solid content of the
waste is greater than or equal to 0.5% and if
the sample will be extracted for nonvolatile
constituents (section 7,2), determine the
appropriate fluid (section 5.7) for the
nonvoiatilea extraction as follows:
Note: TCLP extraction for volatile
constituents uses only extraction fluid #1
(section 5.7.1). Therefore, if TCLP extraction
for nonvolatile! is not required, proceed to
section 7.3.
7.1.4.1 Weigh out a small subsample of
the solid phase of the waste, reduce the solid
(if necessary) to a particle aiie of
approximately 1 mm in diameter or less, and
transfer 5.0 grams of the solid phase of the
waste to a 500 mL beaker or Erlenrneyer
flask.
7.1.4.2 Add 98.5 mL of reagent water to
the beaker, cover with a watchglass, and stir
vigorously for 5 minutes using a magnetic
stirrer. Measure and record the pH. If the pH
is <5.0, use extraction fluid #1. Proceed to
section 7.2.
7,1.4.3 If the pH from section 7.1.4.2 is •
>5.0, add 3.5 mL IN NCI, slurry briefly, cover
with a watchglass, heat to 50°C, and hold at
50*C for 10 minutes.
7,1.4,4 Let the solution cool to room
temperature and record the pH. If the pH is
<5.0, use extraction fluid #1. If the pH is
>5.0, use extraction fluid #2. Proceed to
section 72.
7.1.S If the aliquot of the waste used for
the preliminary evaluation (sections 7.1.1-
7.1.4) was determined to be 100% solid at
section 7.1.1.1, then it can be used for the
section 72 extraction (assuming at least 100
grams remain), and the section 7,3 extraction
(assuming at least 25 grams remain). If the
aliquot was subjected to the procedure in
section 7.1.1.7, then another aliquot shall be
used for the volatile extraction procedure to
section 7.3. The aliquot of the waste
subjected to the procedure in section 7.1.1.7
might be appropriate for use for the section
7.2 extraction if an adequate amount of solid
(as determined by section 7.1.1.9) was
obtained The amount of solid necessary is
dependent upon whether a sufficient amount
of extract will be produced to support the
analyses. If an adequate amount of solid
remain*, proceed to section 7.2.10 of the
nonvolatile TCLP extraction.
7.2 Procedure When Volatiles are not
Involved. A minimum sample size of 100
grams (solid and liquid phases) is
recommended. In some cases, a larger sample
size may be appropriate, depending on the
solids content of the waste sample (percent
solids. See section 7.1.1), whether the initial
liquid phase of the waste will be miscible
with the aqueous extract of the solid, and
whether inorganics, semivolatile organics.
pesticides, and herbicides are all analytes of
concern. Enough solids should be generated
for extraction such that the volume of TCLP
extract will be sufficient to support all of the
analyses required. If the amount of extract
generated by • single TCLP extraction will
not be sufficient to perform all of the
analyses, more than one extraction may be
performed and the extracts from each
combined and aliquoted for analysis.
7.2.1 If the waste will obviously yield no
liquid when subjected to pressure filtration
(i.e., is 100% solid see section 7.1.1), weigh
out a subsample of the waste (100 gram
minimum) and proceed to section 7.2.9.
7.2.2 If the sample is liquid or multiphasic,
liquid/solid separation is required. This
involves the filtration device described in
section 4,3.2 and is outlined in sections 7.2.3
to 7.2.8.
7.2,3 Pre-weigh the container that will
receive the filtrate.
7.2.4 Assemble the filter holder and filter
following the manufacturer's instructions.
Place the filter on the support screen and
secure. Acid-wash the filter if evaluating the
mobility of metals (see section 4,4).
Note: Acid-washed filters may be used for
all nonvolatile extractions even when metals
are not of concern.
7,2.5 Weigh out a subsample of the waste
(100 gram minimum) and record the weight If
the waste contains 0.5% dry solids (sections 7.1.1 or 7.1.2), use
the percent solids information obtained in
section 7.1.1 to determine the optimum
sample size (100 gram minimum) for filtration.
Enough solids should be generated by
filtration to support the analyses to be
performed on the TCLP extract.
7.2.6 Allow slurries to stand to permit the
solid phase to settle. Wastes that settle
slowly may be centrifuged prior to filtration.
lisa centrifugation only as an aid to filtration,
If the waste is centrifuged, the liquid should
be decanted and filtered followed by
filtration of the solid portion of the waste
through the same filtration system.
7.2.7 Quantitatively transfer the waste
sample (liquid and solid phases) to the filter
holder (see section 4.3.2). Spread the waste
sample evenly over the surface of the filter. If
filtration of the waste at 4 *C reduces the
amount of expressed liquid over what would
be expressed at room temperature, then
allow the sample to warm up to room
temperature in the device before filtering.
Note: If waste material (>1% of the original
•ample weight) has obviously adhered to the
container used to transfer the sample to the
filtration apparatus, determine the weight of
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 128 / Friday, June 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations . 26991
this residue and subtract it from the sample
weight determined in section 7.2.5, to
determine the weight of the waste sample
that will be filtered.
Gradually apply vacuum or gentle pressure
of 1-10 psi, until air or pressurizing gas moves
through the filter. If this point is reached
under 10 psi, and if no additional liquid has
passed through the filter in any 2 minute
interval slowly increase the pressure in 10
psi increments to a maximum of SO psi. After
each incremental Increase of 10 psi, if the
pressurizing gas has not moved through the
filter, and if no additional liquid has passed
through the filter in any 2 minute interval,
proceed to the next 10 psi increment. When
the pressurizing gas begins to move through
the filter, or when the liquid flow has ceased
at 50 psi (i.e., filtration does not result in any
additional filtrate within a 2 minute period),
stop the filtration.
Note: Instantaneous application of high
pressure can degrade the glass fiber filter and
may cause premature plugging.
7.2.8 The material in the filter holder is
defined as the solid phase of the waste, and
the filtrate is defined as the liquid phase.
Weigh the filtrate. The liquid phase may now
be either analyzed (See section 7.2.12) or
stored at 4*C until time of analysis.
Note: Some wastes, such as oily wastes
and some paint wastes, will obviously
contain some material that appears to be a
liquid. Even after applying vacuum or
pressure filtration, as outlined in section 7.2.7,
this material may not filter. If this is the case,
the material within the filtration device Is
defined as a solid and ia carried through the
extraction as a solid. Do not replace the
original filter with a fresh filter under any
circumstances. Use only one filter.
7.2.S If the waste contains <0.5S? dry
solids (see section 7.1.2), proceed to section
7.2.13, If the waste contains >0.5% dry solids
(see section 7.1.1 or 7.1.2J, and if particle size
reduction of the solid was needed in section
7.1.3, proceed to section 7.2.10. If the waste as
received passes a 9.5 mm sieve.
quantitatively transfer the solid material into
the extractor bottle along with the filter used
to separate the initial liquid from the solid
phase, and proceed to section 7.2.11.
7.2.10 Prepare the solid portion of the
waste for extraction by crushing, cutting, or
grinding the waste to a surface area or
particle size as described in section 7.1.3.
When the surface area or particle size has
been appropriately altered, quantitatively
transfer the solid material into an extractor
bottle. Include the filter used to separate the
initial liquid from the solid phase.
Note; Sieving of the waste is not normally
required. Surface area requirements are
meant for filamentous (e.g., paper, cloth) and
similar waste materials. Actual measurement
of surface area is not recommended. If
sieving is necessary, a Teflon-coated sieve
should be used to avoid contamination of the
sample.
7.2.11 Determine the amount of extraction
fluid to add to the extractor vessel as follows:
Weight of extraction fluid =
20x percent solids (section 7.1.1) X weight of waste filtered (section 7i5 or 7.2.7)
100
Slowly add this amount of appropriate
extraction fluid (see section 7.1.4) to the
extractor vessel Close the extractor bottle
tightly (it is recommended that Teflon tape be
used to ensure a tight seal), secure in rotary
agitation device, and rotate at 30 ± 2 rpm for
18 ± 2 boon. Ambient temperature (i.e..
temperature of room in which extraction
takes place) shall be maintained at 23 ± 2*C
during the extraction period.
Note: As agitation continues, pressure may
build 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 (e.g., after IS minutes, 30
minutes, and 1 hour) and vented into a hood.
7.2.12 Following the 18 ± 2 hour
extraction, separate the material in the
extractor vessel into its component liquid and
solid phases by filtering through m new glass
fiber filter, as outlined in section 7.2.7, For
final filtration of the TCLP extract the glass
fiber filter may be changed, if necessary, to
facilitate filtration. Filters) shall be acid-
washed (see section 4.4} if evaluating the
mobility of metals.
7.2.13 Prepare the TCLP extract as
follows:
7.2.13.1 If the waste contained no initial
liquid phase, the filtered liquid material
obtained from section 7.2.12 is defined as the
TCLP extract. Proceed to section 7.2.14.
7.2.13.2 If compatible (e.g., multiple
phases will not result on combination),
combine the filtered liquid resulting tram
section 7.2.12 with the initial liquid phase of
the waste obtained in section 7,2.7. This
combined liquid is defined as the TCLP
extract. Proceed to section 7.2.14.
7.2,13.3 If the initial liquid phase of the
waste, as obtained from section 7.2.7, is not
or may not be compatible with the filtered
liquid resulting from section 7.2.12. do not
combine these liquids. Analyze these liquids,
collectively defined as the TCLP extract, and
combine the results mathematically, as
described in section 7.2.14.
72.14 Following collection of the TCLP
extract, the pH of the extract should be
recorded. Immediately aliquot and preserve
the extract for analysis. Metals aliquots must
be acidified with nitric acid to pH <2, If
precipitation is observed upon addition of
nitric acid to a small aliquot of the extract
then the remaining portion of the extract for
metals analyses shall not be acidified and the
extract shall be analyzed as soon as possible.
All other aliquota must be stored under
refrigeration (4 *C) until analyzed. The TCLP
extract shall be prepared and analyzed
according to appropriate analytical methods.
TCLP extracts to be analyzed for metals shall
be acid digested except in those instances
where digestion causes loss of metallic
analytes. If an analysis of the undigested
extract shows that the concentration of any
regulated metallic analyte exceeds the
regulatory level, then the waste is hazardous
and digestion of the extract is not necessary.
However, data on undigested extracts alone
cannot be used to demonstrate that the waste
U not hazardous. If the individual phases are
to be analyzed separately, determine the
volume of the individual phases (to ± 0.5%),
conduct the appropriate analyses, and
combine the results mathematically by using
a simple volume-weighted average:
Final Analyte
Concentration
where:
v,+v,
Vt —The volume of the Brut phase (L).
Ci =The concentration of the analyte of
concern in the first phase (mg/L).
Vj=The volume of the second phase (LL
Cj=The concentration of the analyte of
concern in the second phase (mg/L).
7.2.15 Compare the analyte
concentrations in the TCLP extract with the
levels identified in the appropriate
regulations. Refer to section 8.0 for quality
assurance requirements.
7,3 Procedure When Volatiles are
Involved. Use the ZHE device to obtain TCLP
extract for analysis of volatile compounds
only. Extract resulting from the use of the
ZHE shall not be used to evaluate the
mobility of nonvolatile analytes (e.g., metals,
pesticides, etc).
The ZHE device has approximately a 500
ml internal capacity. The £HE can thus
accommodate a maximum of 25 grams of
solid (defined as that fraction of a sample
from which no additional liquid may be
forced out by an applied pressure of 50 psi],
due to the need to add an amount of
extraction fluid equal to 20 times the weight
of the solid phase.
Charge the ZHE with sample only once and
do not open the device until the final extract
(of the solid) has been collected. Repeated
filling of the ZHE to obtain 25 grains of solid
is not permitted.
Do not allow the waste, the initial liquid
phase, or the extract to be exposed to the
atmosphere for any more time than is
absolutely necessary. Any manipulation of
these materials should be done when cold
(4*C) to minimize loss of volatiles.
7.3.1 Pre-weigh the (evacuated) filtrate
collection container (See section 4.6) and set
aside. If using a TEDLAR* bag, express ail
liquid from the ZHE device into the bag.
-------
26992 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 126 / Friday. June 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
whether for the initial or final liquid/solid
separation, and take an aliquot from the
liquid in the bag for analysis. The containers
listed in section 4.6 are recommended for use
under the conditions stated in sections 4.8.1-
4.6.3.
7.3.2 Place the ZHE piston within the
body of the ZHE (it may be helpful first to
moisten the piston O-rings slightly with
extraction fluid). Adjust the piston within the
ZHE body to a height that will minimize the
distance the piston will have to move once
the ZHE is charged with sample (based upon
sample size requirements determined from
section 7.3, section 7.1.1 and/or 7.1.2). Secure
the gas inlet/outlet flange (bottom flange)
onto the ZHE body in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions. Secure the glass
fiber filter between the support screens and
set aside. Set liquid inlet/outlet flange (top
flange) aside.
7.3.3 If the waste is 100% solid (see
section 7.1.1), weigh out a subsample (25
gram maximum) of the waste, record weight,
and proceed to section 7.3.5.
7.3.4 If the waste contains <5% dry solids
(section 7.1.2), the liquid portion of waste,
after filtration, is defined as the TCLP
extract. Filter enough of the sample so that
the amount of filtered liquid will support all
of the volatile analyses required. For wastes
containing >5% dry solids (sections 7.1.1
and/or 7.1.2), use the percent solids
information obtained in section 7.1.1 to
determine the optimum sample size to charge
into the ZHE. The recommended sample size
is as follows:
7.3.4.1 For wastes containing <5% solids
(see Section 7.1.1), weigh out a 500 gram
subsample of waste and record the weight.
7.3.4.2 For wastes containing > 5% solids
(see Section 7.1.1), determine the amount of
waste to charge into the ZHE as follows:
Weight of waste to charge ZHE
25
percent solids (section 7.1.1)
•X100
Weigh out a subsample of the waste of the •
appropriate size and record the weight.
7.3.5 If particle size reduction of the solid
portion of the waste was required in section
7.1.3, proceed to section 7.3.6. If particle size
reduction was not required in section 7.1.3,
proceed to section 7.3.7.
7.3.6 Prepare the waste for extraction by
crushing, cutting, or grinding the solid portion
of the waste to a surface area or particle size
as described in section 7.1.3.1. Wastes and
appropriate reduction equipment should be
refrigerated, if possible, to 4'C prior to
particle size reduction. The means used to
effect particle size reduction must not
generate heat In and of itself. If reduction of
the solid phase of the waste is necessary,
exposure of the waste to the atmosphere
should be avoided to the extent possible.
Note: Sieving of the waste is not
recommended due to the possibility that
volatiles may be lost The use of an
appropriately graduated ruler is
recommended as an acceptable alternative.
Surface area requirements are meant for
filamentous (e.g., paper, cloth) and similar
waste materials. Actual measurement of
surface area is not recommended.
When the surface area or particle size has
been appropriately altered, proceed to
section 7.3.7.
7.3.7 Waste slurries need not be allowed
to stand to permit the solid phase to settle.
Do not centrifuge wastes prior to filtration.
7.3.8 Quantitatively transfer the entire
sample (liquid and solid phases) quickly to
the ZHE. Secure the filter and support
screens onto the top flange of the device and
secure the top flange to the ZHE body in
accordance with the manufacturer';
instructions. Tighten all ZHE fittings and
place the device in the vertical position (gas
inlet/outlet flange on the bottom). Do not
attach the extract collection device to the top
plate.
Note: If waste material (>1% of original
sample weight) has obviously adhered to the
container used to transfer the sample to the
ZHE, determine the weight of this residue
and subtract it from the sample weight
determined in section 7.3.4 to determine the
weight of the waste sample that will be
filtered.
Attach a gas line to the gas inlet/outlet
valve (bottom flange) and, with the liquid
inlet/outlet valve (top flange) open, begin
applying gentle pressure of 1-10 psi (or more
if necessary) to force all headspace slowly
out of the ZHE device into a hood. At the first
appearance of liquid from the liquid inlet/
outlet valve, quickly close the valve and
discontinue pressure. If filtration of the waste
at 4 *C reduces the amount of expressed
liquid over what would be expressed at room
temperature, then allow the sample to warm
up to room temperature in the device before
filtering. If the waste is 100% solid (see
section 7.1.1), slowly increase the pressure to
a maximum of 50 psi to force most of the
headspace out of the device and proceed to
section 7.3.12.
7.3.9 Attach the evacuated pre-weighed
filtrate collection container to the liquid
inlet/outlet valve and open the valve. Begin
applying gentle pressure of 1-10 psi to force
the liquid phase of the sample 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 increments to a maximum of 50 psi. After
each incremental increase of 10 psi, if no
additional liquid has passed through the filter
in any 2 minute interval, proceed to the next
10 psi increment When liquid flow has
ceased such that continued pressure filtration
at 50 psi does not result in any additional
filtrate within a 2 minute period, stop the
filtration. Close the liquid inlet/outlet valve,
discontinue pressure to the piston, and
disconnect and weigh the filtrate collection
container.
Note: Instantaneous application of high
pressure can degrade the glass fiber filter and
may cause premature plugging.
7.3.10 The material in the ZHE is defined
as the solid phase of the waste and the
filtrate is defined as the liquid phase.
Note: Some wastes, such as oily wastes
and some paint wastes, will obviously
contain some material that appears to be a
liquid. Even after applying pressure filtration,
this material will not filter. If this is the case,
the material within the filtration device is
defined as a solid and is carried through the
TCLP extraction as a solid.
If the original waste contained <0.53S dry
solids (see section 7.1.2), this filtrate is
defined as the TCLP extract and is analyzed
directly. Proceed to section 7.3.15.
7.3.11 The liquid phase may now be either
analyzed immediately (See sections 7.3.13
through 7.3.15) or stored at 4'C under minimal
headspace conditions until time of analysis.
Determine the weight of extraction fluid #1
to add to the ZHE as follows:
Weight of extraction fluid =
20 x percent solids (section 7.1.1) x weight of waste filtered (section 7.3.4 or 7.3.8)
100
.OJ.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol 55. No. 126 / Friday. June 29. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 2899H
7.3.12 The following sections detail how
to add the appropriate amount of extraction
fluid to the solid material within the ZHE and
agitation of the ZHE vessel. Extraction fluid
#11» used in all cases (See section 5.7).
7.3.12.1 With the ZHE in the vertical
position, attach a line from the extraction
fluid reservoir to the liquid inlet/outlet valve.
The line used shall contain fresh extraction
fluid and should be preflushed with fluid to
eliminate any air pockets in the line. Release
gas pressure on the ZHE piston [from the gas
Inlet/outlet valve), open the liquid inlet/
outlet valve, and begin transferring extraction
fluid (by pumping or similar means) into the
ZHE. Continue pumping extraction fluid into
the ZHE until the appropriate amount of fluid
has been introduced into the device.
7.3.12.2 After the extraction fluid has
been added, immediately close the liquid
inlet/outlet valve and disconnect the
extraction fluid line. Check the ZHE to ensure
that all valves are in their closed positions.
Manually rotate the device in an end-over-
end fashion 2 or 3 times. Reposition the ZHE
in the vertical position with the liquid inlet/
outlet valve on top. Pressurize the ZHE to §-
10 psi (if necessary) and slowly open the
liquid inlet/outlet valve to bleed out any
headspace (into a hood) that may have been
introduced 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 S-10 psi and check all ZHE fittings to
ensure that they are closed
7.3.12.3 Place the ZHE in the rotary
agitation apparatus (if it is not already there)
and rotate at 30 ± 2 rpm for IB ± 2 hours.
Ambient temperature (i.e., temperature of
room in which extraction occurs) shall be
maintained at 22 ± 3'C during agitation,
7,3.13 Following the 18 ± 2 hour agitation
period, check the pressure behind the ZHE
piston by quickly opening and closing the gas
inlet/outlet valve and noting the escape of
gas. If the pressure has not been maintained
(i.e., no gas release observed), the dtvice is
leaking. Check the ZHE for leaking as
specified in section 4.2.1, and perform the
extraction again with a new sample of waste.
If the pressure within the device has been
maintained, the material in the extractor
vessel is once again separated into its
component liquid and solid phases. If the
waste contained 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 the
waste. A separate filtrate collection container
must be used if combining would create
multiple phases, or there is not enough
volume left within the filtrate collection
container. Filter through the glass fiber filter.
using the ZHE device as discussed in section
7,3.9. All extract shall be filtered and
collected if the TEDLAR* bag is used, if the
extract is multiphasic, or if the waste
contained an initial liquid phase (see sections
4.6 and 7.3.1).
Note: An in-line glass fiber filter may be
used to filter the material within the ZHE if it
is suspected that the glass fiber filter has
been ruptured.
7,3.14 If the original waste contained no
initial liquid phase, the filtered liquid
material obtained from section 7.3.13 is
defined as the TCLP extract If the waste
contained an initial liquid phase, the filtered
liquid material obtained from section 7.3.13
and the initial liquid phase (section 7,3.9) are
collectively defined as the TCLP extract
7.3.15 Following collection of the TCLP
extract, immediately prepare the extract for
analysis and store with minimal headspace at
4*C until analyzed. Analyze the TCLP extract
according to the appropriate analytical
methods. If the individual phases are to be
analyzed separately (i.e.. are not miscible).
determine the volume of the individual
phases (to 0.5%), conduct the appropriate
analyses, and combine the results
mathematically by using a simple volume-
weighted average:
Final Analtye
Concentration
CVi)(C.)+fV,)(Cj_
V.+V,
where: • • •
Vi =The volume of the first phases (L).
Ci=The concentration of the analyte of
concern in the first phase (mg/L).
Vj=The volume of the second phase (L).
Cj=The concentration of the analyte of
concern in the second phase (mg/L),
7.3.18 Compare the analyte
concentrations in th« TCLP extract with the
levels identified in the appropriate
regulations. Refer to section 8.0 for quality
assurance requirements.
8.0 Quality Assurance
8,1 A minimum of one blank (using the
same extraction fluid as used for the
samples) must be analyzed for every 20
extractions that have been conducted in an
extraction vessel.
8.2 A matrix spike shall be performed for
each waste type (e.g., wastewater treatment
sludge, contaminated soil etc.) unless the
result exceeds the regulatory level and the
data is being used solely to demonstrate that
the waste property exceeds the regulatory
level. A minimum of one matrix spike must
be analyzed for each analytical batch. The
bias determined from the matrix spike
determination shall be used to correct the
measured values. (See sections 8,2.4 and
8.2.5.) As a minimum, follow the matrix spike
addition guidance provided in each analytical
method.
8,2.1 Matrix spikes are to be added after
filtration of the TCLP extract and before
preservation. Matrix spikes should not be
added prior to TCLP extraction of the sample.
8.2.2 In most cases, matrix spikes should
be added at a concentration equivalent to the
corresponding regulatory level. If the analyte
concentration is less than one half the
regulatory level, the spike concentration may
be as low as one half of the analyte
concentration, but may not be not less than
five times the method detection limit, in order
to avoid differences in matrix effects, the
matrix spikes must be added to the same
nominal volume of TCLP extract as that
which was analyzed for the unspiked sample. •
8.2.3 The purpose of the matrix spike is to
monitor the performance of the analytical
methods used, and to determine whether
matrix interferences exist Use of other
internal calibration methods, modification of
the analytical methods, or use of alternate
analytical methods may be needed to
accurately measure the analyte concentration
of the TCLP extract when the recovery of the
matrix spike is below the expected analytical
method performance.
8.2.4 Matrix spike recoveries are
calculated by the following formula:
SR [% Recovery)=100 [X.-XJ/K
where:
X,=measured value for the spiked sample,
Xu=measured value for the unspiked sample,
and
K = known value of the spike in the sample.
8.2.5 Measured values are corrected for
analytical bias using the following formula:
X«=100(XJ%R)
where:
Xt=corrected value, and
Xu=measured value of the unspiked sample,
8.3 All quality control measures described
in the appropriate analytical methods shall
be followed.
8.4 Samples must undergo TCLP
extraction within the following time periods:
-------
26993 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
SAMPLE MAXIMUM HOLDING TIMES (DAYS)
VOlatilflfF » .Jj™. J..™j..« 1,1 .« . i i««n r t ml '. -.„..!.! MB M. 1. » .......^
"SiMnfunlfllj!^
Momny
M«saK Bxeaet mwcuw
iw^n
From:
Reid
collection
tttTCLP
extraction
14
14
28
180
From:
TCLP
extraction
tot
Prcpara*
live
extraction
NA
7
NA
NA
Front
prepara-
tive
extraction
la
determi-
native
analysis
14
40
28
180
Total
efaosed
time
28
61
58
360
NA-Not applicable.
If sample holding times are exceeded,
the values obtained will be considered
minimal concentrations. Exceeding the
holding time is not acceptable in
establishing that a waste does not
exceed the-regulatory teveL Exceeding
the holding time will not invalidate
characterization if the waste exceeds
> the regulatory level.
TABLE t.—VOLATILE ANAL*TES '•*
TABLE 2.—SUITABLE ROTARY AGITATION
APPARATUS r—Continued
TABLE 4.—SurrABLE FILTER HOLDERS
Compoumf
AtfltOrlfl .„..._..,.. L ,, ; LU,!,.!,,,,,,,,,!!,,!,,!,..,
p.B^tfc^jf ' " '
rtytaiff 1WnM>MfK<4f
1 t^jK^jf^tnytonw „. ,....„„„...„„„,.
Ethyl. acetate ......n, ,„
Flhyl S«17v»n^ -,-,-,-„,„„
Ethyl 'ether — ...„„ m^..,.,
IfiithutiBOf...,......,.,.,,,,, -„-„-, - -,-m, ,,
MathyhHW ehtente _, .„. ,___,_„ __
^^>yf otnyl 'Mtorw
Mattlyl Ki/yurfytk^VTrui „
TTr*SilOrO-1A^trMuofoe»ane-_.
Vmyl rhl/XKfct ..„.,....., „,..,...,.....
CAS No.
67-64-1
71-43-2
- 7t-3S-3
75-15-0
56-23-5
108-80-7
87-66-3
W7-06-2
75-35-4
141-78-6
100-41-4
60-29-7
78-63-1
67-56-1
75-09-2
78-93-3
108-10-1
t27-ti-4
108-88-3
71-55-6
75-69-4
76-13-1
75-01-4
1330-20-7
zaro-headspace extractor vessel sftaK be used in-
stead of tfto t» We extractor.
•Benzenev carbon tetracWoode. cMoroberaerte,
methyl etfiyi ketone, totrachloroefrtylene, tncrilor-
pethytena, and vinyl cftonde are toxicity crwactens-
tic consttluents.
TABLE 2. — SUITABLE ROTARY AGITATION
APPARATUS *
Company
Analytics*
Testing and'
Consuttrtg
Services, Inc.
tocation
Warrington. PA.
(2T5) 343-
4490.
Model No.
4-vessef
(DC20SJ, 8-
vessel
(DC20k12-
vessel
(OC20B).
Company
Assodatad
Design and
Manufactur-
ing Company.
Errwon rnentat
Machine and
Design, Inc..
IRA Machine-
Shop and
Latxxatory.
Lars Land*
Manufactur-
ing.
M;IHpore Corp: —
Locatoo
Alexandria VA,
(703) 549-
5998.
Lynchburg, VA,
(804) 845-
6424.
Samurce. PR,
(809) 752-
" 4004.
WNtmore take.
Ml. (31 3>
449-4116.
Bedford. MA.
(800)225-
3384.
Modal No.
2-vessei (3740-
2).4-vessal
(3740-«).«-
vesse4p74O-
6),6-vessel
(3740-8). 12-
vessel (3740-
12), 24-
vessel (3740-
24).
Odessa) (08-
00-00)4-
vesset (04-
00-00).
8- vessel
(011001).
10-vessel
(01VRE), 5-
vesset
(5VRE).
4.2H60T41.
Her, bottfe
•x5ractoft
(rraooRAHW).
Company
Hocleo-
pore
Corpo-
ration.
Micro
FiHra-
tton
Sys-
tents.
Mitllpws
Corpo-
ration.
Location
Pleaaan-
ton,
CA,
(800)
882-
7711.
Dublin,
CA,
(800)
334-
7132,
828-
6010.
Bedford,
MA,
(800)
225-
3364.
Model/catalogue
425910
410400
302400
311400
YT30142KW
XX10047OO
Saa
142mm,
47
mm.
142mm,
47
mm.
142mm,
47
mm.
1 Any device that routes the extraction vessel in
an end-over-snd fashion at 30 ± Z rpm is accepta-
ble.
TAtLE 3.— SUITABLE ZeRO-HEAospAce
EXTRACTOR VESSELS »
> Any device capable at separating the liquid from
the torn phase of the waste is suitable, providing
that H « cfiemicafly compatible with tfte waste and
the constituent* to be analyzed. Plastic device* (rat
lined above) may be used when only inorganic
«nalyt*» are of concern. The 142 mm size Mter
holder is recommended.
TABLE 5.—SUTTABLE FILTER MEDIA
Company
Analytical
Testing A
Consulting
Services, loc-
Asscoaterf
DesiQnand
Manufactur-
ing Company.
LarsLande
Manufactur-
ing '.
Miltipora
Corporation;
Environmental
Machine and
Design, (nc.
Location
Warnngltx..PA.
(215) 343-
4490.
Atexandria VA,
(703)549-
5999.
WhHmore Lake,
Ml, (313)
449-4116.
Bedford. MA,
(800) 225-
3384.
Lyncnburg, VA,
(804)845-
6424.
Modal No.
C102,
Mechanical
Pressure
Device.
3745-ZHE, Gaa
Pressure
Device.
ZHE-11. Gas
Pressure
Device.
YT30090HW,
Gas Pressure
Device.
VOLA-TOX1,
" Gas Pressure
Device.
Company .
MiUipofv
Corporation.
Niideopore
Corporation.
Whatman
Laboratory
Products.
Inc..
Micro Filtration
Systems.
location
Bedford, MA.
(800)225-
3384.
Pteftssntort,
CA.(415)
483-2530.
C8fton,KJ.
(201J773-
5800.
Outtn,CA,
(800)334-
7132, (415)
828-6010.
Model
AP40
211625
SFF
GF75
POM
Size
(>!">)
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
> Any filter that meets me specifications in section
4.4 of me Method is suitable.
BILUIWl COO£ SMO-SO-*
1 Any device mat metis trie specifications listed in
section 4.2.1. of ffw method is acceptable.
*TNs device uses a 110 mm fitter.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 128 / Friday, June 29,1990 / Rules and Regulations 26995
Motor
(30 ± 2 rpm)
Extraction Vessel Holder
Figure 1. Rotary Agitation Apparatus
-------
26398
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 126 / Friday, June 29,1980 / Rules and Regulations
Liquid Inlet/Outlet Vaivs
CTP lh C~3
"fep Flanf e—*»P
Support SerseR
Vlton o-rings
iottom Ranga—H-
Pressurized Ga
Intet/OutJst \felv9
Pressure
Gauga
Figure 2. Zerc-Headspace Ixtractoi: (ZHS)
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 128 / Friday. June 29,1990 / Rules and Regulations
METHOD 1311
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHATE PROCEDURE
26997
CD
<
Sepc
liquids
solids
0.6 - \
glass
fill
1
irate
. from
, with <0.
0.5 um
fiber
[er
P
Discard
solids
f START]
i
t
Use a
sub-sample of
waste
1
t
55* the % ^
solids in the
wasie?
1
Exa
so
100%
i
mine ^_
ids
CD
Sepc
n e~ liquids
°-5% . soiids
0.6-1
glass
fill
i
Liquid
irate
from
> with
3.8 um
fiber
\er
Solid
Yes
No
Extract with
appropriate fluid
1) Bottle extractor
for non-volatiles
2) ZHE device for
volatiles
Reduce
particle size
to <9.5 mm
B
-------
26998
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 126 / Friday, June 29,1990 / Rules and Regulations
METHOD 1311 (CONTINUED)
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHATE PROCEDURE
C
B
J
Separate
extract from
solids with
0.6 - 0.8 um
glass fiber
filter
Store liquid
at 4 C
liquid
compatible
with the
extract?.
Combine
extract with
liquid phase
of waste
Analyze
liquid
(jw>
B
/
h
;e
\.
Measure
liauid an
•^ No (mathe
^k^^___A. T •
/ * combine
result o
ana
amount of
d analyze
matically
result with
f extract
lysis) '
[FR Doc. 90-15048 Filed 8-28-90; 8:45 am]
BILLING COM «SW-SO-C
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. '9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
31387
release of the Secretary's right to collect
a debt owing to the United States under
this paragraph and/or under paragraph
(a) of this section provided such official
determines:
(i) The loan default was caused by
circumstances beyond Ihe control of the
obligor;
(ii) There are no indications of fraud,
material fault, misrepresentation or bad
faith on the part of the obligor in
obtaining the loan or in connection with
the loan default;
(iii) The obligor cooperated with VA
in exploring all realistic alternatives to
termination of the loan through
foreclosure; and, either
(iv) Review of the obligor's current
financial situation and prospective
earning potential and obligations
indicates there are no realistic prospects
that the obligor could repay all or part of
the anticipated debt within six years of
the liquidation sale while providing Ihe
necessities of life for himself or herself
and his or her family; or,
(v) In consideration for a release of
the Secretary's collection rights the
obligor completes, or VA is enabled to
authorize, an action which reduces the
Government's claim liability sufficiently
to offset the amount of the anticipated
indebtedness which would otherwise be
established pursuant to this paragraph
and likely be collectable by VA after
foreclosure in view of the obligor's
financial situation; such actions would
include termination of the loan by
means of a deed in lieu of foreclosure,
private sale of the property for less than
the Indebtedness with a reduced claim
paid by VA for the balance due the loan
holder or enabling VA to authorize the
holder to elect a more expeditious
foreclosure procedure when such an
election would result in the legal release
of the obligor's liability.
(2) Prior to a liquidation sale, an
official authorized to act for the
Secretary under provisions of section
4342 of this part may approve a partial
release of the Secretary's right to collect
a debt owing to the United States under
this paragraph and/or under paragraph
(a) of this section provided such official
determines:
(i) The loan default was caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the
obligon
(ii} There are no indications of fraud,
material fault, misrepresentation or bad
faith on the part of the obligor in
obtaining the loan or in connection with
the loan default;
(iii) The obligor cooperated with VA
in exploring all realistic alternatives to
termination of the loan through
foreclosure;
(iv) Review of the obligor's current
financial situation and prospective
earning potential.and obligations
indicates there are no realistic prospects
that the obligor could repay all of the
anticipated debt within six years of the
liquidation sale while providing the
necessities of life for himself or herself
and his or her family; and,
(v) The obligor executes a written
agreement acknowledging his or her
liability to VA under this paragraph and
executes a promissory note which
provides for regular amortized monthly
payments of an amount determined by
VA in accordance with paragraph (e)(3)
of this section including interest on the
total amount payable at the rate in
effect for Loan Guaranty liability
accounts at the time of execution, or, the
obligor agrees to other terms of
repayment acceptable to VA including
payment of a lump sum in settlement of
his or her obligation under this
paragraph;
(3) For purposes of this paragraph a
review of an obligor's financial situation
will take into consideration:
(i] The obligor's current and
anticipated family income based on
employment skills and experience;
(ii) The obligor's current short-term
and long-term financial obligations,
including the obligation to repay the
Government which must be afforded
consideration at least equal to his or her
consumer debt obligations;
(iii) A current credit report on the
obligor;
(iv) The obligor's assets and net
worth; and,
(v) The required balance available for
family support used in underwriting VA
guaranteed loans in the area.
The amount of indebtedness
established will be such that the
obligor's financial situation permits
repayment of the debt to the
Government in regular monthly
installments of principal plus interest
over a five year period commencing
within one year after the date the
promissory note is executed, except in
those cases in which a lump sum
settlement appears to be in the best
interest of the Government or in which it
appears the obligor may reasonably
expect significant changes in his or her
financial situation which would permit
higher payments to be made during later
periods of the life of the note.
(4] Determinations made under
paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this
section are intended for the benefit of
the Government in reducing the amount
of claim payable by VA and/or avoiding
the establishment of uncollectable debts
owing to the United States. Such
determinations are discretionary on the
part pf VA and shall not constitute a
defense to any legal action to terminate
the loan nor vest any appellate right in
an obligor which would require further
review of the case.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 210(c), 18G3(c)(l))
[FR Doc. BO-17938 Filed 8-1-flO; 8:45 am]
BILLJNO CODE 1320-01-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261,264,265,268,271,
and 302
lSWH-FRL-3ei6-F,EPA/OSW-FR-90-FFFJ
RIN 2050-AA78
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Toxlclry
Characteristic Revisions
AGENCY: EPA.
ACTION: Final rule; corrections,
SUMMARY: On March 28,1990, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated a rule (55 FR 11798) to
revise the existing toxicity
characteristics (TC), which are used to
identify wastes defined as hazardous
and that are subject to regulation under
subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) due to their
potential to leach significant
concentrations of specific toxic
constituents. The preamble to these
regulations included implementation
guidance to assist the regulated
community in understanding their
regulatory obligation for managing new
TC wastes. An implementation
timetable included in this section
contained a typographical error that
created confusion among small quantity
generators regarding their notification
responsibilities for TC wastes. This rule
corrects that typographical error and
extends the period of time within which
affected small quantity generators must
comply with the new notification
requirements.
DATIS: This correction is effective
August 2,1990. Generators of 100 to 1000
kg/mo of total hazardous waste who are
newly regulated by the Toxicity
Characteristic must notify the
appropriate EPA Regional office
October 31.1990.
FOft FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information about this
notice, contact the RCRA/Superfund
Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll free) or
(202) 382-3000 in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area. For information on
specific aspects of this notice, contact
-------
31388 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Steve Cochran, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-332), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401M Street SW, Washington.
DC 20460. (202) 475-8551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Today's rule corrects a typographical
error that appeared in the final rule
revising the toxicity characteristic. At
the time of promulgation, an error was
made in the implementation timeline for
the toxicity characteristic. Tabl^ V-l.—
Implementation Timeline for the
Toxicity Characteristic (55 FR11846)
indicates that generators of 1,000
kilograms per month (kg/mo) or more
and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities (TSDFs) who have not
previously notified EPA must submit a
Notification of Regulated Waste
Activity (Form 8700-12, dated 7/90) to
the EPA pursuant to RCRA section 3010
within three months of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register.
Although language in the preamble to
the rule specifically required all
generators to notify EPA by June 27,
1990 (54 FR 11849), it has come to the
Agency's attention that small quantity
generators (SQGs), those that generate a
total of between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of
hazardous waste in a calendar month,
have relied on the timeline provided in
Table V-l, which suggests no such
notification requirement exists for
SQGs.
The timeline in Table V-l is being
revised to reflect our intent, as specified
in the preamble, that generators of 100
kg/mo or more of hazardous waste and
TSDFs who have not previously notified
must submit a section 3010 notification
(Form 8700-12, dated 7/90) to EPA by
June 27,1990. Since some SQGs may
have missed the original notification
deadline because of reliance on the
information in Table V-l, the Agency is,
in this notice, providing SQGs with an
additional three months to submit ,
notifications. This extension applies to
SQGs only. A copy of the notification
form is included herein.
In addition, the Agency wishes to
clarify the appropriate use of the
toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP) and the extraction
procedure (EP) toxicity test by SQGs.
The regulatory language states that any
person that would like to use the TCLP
before the effective date may do so in
order to determine whether the eight
heavy metals and six pesticides covered
by the EP characteristic leach at levels
of regulatory concern. This language
was included because the TCLP is
required for both waste determination
[on September 25.1990, the TC effective
date) and the land disposal restrictions
program. The Agency clarified in an
earlier corrections notice (55 FR 26988,
June 29,1990) that, while it is
appropriate to use just one leach test to
fulfill both requirements, persons that
would like to continue using the EP
leach test until the effective date of the
rule may do so. It should be noted,
however, that the EP test may still be
required as a matter of state law (i.e., in
authorized states), and this regulation
does not affect such state law
requirements.
For SQGs, the compliance date of the
rule is March 29,1991; this is the date on
which SQGs must use the TCLP for
waste characterization purposes relative
to the TC. SQGs who wish to continue
to use the EP toxicity test until that time
may do so. SQGs should be aware that
if they decide to test their waste, they
must continue to use one test or the
other. However, because the EP test is
no longer to be used for any other
purpose, EPA has removed the
procedure from the regulations;
therefore the 1990 version of the' Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) will no longer
contain the EP toxicity test. The test can
be located in the current CFR (40 CFR
part 261, Appendix II), as well as under
Method 1310 in SW-848. 'Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste (Physical/
Chemical Methods)," Third Edition and
Update I, November 1986, available
from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161. (703) 487-
4600, document number PB-89-148-076
($67.00 paper, $16.50 microfiche).
Correction
On page 11846, column two, Table V-
1, the bullet under 3 Months should read:
• Generators of 100 kg/mo or more
and TSDFs who have not previously
notified submit 5 3010 Notification
(Form 8700-12, dated 7/90) to the
appropriate EPA regional office.
Note: Generators of 100 kg/mo to 1,000 kg/
mo of hazardous waste have until [insert date
three months from publication] to submit
} 3010 Notification (Form 8700-12. dated 7/
90) to the appropriate EPA Regional office.
Dated: July 26,1990.
Mary A. Cade.
Acting Assistant Administrator.
BILLING CODE «MO-SO-M
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2,1990 / Rules and Regulations 31389
Pte«s» prim 02 ehartetaci par inch) in t* unshaded araaa only
one >u. xto-ocii
Ptoun rvfm to ft* Instructions
tor FUing Hottttatkn be*x»
ccxnpMng trm torm. The
infOfmaSon raquMted Here »
raqurad by taw (Sactnn 3010
of»» flwourca Coneamtfon
and Recovery Act). -----
-fc _.-* * Notification of
® EPA Regulated Waste
Activity.
Urtffed States Bivfronmantal Protedton
I. Installation's EPA 10 NSimb*r fMark 'X* la (/)« appropriate box;
Dirtt Racefved
(For Offldal Us* Only)
A. First Notmcatfon
DB. SiAsequent MotfficiUan
(complen item C)
II. Name of Installation ffncfutfo company and specHlc sit* ntmef
III. Location of Installation pnystetl addrtss not P.O. Box or Rout* NumtxrJ
Street
C, tntUllMlen'i EPA ID Numtw
Street (continued)
City or Town
County Code
Stale
HP God*
County Nam*
IV. Installation Mailing Address (St« Instructions)
Street or P.O. Box
City 01 Town
V. Installation Contiet fPenon to fr« eonicctetf regarding wtstt *ctfvftf*s at tfttj
Name fltst)
JobTHle
VI. Installation Contact Address fS«« hvtrvcUom)
Street, P.O. Box, or flout* Numb«r
J_L
City or Town
jtrnf
Mmbwi
rr
Strt*
C. Owner Typ*
ZJPCod*
nrWiiTi Ti
EPA Form 1700-11 (07-90) Pmriou* •dWon la o*»otat«.
-1-
Reproduced from
beat available copy.
Ptiorw Number far»» eorfe amf mintMrJ
A. contact Address
Mjia™
A, Nirn* or instellsnorrs Litgal Owner
-------
31390 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 140 / Thursday, August 2,1990 / Rules and Regulations
Phase print or type «wtfi ELITE type (12 characters p*r inch) in the unshaded areas only
ID - For Official Use Only
VIII. Type of Regulated Waste Activity (Marie X In tficr appropriate boxes, flefes to Instructions.)
A. Hazardous Waste Activity
B. Used Oil Fuel Activities
1, Generator (See Instructions)
] a. Greater than lOOOkgAno (2.2OO KM.)
I b. 100 to 1000 ke.'rro (220 - 2.200 tol)
I e. Less than 100 kg/mo (220 Ibs.) j
2. Transporter (Indicate Mode in boxes 1-5 below)]
J i For own waste only |
] b. For commercial purpose*
. Mode o< Transportation
D 1 Air
C] 2. Hal
D 3. Highway Q]
Q 4. Water
Q 5. Other-specify
Q 3 Treater. Storer, Disposer (at SnsUHafon)
Not*: A permit is required for
this ac&vity: see nalzucttons
4. Hazardous Waste Fuel
a. Generator Marketing to Burner
b Other Marketers
c. Surftef •* indicate device(c} —
Type of Combuetion Device
1, Utility Bo8er
2. WusWal BoJer
3. IndusWal Furnace
5 Underground Injectton Conftol
1. Ott-Specifleaaon Used Oil Fuel
Q a, Qeneratbr Marketing to Burner
Q b. Other Mariiarer
O c Burner - indicate devibe(s)-
Type of Comdustkxi Device
D 1, UtJIrtyBoSar
O 2. Industrial Boter
j_j 3. bK&ntrial Furnace
2. Specification Dsad OS Fuef Marteter
D(or On-srt» Burner) Who First Claims
Vie CH Meets the Spedflcation
IX, Description of Regulated Wastet (Uat idctHloml tliceu If n»c*s»vy)
Charictaricttca ol Nonllslwi Hazardoui Wail**, Mark 'X' In tt» boxn corresponding to tha eharactarisfic* ol nontetBd hazardous
wastes your installation handtoc. (See 40 cm Pans 261.20-261.24)
1. Igrtrtabta 2. Corrosive 3. Reactive 4. Toxicfty
(0001) (D002) (0003) Characteristic
(DOQO)
D D D D
(List specific EPA hazardous wast* rtumber(s) lor tw Tcudcaty
CfiaraclerisBc oontamfriaftt(tj) .
B. Listed Hazardous WattM. (See 40 C5R 261.31 - 31 SM insimctlons • you need ID bt mora fort 12 waste oodac.}
C. Othar Wait«*. (Statt or other wastaa requiring *n 1.0. numtor. Sae hstructooi)
f certify under penalty of law fhaf I liav* personally examined end am lamlllar with the Information submitted In this
and all attached documents, and that based on my Inquiry of those Individuals Immediately responsible for
obtaining the Information, I believe that the submitted Information Is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware
that there are significant penalties tor submitting talse Information, Including the possibility of tines and
Imprisonment
Name) and Official Title wpe or punt)
Not* MM compMtit form to Ae appropriate EPA Reofomf or SMe CMfc* (See Section Mot** ftootM lot tttdrtttat.)
EPA Form 8700-12 (07-90) Prrrfout edition It obsolete.
-2-
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
32733
Corrections
Federal Register
Vol. 55, No. 155
Friday, August 10, 1990
This seclion of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains editorial corrections of previously
published Presidential, Rule, Proposed .
Rule,, and Notice documents. These
corrections are prepared by the Office of
the Federal Register. Agency prepared
corrections are issued as signed
documents and appear in the appropriate
document categories elsewhere in the
issue.
COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM
THE BLIND AND OTHER SEVERELY
HANIDCAPPED
Procurement List 1390; Additions
Correction
In notice document 90-18159 beginning
on page 31620 in the issue of Friday,
August 3,1890, make the following
correction:
Oh page 31820, in the second column,
the COMMENTS date should read
"September 4,1990,"
BILLING CODE 150S41-O . I
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261,264, 265,266,271,
and 302
[SWH-FRL-3816-1,EPA/OSW-FR-90"FFF]
RIN2050-AA78
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Toxicity •
Characteristic Revisions
Correction
In rule document 90-18073 beginning
on page 31387 in the Issue of .Thursday. -
August 2,1990, make the following
corrections:
1. On page 31387, in the third column
the docket line was incorrect and should
read as set forth above.
2, On the same page, in the third
column, under DATES, in the last line, ...
"October 31.1990" should read
"November 2,1990".
3. On page 31388, in the third column,
in the note, in the second and third lines,
the bracketed phrase should be removed
and the date "November 2,1990" should
be inserted.
4. On page 31390, in the third column
at the end of the document, the file line
was omitted and should read:
|FR Doc. 90-18073 Filed 8-1-90; 8:45am(
BILLING COM eSM-SO-H
BILLING CODE 1SOS-01-0 ,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Social Security Administration
20 CFR Part 416
RIN0960-AC48
Subpart L; Resources and Exclusions;
Exclusion From Resources of Funds
Set Aside for Burial and Burial Spaces
Correction
In rule document 90-18145 beginning
on page 28373 in the issue of
Wednesday, July 11,1990, make the
following corrections:
1, On page 28373, in the second
column, in the first paragraph of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the
third line from the end, "to" should read
"for". .:"• . ' ' ' ' '. .
2. On page 28374, in the first column,
in the eighth line from the top, "10"
should read "100",
' 3. On the same page, in the second
column, in the first full paragraph, in the
sixth line, "and" should read "through".
BILLING CODE 1505-Ot-D
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 175 and 181
[CGD 81-023]
RIN2115-AA58
Equipment Requirements for
Recreational Boats; Personal Flotatio n
Devices
Correction
In rule document 90-17731 beginning
on page 32032 in the issue of Monday,
August 6,1990, make the following
corrections;
§ 175.17 [Corrected)
1. On page 32034, in the second
column, in § 175.17, in the first line of
the introductory text, "Type PFD"
should read "Type V PFD".
PART 181—MANUFACTURER
REQUIREMENTS
2. On the same page, at the bottom of
the same column, the heading for part
161 should read as set forth above.
BIUJMG CODE 1SOMJ1-O
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 1990 /Rules and Regulations 39489
§ 185.2275 N.N-diroethylpiperWInSum
chloride
(a) A tolerance of 8 parts per million
>pm) is established for residues of the
.lanl growth regulator N,N-
dimethylpiperidinium chloride in the
processed fraction raisins, resulting from
application of the plant regulator to the
growing crop groups. Such residues may
be present therein only as a result of the
application of the plant growth regulator
to the growing grapes in accordance
with an experimental use permit that
expires June 30,1991.
(b) Residues in or on raisins not in
excess of B ppm resulting from the use
described in paragraph (a) of this
section remaining after expiration of the
experimental use program will not be
considered actionable if the pesticide is
legally applied during the term of and in
accordance with the provisions of the
emergency use permit and food additive
tolerance.
(c) BASF Corporation shall
immediately notify the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) of any findings
from the experimental use that have a
bearing on safety. The firm shall also
keep records of production, distribution.
and performance and on request make
the records available to any authorized
officer or employee of EPA or the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).
PART 186—{AMENDED]
2. In part 186:
a. The authority citation for part 186
continues to read as follows:
Authority; 21 U.S.C. 343.
b. In § 186.2275, by adding new
paragraph (bj, to read as follows:
§ 188.2275
chloride.
(b) A feed additive regulation is
established permitting the combined
residues of the plant growth regulator
AW-dimethylpiperidinium chloride in or
on the following feeds resulting from
application of the plant growth regulator
to grapes in accordance with an
experimental use program. The
conditions set forth below shall be met.
Feeds
Parts per million
Expiration dale
Gtapa pomace (wet and dry)..
Raian waste _ _
3.0
26.0
6/30/91
6/30/91
(1) Residues in the feed not in excess
of the established tolerancs resulting
from the use described in this paragraph
remaining after expiration of the
experimental program will not be
considered to be actionable if the plant
t>wth regulator is applied during the
•m of and in accordance with the
ovisions of the experimental use
program and feed additive regulation.
(2) The r.cmpany concerned shall '
immediately notify EPA of any findings
from the experimental use dial have a
bearing on safety. The firm shall also
keep records of production, distribution,
and performance, and on request make
the records available to any authorized
officer or employee of EPA or FDA.
(3J These temporary tolerances expire
June 30,1991.
{FR Doc. 90-22905 Filed 9-26-90: 8:45 am)
2ILUHG CODE SSSO-SO-F
40 CFR Parts 261,264, 255,268,271
and 302
IEPA/OSW-FH-80-C20; SWH-FRL-3836-3]
R!N 2G50-AA78
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Usting of
Hazardous Waste; Toxicity
Characteristic Clarifications
AGENCY: EPA.
ACTION: Final rule; clarification.
'UMMAHY: On March 29,1990 (55 FR
798), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPAj promulgated the Toxicity
Characteristics (TC) rule to revise the
existing EP toxicity characteristics.
which are used to identify those wastes
defined as hazardous and that are
subject to regulation under subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) due to their
potential to leach significant
concentrations of specific toxic
constituents. The preamble to these
regulations included implementation
guidance to assist the regulated
community in understanding their
regulatory obligation for managing new
TC wastes. This notice is intended to
clarify for the regulated community the
following issues: (1) The regulatory
status of surface impoundments
managing newly regulated TC wastes,
(2) ground-water monitoring
requirements for newly regulated land
disposal facilities, (3) section 3010
notification requirements, and (4) permit
modification requirements.
DATES: Effective September 25,1990.
FOR FURTHEfl INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information about this
notice, contact the RCRA/Superfund
Hotline at (300) 424-9346 (toll free) or
1202) 382-3000 in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area. For information on
specific aspects of this notice, contact
Steve Cbchran, Office of Solid Waste
(GS-332), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460, (202) 475-3551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
On March 29,1990 (55 FR 11798). EPA
promulgated a rule to revise the existing
EP toxicity characteristics, which are
used to identify those wastes which are
hazardous and thus subject to regulation
under subtitle C of RCRA. The ruie
broadened and refined the scope of the
hazardous waste regulatory program
and fulfilled specific statutory mandates
under the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984.
Today's notice provides clarification
regarding four implementation issues
brought to the Agency's attention since
the publication of the final rule. First
this notice provides clarification
regarding the compliance options for
surface impoundments managing newly
regulated TC wastes. Secondly, this
notice addresses the ground-water
monitoring requirements that owner/
operators of land disposal facilities
managing newly regulated TC wastes
must meet Third, the Agency is
providing additional clarification
regarding § 3010 notification
responsibilities for generators and
owner/operators of treatment, storage.
and/or disposal facilities (TSDFs)
managing newly regulated TC wastes.
Finally, the Agency is clarifying the
permit modification requirements for
hazardous waste management facilities
with newly regulated wastes under the
TC.
-------
39410' -Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 138 / Thursday, September 27, 1000 / Rules and Regulations
B. Surface Impoundments
The universe of r.ewly regulated
Toxicity Characteristic {TC) wastes
includes (along with other wastes) both
wastewaters and wastes generated from
(he treatment of wastewaters. Some of
lhe.se watewaters and wastewater
treatment wastes are generated or
managed in surface impoundments.
Surface impoundments receiving,
generating, or actively managing newly
regulated TC wastes un or after
September 25,1990 are subject to ail
applicable regulations for surface
impoundments managing RCRA
hazardous wastes. Some of the factors
(hat determine the regulatory status of
these surface impoundments for
permitting purposes and the various
compliance options are discussed
below.
.?. Impoundments ceasing operation
prior to effective date.
Facilities with impoundments ia
which newly regulated TC wastes
currently are generated, stored, and/or
disposed may cease operation of the
units prior to the effective date of the TC
(;.e,, September 25,19SO). If these units
have wastes in place but are not being
used for waste management alter the TC
effective date, these inactive units
would not be subject to regulation under
40 CFR parts 26-1 or 265. However, it
should be noted that inactive units that
are located at facilities otherwise
sjbfect to-subtitle C's interim status or
j-ermitting requirements a;e solid waste-
management units subject to corrective
action requirements under sections
a003(h) and 3004(u) of RCRA. All
facilities, of course, may be subject to
CERCLA cleanup authorities."
In some cases facilities will choose to
ramove some or all of the wastes from
the impoundments. If the removed
wastes are not managed on or after the
effective date of the TC rale, they will
not be subject to subtitle C. However,
any TC waste contained in inactive
impoundments that is removed (i.e.,
actively managed) after the effective
date would be subject to regulation. For
example, if the TC waste was excavated
for treatment and disposal, it would be
regulated as hazardous waste at the
time of excavation and would be
required to be managed at a subtitle C
facility. Sucha removal activity in and
of itself, however, does not subject the
inactive impoundment to subtitle C.
2, Conversion to nan-hazardous waste
impoundment.
A facility with surface impoundments
in which TC wastes have been
generated and/or managed may choose
!:) redesign or reconfigure the existing
wasiawaler treatment system prior to
the effective date such that only non-
hazardous wastes are generated or
managed in some or all units of the
treatment train on or after the effective
(late of the rule. If all TC sludges ara
removed from the surface
impoundments prior to the effective date
of the rale, the units may conti.iue to be
used and will not be subject to subtitle
C of RCRA (provided no other
hazardous wastes are generated,
managed, or disposed in the unit).
Undar another scenario, there may be
surface impoundments that (1) contain
TC wastes deposited prior to the
effective date, and (2) receive or
generals only non-hazardous wastes by
the effective date as a result of system
reconfiguration or modification. The
regulatory status of such units depends
on how the residual TC waste is
managed after the effective date of the
ruls. If (1) the TC wastes remain in the
surface impoundment en or after the
effective date of the rule, and (2) the unit
does not receive or generate any other
hazardous wastes on or after the
effective date, and (3) the impoundment
is the final disposal site for the wastes,
then the unit is not subject to subtitle C,
Note that EPA doea not consider ona
time removal of waste from a unit on or
;»ftar the TC effective date, in and of
itself, to make the unit a storage unit
and thus subject to subtitle C. The
Agency does not view one time removal
of waste as part of a closure as changing
the status of the unit, as long as there
has not been ongoing management of
the waste in the impoundment. Removal
of waste in the context of a closure
provides human health and
environmental benefits since it
eliminates potential sources of ground
water pollution. This approach is also
consistent with current operational
procedures for landfills under identical
circumstances with respect to newly
regulated TC wastes.
3. Active hazardous waste
management impoundments.
Facilities with units in which TC
wastes are managed on or after the
effective date of the rule may continue
t.j use these units to manage TC wastes
if all applicable subtitle C requirements
are satisfied. These facilities are
required to obtain interim status and
apply for a permit (or submit a change in
interim status or a permit modification,
if appropriate) in accordance with the
appropriate compliance dates. The units
will be subject to the Applicable
requirements of 40 CFR parts 2S4 and
2R5 as of the effective date of the TC.
As described in section 2 above,
fjciiity cwrsers or operators may elect to
manage only non-hazardous wastes in
surface impoundments so that the unit
will not be subject to subtitle C.
! knvever, there ars a number of
scenarios where these impoundments
eomd became regulated. For example, if
any TC waste remains in the surface
impoundment on the TC's effective date
and the impoundment is not ths final
disposal site for the wastes, then the
impoundment is considered to be
actively managing (e.g., storing)
hazardous wastes and therefore ia
subject to the Subtitle C requirements
upon the effective date of the rale. If a
facility plans to remove on a periodic
basis all or some of the TC waste from
the unit on cr after the effective date of
the TC rale, the unit would he subject to
subtitle C (including permitting, facility-
wide corrective action, financial
responsibility) on the effective date of
the rale,
A second example would be where
the non-hazardous wastewater influent
to a unit causes a TC hazardous sludge
(disposed prior to the effective date) to
be scoured from the unit so that the
effluent from the unit exhibits the TC on
cir after the effective date. In that case,
the unit generating this TC wastewater
and any surface impoundment receiving
that hazardous effluent would be subje'
to the subtitle C management standards
and would need to be under interim
status or obtain a permit,
A third example is where a TC waste
is generated within the unit from non-
hazardous wastewater on or after the
TC effective date. This could occur
where the hazardous constituents in the
wastawater become concentrated, or if a
new TC sludge is formed by settling. In
these examples, once the TC waste is
generated and stored or disposed of in
the unit, the unit is subject to subtitle C.
C. Ground-Water Monitoring
Requirements
The Agency is aware of confusion
regarding the timing of the subtitle C
ground-water monitoring requirements
as they apply to land disposal units or
fjcililiei-that ars newly regulated as a
result of the final TC, Subpart F of 40
CFR part 285 describes the ground-water
monitoring requirements for interim
status land disposal facilities managing
hazardous wastes. The applicability
section of subpart F (see § 235.90) is not
clear as to whether such units or
facilities newly regulated under the
toxieity characteristic must comply with
the ground-water monitoring
requirements on the effective date of ih
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 39411
TC [i.e.. September 25.1990] or one year
later on September 25,1991.
la 1980, the Agency promulgated the
nterim status program, including the
part 265, sabpart F ground water
monitoring requirements. The Agency
allowed affected facilities an additional
year from the effective date of the
regulations for compliance with She
groundwater monitoring requirements as
codified at § 255.90(a): "within one year
after the effective date of these
regulations, the owner or operator * * *
must implement a ground water
monitoring program capable of
determining the facility's impact on the
quality of ground water. * * *"EPA
provided this delayed compliance
schedule for groundwater monitoring
requirements in order to allow facilities
sufficient time to properly plan and
install groundwater monitoring systems
(45 FR 33161, May 19,1980). EPA
believes that the rationale for allowing
an additional year after the effective
date of the initial regulations for full
implementation of groundwater
monitoring requirements is also
applicable to newly regulated facilities,
EPA believes that the 6 month effective
date provided for RCRA regulations is
insufficient to allow for proper site
characterization and well placement.
"''us, EPA interprets § 265.90(a) to
\. vide a ons year timeframe from the
t .ctive date of new listings or
.aracteristics roles for the
implementation of a complete
groundwater monitoring program at
newly regulated units or facilities. The
Agency intends to codify this in a future
rulemaking by modifying the •
appropriate sections of the regulations.
Consistent with EPA's implementation
of the loss of interim status requirement
for land disposal facilities in 1935 (50 FR
38946, September 25,1985), land
disposal facilities newly subject to the
ground-water monitoring requirements '
must complete site characterization and
design and installation of groundwater
monitoring systems capable of
determining the facility's impact on
ground water quality by September 25, :
1991. Therefore, owner/operators who
have not already done so should
immediately commence characterizing
their facility's hydrogsology and
designing and installing their
groundwater monitoring systems to meet
this deadline. As in 1985, EPA intends to
rigorously enforce both the part 265
subpart F requirements and the loss of
interim status requirements.
To certify compliance with these : •
quirements, facilities must submit a
lund-water monitoring system
rtifieation, certifications of financial
responsibility and part B permit
applications by September 25,1991.
D. Section 3010 Notifications
In the preamble to the TC final rule
(55 FR 11849), the Agency indicated that,
pursuant to RCRA section 3010, the
Administrator may require all persons
who handle hazardous wastes to notify
the Agency of their hazardous waste
management activity within 90 days
after the wastes are identified as
hazardous. For the TC rule, the
notification date was June 27,1990.
However, the Agency waived
notification for those facilities that
already have notified EPA of their
hazardous waste activity under section
3010 of RCRA and have obtained an
EPA identification number.
Based on inquiries received by
various EPA offices concerning the
notification requirements, and a review
of the preamble language, the Agency
understands that a significant number of
regulated facilities may have been
confused by certain language in the
notification section of the TC preamble.
As a result, the Agency is today
clarifying the notification requirements
for generators and TSDFs, and is also
providing additional time for such
notification.
Notification requirements for large
quantity generators (those that generate
more than 1,000 kg per month of total
hazardous waste) and TSDFs, as
specified in the TC final rule, required
notification by Jane 27,1990 unless they
had already notified EPA of hazardous
waste activity and obtained an EPA
identification number. Based on
inquiries received by various EPA
offices, it is apparent that many persons
did not understand that in order to have
the notification requirement waived, a
generator must have met two criteria: (1)
They must have previously notified the
Agency of hazardous waste
management activity, and (2) they must
have received an EPA identification
number (see § 262,12). Some persons
interpreted this section to mean that any
previous notification under any Agency
program (rather than under the RCRA
program) was sufficient. Others took the
interpretation that if they had an EPA
identification number for any Agency
program, that was sufficient to take
advantage of the notification waiver.
Both interpretations are incorrect. Due
to this apparent confusion, the Agency
is today allowing large quantity
generators and TSDFs newly regulated
by-the TC additional time to notify the
appropriate EPA Regional Office of their
hazardous waste activity. Large quantity-
generators and TSDFs have until
October 29,1990 to notify the Agency of
their hazardous waste management
activity. This is done by completing a
section 3010 notification form (EPA
Form 8700-12, dated 7/SO; see 55 FR
31389, August 2,1S90 for a copy of the
form) and sending it to the appropriate
EPA Regional Office. It is important to
note that this extension applies only to
the notification requirement, and does
not provide an extension for any other
requirement under TC rale, including the
date by which an EPA ED number must
be obtained.
For newly regulated TSDFs. RCRA
specifies that in order for a newly
regulated TSDF to be granted interim
status, three conditions must be met: (1)
The facility/unit must be in existence en
the effective date of the rule; (2) the
facility must submit a section 3010
notification (if required by the Agency)
within the required time frame (for the
TC the date was June 27,1990); and (3)
the facility must submit a part A by
September 25,1990. As indicated above,
the Agency is today extending the time
by which TSDFs must notify the Agency
in order to be eligible for interim status
to October 29,1990. This is done by
completing a section 3010 notification
form (EPA Form 8700-12 as described
above) and sending it to the appropriate
EPA Regional Office. This extension of
the section 3010 notification date does
not affect the date part A applications
are due-, which remains September 25,
1990. It also does not affect the
compliance date for any other
requirement other than the section 3010
notification.
Notification requirements for small
quantity generators (generators of
between 100 and 1,000 kg of total
hazardous waste per month) newly
regulated as a result of the TC were
already clarified in a TC correction
notice published in the Federal Register
on August 2,1990 (see page 31387; see
also editorial correction notice dated
August 10,1990, page 32733). Small
quantity generators that are newly
regulated by the TC are required to
notify their respective EPA Regional
Office by November 2,1990 of their
hazardous waste management activity.
This is done by completing a section
3010 notification form (EPA Form
8700-12 as described above) and sending
it to the appropriate EPA Regional
Office.
E. Permit Modifications
The I oxieity Characteristic (TC) role
is expected to cause many permitted
facilities to seek modifications to their
permits. The TC is the first major
expansion of regulated wastes under
part 261 sines the new permit
modification rule was-promulgated on
September 28,1988 (53 FR 37912). In the
-------
3S412 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
preamble to the TC rule, the Agency
generally described the implementation
of the permit modification procedures
for newly regulated wastes (see 55 FR
11843, March 29,1930). However, the
Agency has received questions asking
for clarification of certain provisions of
the new modification rule.
Under the new permit modification
procedures, permitted facilities that
manage TC wastes must submit Class 1
permit modifications to the appropriate
EPA Regional OfSce by the TC rule
effective date, September 25,1S90, if
they are to continue managing the newly
regulated TC wastes in units that
require a permit (see I 270.42[g}). A
number of people have expressed
confusion about the type and extent of
information permitted facilities must
submit with these Class 1 permit
modifications. This confusion stems
from the fact that § 270.42(g) does not
clearly define what information must be
contained in the Class 1 submission. The
rule language for Class 1 modifications
in § 270.42{a) suggests that facilities
must also submit the detailed part B
application information specified in
§§ 270.13 through 270.21, 270.62 and
270,63. However, this is not the intent of
the requirements under | 270,42(g)
because there would be insufficient time
for facilities to develop the necessary
data by the effective date. Furthermore,
the more extensive information
requirements under § 2~0.42{a) are
intended for facility changes initiated by
an owner/operator, not for changes
undsr | 270.42(g) resulting from new
regulatory requirements imposed by the
Agency.
The new waste provision of
I 270.42(g) is analogous to the
procedures required for interim status
facilities or newly regulated facilities,
where a facility can continue to manage
newly regulated wastes by submitting
basic information about the affectsd
waste streams and units and then
complying with the part 285
management standards for any newly
regulated units until final permit
conditions arc developed. Therefore, the
Class 1 submission would comprise a
revised part A form clearly indicating all
activities that are newly regulated as a
result of the TC rale, and any other
description that will clarify which units
at the facility are managing the new
wastes. This Class 1 permit modification
serves as a notification to the Agency
and the public of the newly regulated
activities.
A subsequent Class 2 or 3 permit
modification (if necessary] must be
submitted 180 days after the TC
effective date (i.e., March 24,1G91), and
it is at this time that the detailed part B
information must be submitted. It is
expected that a Class 2 for 3 permit
change will be necessary for virtually
every facility that has wastestreama
which sre newly regulated as hazardous
under the TC, to situations where a
wastestieam was already regulated as
hazardous under the permit but now has
additional waste codes associated with
it due to the TC rule, only a Class 1
modification may be required.
Bated: Ssptesaber 24,1930.
Hoary U Longest II,
Acting, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. SG-223S1 Filed 9-2S-SO; 8;45 amj
BILLING CODS 6SSO-50-M
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 2
Information Collection Requirements
Approved by tiia C'fica of
Management and Budget
AGENCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
ACTION; Final rule.
SUMMARY: This amendment updates and
displays the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) control numbers assigned
by OMB for collections of information
contained in, or authorized by, FEMA
regulations. The update is necessary to
make corrections to parts and sections
and control numbers listed incorrectly,
add new requirements, and delete
requirements no longer needed or
controlled.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 27,19t30.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Linda S. Borror, (202) 648-2625.
SUPPLEMENTARY iNFORMATlCH: The
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1930 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) seeks, to part, to
minimize the Federal paperwork burden.
The Act requires that agencies obtain
OMB review and clearance of certain
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements/collections of information
and give public notice of such clearance
numbers. This rule amends 44 CFR part
2, subpart C to update end display the
control numbers assigned by OMB to
FSMA's collections of information
which ars contained in, or asithorizsd
by, FEMA regulations.
Because this is a nonsubstantive
enaondmsr.t dealing with procedural
matters, it is not subject to the
provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-553 et seq.}
requiring advance notice and comment.
FEMA has determined that this
regulation will not impose unnecessary
burdens on the economy or on
individuals, and therefore, is not
significant for the purposes of Executive
Order 12291; that a regulatory analysis
is not required; that environmental
impact documents under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1909 ars not
required since the action is
administrative and categorically exempt
from 44 CFR part 1C; and that the
updated cumulative list of assigned
OMB control numbers is not subject to
further review and clearance by CMS
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 2
Authority delegations (government
agencies). Organization and functions
(government agencies), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, title 44, chapter L
subchapter A of the Code of Federal
Regulations, part 2, subpart C is
amended as follows;
PART 2—{AMENDED]
Subpart C—{Amended]
1. The authority citation for part 2,
subpart C continues to read as follow?
Authority: 4i FR 36503, Sept IB, 1984; a
amended al 50 FR 40000, Oct 1,1985; 51 F*
34804, Sept 30,1988
§ 2.81 CMS control numbers aso.gr.ad to
Information collections.
2. Section 2.81 is amended by revising
the cumulative list of parts and sections
in 44 CFR which identifies or describes
FEMA'i information collection
requirements that have been assigned
OMB control numbers as follows:
44 CFR part or section where iden-
tified or described:
7 Sufcjwirt E...™.... .,.„.,,.„„...-,.,..„ ,
11.35,,.. ,.,,..._.„.. „.,,„ .,_.„
11 sa ,
1 1 Subpart D. _
59.22(a) . .. ...»
S9.22!t>)(2)________.
60.3, 60.4, 60.5_ „____
61, 61 App. A(1), 8! App. A(2)
52 Subpait C, 62 App. A, 62 App
8 .._ „ „
B3Suhfijar-n ....„ . ______ __ _„
64_3(e> __„, ____,
65 „ _
68, 67
70 .
71 .- „....,, :,„:-«-,., ,.,i,,.-, ,,...- ._._
75 SlibpSft ^ i- ,_,L::::: — -~
80, 8t, 63 „
151 SubcartB.. .
Cwrert OMB
Control No.
3067-0177
3007-01 22
?OP7-ni?j»
3067-0167
3067-0020
3087-OC18
3Q67-CQ22
30S7-C022
3067-0160
3067-0198
3C€7-0C2Q>
3C.67-0147
3067-0143
3067-014"
3067-01
i 3067-0:
3067-OC
! scrr-cu.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
40834 Federal Register / Vol. S5, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 1080 / Rules and p-ejjf *j
request for revision to any state
implementation plan. Each request for
revision to the state implementation
plan shall be considered separately in
light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to
relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Particulale
matter.
Dated: September 25,1990.
Kerrigan Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator.
40 CFR Part 52, Subpart QQ is
amended as follows:
PART 52-t AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 740I-7M2,
Subpart QQ—South Dakota
2. Add a new § 52,218 to read as
follows:
152.2182 PM,o Committal SIP.
On July 121988, the State submitted a
Committal SIP for the Rapid City Group
II PMie area, as required by the PM«
implementation policy. The SIP commits
the State to continue to monitor for PMm
and to submit a full SIP if a violation of
the PMio National Ambient Air Quality
Standards is detected. It also commits
the State to make several revisions
related to PM,o to the existing SIP.
[FR Doc. 90-23Z84 Filed 10-4-90; 8:45 am]
muma COOT SGW-SO-M
40 CFR Part 81
[FRL-3850-7]
National Emission Standards for
Radon Emissions from
Phosphogypsum Stacks
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of compliance waiver.
SUMMARY: Today's action announces the
continuation of a limited compliance
waiver, pending reconsideration and
rulemaking, of subpart R of 40 CFR part
61 ("Subpart R"), National Emission
Standards for Radon Emissions from
Phosphogypsum Stacks (54 FR 51054
December IS, 1989). EPA la issuing this
compliance waiver pursuant to its
authority under Clean Air Act
112(c)(l)(B)(ii) and 40 CFR 60.10-00.11.
Today's limited compliance waiver,
which permits the distribution and use
of phosphogypsum for agricultural
purposes, temporarily continues the
existing limited compliance waiver,
originally issued by the Administrator
on April 10,1990 (55 FR 13480 (April 10,
1990)), pending final action on the
ongoing rulemaking proceedings, but in
no event beyond June 1,1S91.
EFFECTIVE DATE Effective October 1,
1990, the requirement of subpart R of 40
CFR part 81 that phosphogypsum be
disposed in stacks or mines is
temporarily waived to permit the
distribution and use of phosphogypsum
for agricultural purposes, pending final
action on the ongoing rulemaking
proceedings (55 FR 13480 April 10,
1990)), but in no event beyond June 1,
1991.
FOB FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Conklin, Environmental Standards
Branch, Criteria and Standards Division
(ANR-460), Office of Radiation
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC 20460, (202J
475-9610.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
On October 31,1989, EPA
promulgated a final rule controlling
radionuclide air emissions from several
source categories, including
phosphogypsum stacks (to be codified at
40 CFR part 61. subpart R ("Subpart
R"J). 54 FR B1653 (December 15,1980).
The standard requires, in part, the
disposal of phosphogypsum in stacks or
mines, thereby precluding alternative
uses of the material. EPA received
petitions from several parties, including
The Fertilizer Institute ("TFI"),
Consolidated Minerals, Inc. ("CMI"),
and U.S. Gypsum Co. ("USG") that EPA
reconsider this portion of the
phosphogypsum NESHAP. On April 10,
1990, EPA published in Ihe Federal
Register a notice of limited
reconsideration of subpart R, a
rulemaking proposal which included
several alternatives to modify or
maintain subpart R, and a limited
compliance waiver which waived the
requirements of subpart R for those
owners or operators engaged in the
distribution or use of phosphogypsum
for agricultural purposes during the
current growing season (not to extend
beyond October 1,1990). 55 FR 13480.
The waiver was issued upon the finding
of the Administrator that such activity
presents no imminent endangerment to
public health, that the immediate
prohibition of such use would cause
great injury to many small farmers who
rely upon phosphogypsum, and that It
would be burdensome and
impracticable to issue limited waivers to
each affected owner or operator. In
addition, it was issued in light of the
scope of the simultaneously granted
limited reconsideration of subpart R and
in recognition that such waiver was
necessary to allow time for
implementation of alternative means of
soil conditioning.
EPA has received well over 100
comments on the proposed rule. EPA is
presently evaluating each comment and
plans to issue a final rule shortly.
Today's action by EPA does not, and
should by no means be construed to,
indicate any Agency predisposition on
the pending rulemaking,
B. Issuance of Compliance Waiver
For the same reasons announced in its
original limited compliance waiver, EPA
today continues in place the limited
compliance waiver for subpart R, as
originally issued on April 10,1990, 55 FR
13480, pending final action on the
rulemaking proceeding also commenced
on April 10,1990, but in no event beyond
June 1,1991. Authority for this waiver
exists in Clean Air Act section
112(C)(l)(B](ii) and 40 CFR 61.10-61.11.
EPA is accumulating and analyzing the
information necessary to issue a final
decision on the rulemaking proceeding,
and expects to take final action shortly.
Pending that final decision, the waiver
bars enforcement against the use and
distribution of phosphogypsum for
agricultural purposes during this period.
Daled: September 28,1990.
William K. Railly,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 90-23541 Filed WM-flO; 8:45 am]
BILINO CODE IMO-SO-M
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA/OS W-FR-SO-FtF; SWM-FBL-383&-il
RIN 2050-AA78
Hazardous Waste Management
System; identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Toxlcity
Characteristic; Hydrocarbon Recovery
Operations
AGENCY: EPA.
ACTION: Interim final rule with request
for comments.
SUMMARY: On March 29,1990. the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated revisions to the toxicity
characteristic, one of the testa used to
determine whether particular waste* are
regulated as hazardous under subtitle C
of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRAJ. New information
acquired by the Agency since the
promulgation of the Toxicity
i.O IT
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 194 / Friday. October 5, 19BO / Rules and Regulations 40835
Characteristic (TC) rule indicates that
immediate application of the TC could
prevent continued operation of
hydrocarbon recovery and remediation
activities currently being conducted at a
number of petroleum refineries and
rnaiketing terminals or bulk plants
handling crude pertroleum and
immediate products of petroleum
refining. The hydrocarbon recovery and
remediation activities of concern are
those that recover free-floating
hydrocarbons from the contaminated
acquifer, and include es part of the
recovery, reinjection of contaminated
ground water via undergound injection
wells or reinfiltration via an infiltration
gallery into the same aquifer from which
it was withdrawn.
The Agency believes that cessation of
these activities may pose a substantially
greater risk to human health and the
environment than their continued
operation under the existing regulatory
authorities. As a result of this new
information, the Agency is today
promulgating an interim final rule which
extends ths compliance date of the TC
rule for petroleum refining facilities,
marketing terminals and bulk plants
engaged in this specific recovery and
remediation operation for 120 days. The
period of the extension being
promulgated today will allow the
Agency to solicit public comment on
issues related to these facilities, and to
consider all available, pertinent
information, and to develop the best
solution to protect human health and the
environment,
EFFECTIVE DATE September 25,1990.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this
rulemaking is located at Room M2427,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street. SW,, Washington, DC
20460. The docket number assigned to
this notice is F-90-PRAS-FFFFF.
Persons who wish to comment on the
notice should place the docket number
on their comments and provide an
original and two copies.
The EPA RCRA docket is open from 8
a,m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. To review
docket materials, the public must make
an appointment by calling (202) 475-
9372. A maximum of SO pages may be
copied from any regulatory docket at no
cost Additional copies cost $0.20 per
page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information about this
notice, contact the RCRA/Superfund
Hotline at (800) 424-8346 toll free, or
(202) 382-3000 in Washington, DC
mstropolitan area. For information on
specific aspects of this notice, contact
David Topping of the Waste
Identification Branch, Office of Solid
Waste (OS-333), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M. Street SW.
Washington DC 20460, (202) 382-4770.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
On March 29,1990 (55 FR 11798), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated the Toxicity Characteristic
final rule to revise the existing EP
toxicity characteristic. The TC is one of
several characteristic used to identify
wastes which are defined as hazardous
and, as a consequence, are subject to
the subtitle C requirements of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).
In today's notice, the Agency,
invoking good cause under the
Administrative Procedure Act, is
promulgating an extended compliance
date for the TC requirements to
petroleum refining facilities, marketing
terminals and bulk plants engaged in
hydrocarbon recovery and remediation
operations which involve the reinjection
of contaminated ground water into
underground injection wells or
infiltration galleries for 120 days. As
discussed below, EPA believes: (1) Good
cause, under 5 U.S.C. S53, exists for a
short change in compliance date for this
narrow class of TC wastes without prior
notice and comment; and (2) under 5
U.S.C. 705, justice so requires a
postponement of the compliance date.
During the 120 day period, these wastes
will not be a Federal hazadous waste.
This extended compliance date results
from new information that was brought
to the attention of the Agency after the
promulgation of the TC final rule, The
extended compliance date allows the
immediate continued operation of
existing activities while careful
consideration it given to all pertinent
information.
B. Hydrocarbon Recovery and
Reinjection of Contaminated Ground
Water
Subsurface investigations have
revealed that large quantities of free-
floating and dissolved hydrocarbons are
contained In the shallow aquifers
beneath a number of petroleum
refineries marketing terminals and bulk
plants. Many of these facilities have
undertaken operations to remove the
free-floating hydrocarbons and
remediate the contamination. Follow-on
phases of the operation may involve the
remediation of contaminated subsurface
soils and pound water. These recovery
and remediation activities are currently
being conducted under the direction of
various State and local environmental
and water quality authorities.
It is the first phase of such operations
that is of immediate concern to the
Agency. This phase primarily consists of
pumping the free-floating hydrocarbons
from the aquifer beneath the facility.
Some of these operations involve two
pumping systems, One pumping system
is used to bring the free-floating
hydrocarbons to the surface while the
second pumping system reinjects
contaminated ground water to facilitate
the pumping of the free-floating
hydrocarbons and prevent further
migration of the contaminants in the
aquifer. In two pump systems, the
ground water is pumped to create a cone
of depression to promote collection of
free-floating hydrocarbons and thereby
facilitate recovery/removal of the
hydrocarbons from the aquifer. This
pumped ground water, with its high
saturation concentrations of dissolved
hydrocarbon (particularly benzene, due
to the equilibration between the free-
floating hydrocarbons and the water), is
returned to the aquifer via an injection
well or infiltration gallery. The
reinjection/infiltration establishes a
hydraulic gradient that helps to contain
the contamination and maintains the
water table for purposes of the
hydrocarbon recovery. Because of the
significantly high quantities of dissolved
hydrocarbons in the water that is
returned to the aquifer, immediate
application of the TC to this ground
water may result in classification of the
reinjection/infiltration as disposal of a
hazardous waste. If this occurs, use of
UIC Class V wells (which many of these
operations currently use) would no
longer be authorized. Automatic
reclassification of the well as Class IV
wells (infection of hazardous waste into
or above an underground source of
drinking water (USDW) would occur; in
most cases. Class IV wells are
prohibited under section 3020 of RCRA.
C. Environmental Benefit!
The extended compliance date being
promulgated In today's notice will allow
the Agency to seek and consider all
pertinent information concerning
hydrocarbon recovery operations, and
will provide time for the Agency to
develop the best long-term solution to
protect human health and the
environment. The Impacts that RCRA
may have on these operations as a result
of application of the TC (i.e., permit
requirements, corrective action notices,
etc.) may prohibit temporarily, if not
permanently, the reinjection/infiltration
of ground water which industry asserts
is an integral part of the recovery phase
of the operation. Reinjection of the
ground water may serve two main
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
40836 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
.__ VMu_M_MR__..|^_lll^_llllll_H_IIIM__-;,HH»_M^^ ««IBBCMHHH[MaBMBBBHB««BHBaMHB«flMNWBHMa^^K«»HinmillB^MKnni
purposes: it facilitates pumping, thua
increasing the recovery rate for free-
floating product, and lessens further
migration of the contaminant plume
within the aquifer. Without reinjection,
industry argues that the recovery phase
may take longer to complete, there is
probable risk of further contamination
of subsurface soils, and the plume of
contaminated ground water is likely to
spread. Furthermore, they argue that it is
not practicable to treat the
contaminated ground water to levels
below those specified in the TC before
its reinjection during the recovery phase
since the water is returned to the aquifer
mixes and equilibrates with the
remaining contaminated ground water
and free-floating product. Therefore, it
attains the same saturation
concentration of dissolved hydrocarbon
as was present before pumping and
treatment. The ground water will
continue to attain the high saturation
levels of dissolved hydrocarbon once
returned to the aquifer until the source
of contamination (i.e., the free-floating
product) is removed. Industry argues
that it is both environmentally beneficial
end technically feasible lo continue
operation in this manner and, once
recovery of free product is complete,
begin ground water and soil
remediation.
D. Interim Final Rule
EPA ia invoking two authorities for
this immediate effective interim final
action. First, EPA is invoking the good
cause exemptions in sections 5S3(b)(3)
and 553(d)(3) of the Administrative
Procedure Act to immediately change
the compliance date with requirements
imposed by the TC for wastes involved
in specific product recovery activities.
Second, EPA is invoking the authority in
5 U.S.C. 705. The ground water will not
be a Federal hazardous waste during the
period of the extension. EPA has only
very recently received information
regarding these operations and believes
that continued operation of these
actions are important for environmental
protection. Aa discussed above, without
the immediate change of the compliance
date for these operations, such activities
might cease. EPA believes that requiring
these facilities to meet all applicable
RCRA and SDWA requirements by the
September 25,1890 effective date of the
TC rule is both impracticable and
contrary to public interest. Therefore, at
petroleum refineries and marketing
terminals or bulk plants currently
engaged in hydrocarbon recovery
operations stemming from handling
crude petroleum and immediate
products of petroleum refining, the
compliance date for the TC is extended
until January 25,1991. Facilities with
existing contracts for construction of
these operations are also included
within the scope of today's notice,
EPA ia today soliciting comments on
regulatory approaches for issues
involved in today's notice and is
considering further extending the
compliance requirements under a
separate regulatory proposal. Until EPA
evaluates fully the issues involved in
activities, the Agency believes that the
current State oversight of these
activitiea and continuing Agency
involvement in these issues will provide
adequate assurances against
development of any imminent threat to
human health and the environment. As
discussed above, if such a change is not
made, environmentally beneficial
activities would, at a minimum, be
suspended for many months, possibly
increasing the potential threat to human
health and the environment due to
futher migration of the contamination.
E. State Authority
1, Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3000 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under section 3003,3013, and
7003 of RCRA although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are found
in 40 CFR part 271.
Prior to HSWA, a State with final
authorization administered its
hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State,
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities that the State was authorized
to permit. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified time frames. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law. In
contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42
U.S.C. 6928(g)), new requirements and
prohibitions imposed by HSWA take
effect in authorized States at the same
time that they take effect in
nonauthnrized States. EPA is directed to
carry out these requirements and
prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adopt
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization, HSWA
applies in authorized States in the
interim.
2. Effect on State Authorizations
EPA will implement the provisions of
today's interim final rule in authorized
States until their programs are modified
to adopt the final toxicity characteristic
and the modification to the State's
program io approved by EPA.
Implementation of today's Interim final
rule beyond the date of a State's
receiving final authorization for the
toxicity characteristic depends upon
actions taken by the State, as discussed
below. EPA will implement the
provisions of today's rule in
nonauthorized States. Today's rule
extends the compliance date for
requirements imposed In the final
Toxicity Characteristic final regulation
(see SS FR11798, March 29,1990) for
certain hydrocarbon recovery
operations.
The Toxicity Characteristic WHS
promulgated pursuant to a HSWA
provision and must be adopted by
States which intend to retain final
authorization. However, today's rule
provides, for 120 days, a less stringent
standard for certain hydrocarbon
recovery and remediation operations
than would be imposed in the final
Toxicity Characteristic as promulgated.
In order to promote environmentally
beneficial hydrocarbon recovery
operations, today's interim final rule
provides that these wastes would not be
hazardous wastes under the Federal
regulations until January 25,1991, and
States would not be required to mandate
their management as such in order to
retain RCRA authorization. However,
Section 3009 of RCRA provides that
States may impose more stringent
requirements than those imposed under
Federal regulations. States, whether
using RCRA authorities (e.g., authorities
under State law where States have
received final authorization to
implement the toxicity characteristic
provisions in lieu of their
implementation by EPA), or other State
authorities under other statues, may
impose hazardous waste requirements
on such operations, or may require other
more stringent conditions upon
management of these wastes.
F. Regulatory, Requirements
1, Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 122tl, EPA
must determine whether a regulation is
"major," and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. The overall effect of today's
-------
Federal Register / Vol. SS, No, 194 / Friday, October 5, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 40837
ipwv(r
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 75
Listing of 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine Production Wastes
55 FR 18496-18506
May 2, 1990
HSWA Cluster II
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES
1 add K107-K110 to
the subgroup
"Orqanic Chemicals"
261 .32
Industry and EPA hazardous
waste No.
Hazardous waste
Hazard
code
Organic chemicals:
K107.
K108.
K109.
Column bottoms from product separation from
the production of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH)
from carboxylic acid hydrazides.
Condensed column overheads from product
separation and condensed reactor vent gases
from the production of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine
(UDMH) from carboxylic acid hydrazides.
Spent filter cartridges from product
purification from the production of
1,1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) from carboxylic
acid hydrazides.
(C,T)
(T)
May 2» 1990 - Page 1 of 3
DCL75.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9,
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 75: Listing of 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine Production Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
K110.
Condensed column overheads from intermediate
separation from the production of
1,1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) from carboxylic
acid hydrazides.
(T)
APPENDIX III TO PART 261
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS TEST METHODS
add compound and
analysis method to
Table 1
Appendix III
TABLE 1. - ANALYSIS METHODS FOR ORGANIC
CHEMICALS CONTAINED IN SW-846
Compound
Method
No.
1,1 -Dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) 8250
APPENDIX VII TO PART 261
BASIS FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS
add, in numerical
order, K107-K110
Appendix
WASTE
VII
May 2, 1990 - Page 2 of 3
DCL75.9 - 12/9/91
-------
DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 75: Listing of 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine Production Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
Eoinv^"
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
EPA hazardous
waste No.
Hazardous constituents for
which listed
K107 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine (UDMH).
K108 , 1,1 -Dimethylhydrazine (UDMH).
K109 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine (UDMH).
K110 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine (UDMH).
1
The Federal Register for this Rule contains two typographical errors in the description of the
K107 hazardous waste (55 FR 18505). "1,1-dimethyl-hydrazine* should be "1,1-
dimethylhydrazine" and "hydrazines" should be "hydrazides." This revision checklist contains the
corrected description for K107.
May 2, 1990 - Page 3 of 3
DCL75.9 - 12/9/91
-------
-------
OSWKR D1R. -NO. y>4i.UU-14
*f-'*atf*tr**iiif
Ml **•
'-
s =
^
T»iS^£^K^
Wednesday
May 2, 1990
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Management System:
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste and CERCLA Hazardous
Substance Designation and Reportable
Quantity Adjustment—1,1-
Dimethylhydrazlne Production Wastes;
Final Rule and Proposed Rule
^VnflBMI
-------
1049G Federal kegisler /'Vol! 55, 'No. 05 /Wednesday, May 2/1990 / Rules nnd' Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261, 271, and 302
ISWH-FRL-3719-6J
HIM 2050-AC91
Hazardous Waste Management
System: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste and CERCLA
Hazardous Substance Designation and
Reportable Quantity Adjustment—1,1-
Dimethylhydrazine Production Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) today is amending the
regulations for hazardous waste
management under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
by listing as hazardous four wastes
generated during the production of 1,1-
dimclhylliydrnzine (UDMH) from
carboxylic acid hydrazides. The effect of
this regulation is (hut these wastes will
be subject to regulation under 40 CFR
parts 2G2-2G6, and parts 270. 271, and
124.
In addition, the Agency also is making
final amendments to regulations
promulgated under the Comprehensive
I7.nvironmental Response,
Compensation, ond Liability Act
{CERCLA) in 40 CFR part 302 that are
related to today's hazardous waste
listings. In particular, EPA is making
final the designation as CERCLA
hazardous substances all of the wastes
made final in today's rule and the final
rcportable quantities that would be
applicable to those wastes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation
becomes effective on November 2,1990.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
rulemtiking is identified as Docket
Number F-90-DMMF-FFFFF and is
located in the EPA RCRA Docket, Room
2427, 401 M Street SVV., Washington, DC
20400. The public must make nn
appointment to review docket materials
by calling (202) 475-9327. Copies of the
non-CD! version of the listing
background document, the Health and
Environmental Effects Profiles (HEEPs),
and not readily available references are
available for viewing and copying only
in the OSW docket. Copies of materials
relevant to the CF.RCLA portions of this
rulemaking are also located in Room
2427. U.S. EPA. 401 M Street SW..
Washington, DC 20-100. Doth dockets are
available for inspection from 9:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. The public
may copy a maximum of 100 pages from
the docket at no charge; additional
copies are available at $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: •
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (000)
424-9340 or at(202) 302-3000. For
technical information on the RCRA
hazardous waste listings, contact Dr.
Cute Jenkins, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-332), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20400, (202) 302-4786. For technical
Information on the CERCLA final rule,
contact Ms. Ivette Vega, Response
Standards and Criteria Branch,
Emergency Response Division (OS-210),
U.S. EPA, 401 M St. SW., Washington.
DC 20460, (202) 302-2403.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline:
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
111. Summary of the Fimil Regulation
IV. Response to Comments
A. Concentration Level Criteria for Listing
Waste as Hazardous
D. Assessment Risk for UDMH In the
Waste*
C. Regulatory Impact Analysis
D. Additional Waste Streams
V. Relation to Other Regulations
VI. Test Methods for Compound Added to
Appendix VII
VII. CERCLA Impacts
VIII. Stale Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
Slates
D. Effect on State Authorizations
IX. Compliance Dates
A. Notification
D. Interim Status
X. Regulatory Impact Analysis
XL Regulatory Flexibility Act
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. Legal Authority
These regulations are being
promulgated under the authority of
sections 2002(a) and 3001 (b) and (e)(2)
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a) and 6921 (b)
and (c)(2) (commonly referred to as
RCRA), and section 102(a) of the
comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9602(a).
II. Background
Pursuant to section 3001 of subtitle C
of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA today -
promulgates final rules listing four
wastes generated during the production
of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) from.
carboxylic acid hydrazides. The
following discussion provides a brief
overview of regulatory actions affecting
the wastes being finalized today.
On December 20,1984, EPA proposed
to amend the regulations for hazardous
waste management under RCRA by
listing as hazardous four wastes
generated during the production of 1,1-
. dimcthylhydrazine (see 49 FR 49550).
These wastes arc: (1) Column bottoms
from product separation (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K107), (2)
condensed column overheads from
product separation and condensed
renctor vent gases (EPA Hazardous
Waste No. KlOO), (3) spent filter
cartridges from product purification
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. K109), and
(4) condensed column overheads from
intermediate separation (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. KllO).
The basis for this action was a
determination by the Agency that these
wastes contained significant
concentrations of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine
(UDMH). UDM1I Is carcinogenic.
mutagenic, nnd teratogenic. UDMII is
typically present in each waste at
significant levels. In addition, UDMI I is
mobile and persistent, and can reach
• environmental receptors in harmful
concentrations if these wastes are
mismanaged. (See the preamble to the
proposed listing for those wastes (49 FR
49556) and the Listing Background
Document, available from the
ADDRESSES section, for more
Information on the hazards of these
wastes.)
On August 17,1989. the Agency made
available for public comment additional
data which supports the conclusion (hut
UDMH should be considered a potential
human carcinogen (54 FR 33942). The
Agency requested comments on the use
of this new data as part of the basis for
listing wastes generated from the
manufacture of UDMH. The comments
received on the December 20,1904
proposal to list the four wastes and on
the use of this new data are responded
to in this Federal Register notice. These
comments do not refute the Agency's
conclusion that UDMH is carcinogenic,
mutagenic and teratogenic.
In addition, in a document published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register,
EPA is proposing to list as hazardous
two additional wastes generated during
the production of UDMH from
carboxylic acid hydrazides. These
wastes are: (1) Flush water from the
; catalyst removal system, and (2) spent
catalyst and filter media. As a result of
comments received from a manufacturer
of UDMH in response to the proposed
listing of four wastes generated during
. the manufacture of UDMH (December
20,1904. 49 FR 49556), the Agency
received data that supports a
preliminary determination that these
two additional wastes also should be
listed as hazardous.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 05 / Wednesday, May 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 18437
On November 0, 1ftfi between 11 to 14 *C (52
to 55 °F), which makes this waste
ignilable according to the criteria in 40
CFR 261.21 (o)(l). Also, the pH of the
column bottoms from product separation
(EPA Waste No. K107) has been
measured to be between 13 and 14,
which makes this waste corrosive
according to the criteria in 40 CFR
201.22(a)(l).
EPA has evaluated these wastes
against the criteria for listing hazardous
wastes (40 CFR ZOl.ll(n)), and has
determined that they typically contain
high concentrations of the constituent of
concern (UDMII), that this toxicant Is
mobile and persistent in the
environment, and that the toxicant in
the wastes is regulated by other EPA
regulations, as well as by regulations of
other government agencies. In addition,
one of the wastes is corrosive, and
another is ignilable, and thus these
wastes are nlso being listed as
hazardous based on these
characteiislica. Ihe Agency, therefore,
believes that these wastes are capable
of posing a substantial present or
potential threat to human health or the
environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, disposed of, or
otherwise managed, and thus are
hazardous wastes. (Additional
information on the hazards and the toxic
constituents of these wastes may be
found in Ihe listing background
document and the Health and
Environmental Effects Profiles, available
as described in the "AOOBESSES"
section.)
The Agency received comments on
the proposed listings from the generator
of the wastes (Uniroyal Corporation) as
well as another manufacturer of UDMH
thai uses a different process not subject
to these listings. Uniroyal also submitted
comments on the new data on UDMH
made available on August 17,1989. We
have evaluated these comments
carefully, and have modified the
supporting documentation accordingly.
This notice makes final the regulations
proposed on December 20,1984, and
provides EPA's response to the
comments received.
The manufacturer of UDMH from
carboxylic acid hydrazides, Uniroyal
Corporation, also supplied the Agency
with information on the generation of
two additional wastes from the
manufacture of UDMII as part of their
comments—namely (1) flush water from
the catalyst removal system, and (2)
spent catalyst and filter media. As a
result, the Agency is proposing to odd
these two wastes to the list of hazardous
wastes in 40 CFR 261.32 in a document
published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register.
IV. Response lo Comments
EPA received comments on several
aspects of the proposed regulations (and
on the use of Ihe data made available
for public comment on August 17.1!)BO)
from the generator of these wastes.
Uniroyal Corporation; the Agency nlso
received comments on the proposed
regulations from another manufacturer
of UDMH that uses a different process
not subject to these listings, Olin
Corporation, The Agency has evaluated
these comments carefully, and has
modified the supporting documentation
to this regulation accordingly, as well as
proposing new hazardous waste listings
based on these comments. This section
presents the comments received, as well
as the Agency's response.
A, Conceniralion Level Criteria for
Listing Waste as Hazardous
One commenter requested that the
Agency's listing of UDMI-I include a
"delisting threshold" so that industry
would have criteria for determining
whether a waste containing UUMi I (or
any other toxicant) is considered
hazardous, and could use (his as a basis
for a petition pursuant to 40 CFR 260.22
to exclude n particular UDMH
manufacturing waste from Ihe list of
hazardous waste, the "delisting"
process.
When evaluating delisting petitions,
the Agency considers a number of
factors, including the presence of cny
additional toxicants other than those for
which the waste was listed and the
behavior of the toxicants in Ihe
environment See 40 CFR 260.22(a).
Therefore, the delisting process is more
complex than a simple evaluation of the
concentration of the toxicant(s) for
which the relevant waste was listed.
The Agency has described its general
approach to evaluating delisting
petitions in the Federal Register. See 50
FR 40000. November 27,1985. In that ,
notice and in many subsequent
proposed and final delisting
determinations, the Agency described
ils evaluation process in detail and
explained how it uses information
provided by the petitioner (e.g., see 54
FR 14101, April 7,19B9). For the reasons
described in those notices and above,
the Agency is not including a
concentration level of UDMH in the
wastes below which the wastes would
not be considered hazardous.
B. Assessment of Risk fur UDMH in the
Wastes
Uniroyiil challenged the Agency's
evaluation of the carcinogenic!ty of
UDMH for several reasons. In response
to the December 20,1904 proposed
Reproduced trom
best available copy.
-------
18498 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 05 / Wednesday, May 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
UUMH listings (49 FR 49550), Uniroyal
contended thai a study by Toth,1 which
was used by EPA to conclude that
UUMi f should be considered a probable
human carcinogen (a D2 carcinogen
using EPA's weight-of-evidence
classification system), was so flawed ns
to be invalid for any risk assessment.
Uniroyal also challenged Ihe validity of
EPA's conclusions on the
carcinogenicity of UDMH based on Ihe
interim results of new studies currently
being conducted by Uniroyal. These
new studies were conducted by
Uniroyal pursuant to requirements
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
nnd Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (U.S.C.
part 130 ei. seq,), and were proposed to
be used as a partial basis for the UDMH
listing regulations under RCRA on
August 17, 1909 (54 FR 22942).
The response to challenges by
Uniroyal on the use of either the earlier
Toth study or the new interim results of
the studies conducted by Uniroyal are
provided below.
1. Use of the Toth Study to Establish
Carcinogenic Risk of UDMH
Uniroyal stated that EPA based its
risk assessment of the carcinogenicity of
UDM11 solely on a study by Toth.2
Uniroynl contended thai this study
deviated from scientifically valid
protocols, thus invalidating the use of
the study for establishing the
carcinogenic risk of UDMH to humans.
The specific areas where Uniroyal
claimed that the Toth study was not in
conformance with EPA Guidelines for
oncogonicity studies,5 and the Agency's
specific responses to these comments
are given below. In general, however,
while noting that there are certain
deficiencies in the methodological
conduct of the Tolh study, the Agency's
I luman I lealth Assessment Group
(I II1AG) (formerly the Carcinogen
Assessment Group (CAGJ) made a final
determination in 1988 that the Toth study
mny be used as the basis for a
citrcinogenicity determination for
UDM1 i.* This determination was made
1 Toth. B. (1973) 1.1-Dimclhylhydrimne
(Unaymmelrical) Carcinogcncftis in Mice. Ugh)
Microscopic and Uliraitruclurnl Studies on
N«oplnstic Dloud Vessels./ Mil/. CancerInsl,
50:181,
» Tulh, D, (1973). ibid.
9 Pesticide Assessment Guideline*. Subdivision F.
1SMIZ. '
4 U.S.EPA. GAG (June, lime) Evnluation of the
Poli-nllnl Corcinogcnlr.ily of l,1-0tm
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 05 / Wednesday, May 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 18499
thai EPA uses to evaluate the effects of
toxicants, that ref|iiire any minimal
survival rate at different stages of a
bionssay.
In addition, survival rates in the Toth
study did no! demonstrate that the MTD
wns exceeded. Among mule mice, the
survival rale was lower than in the
untreated animals, but only after more
than 50 weeks of exposure. Since 84
percent of the animals in this group
developed vasculur tumors and 78
percent lung tumors, with average
latencies of 42 and 53 weeks,
respectively, it is highly likely that
cancer induction itself was responsible
for mortality after 50 weeks. Among
male hamsters, in which the latency for
tumor development was longer with
fewer incidences, the survival rate was
the same for treated and control
animals. If adjustments are made for
very early mortality in female hamsters,
then the long term survival rate was also
equivalent in treated animals and
controls.
Excessive noncancer liver pathology
was not reported in the Tolh study, nor
wns it found by the EPA audit of this
study, as would be expected if (he MTD
were exceeded.10 Based upon the
mortality results and lack of reported
pathology, there is little direct evidence
that the MTD was exceeded.
c. Uniroyal challenged the validity of
the Toth study because complete
necropsy records were not maintained,
and portions of the study were
conducted by technicians in the absence
of direct supervision.
Response; The audit performed by
EPA considered in detail this problem
with the Toth study, noting that there
was a large turnover of technicians, and
that none of the observations,
calculations or other records for the
necropsy histopathology report sheets
were dated, signed, or initialled. Despite
these deficiencies noted by the auditors,
the CAG >' concluded that the Toth
study was still adequate for a risk
assessment, since no evidence was
found to suggest that errors were made
by the technicians under these
conditions.
d. Uniroyal contended that animal
randomization wns inadequate to
prevent in-breeding (a condition that
could lead to heightened sensitivity to
carcinogens as B result of genetic drift).
Response: According to the EPA
Guidelines,12 humans are assumed to be
'« U.S. EPA (ScplRtittmr 24. IfldO) Guideline* for
Oardnognnic Risk Assessment. i/>;W.
1' U.S. EI'A. CAG (Jimuiiry 7, IOB7). ibid
5 U.S. F.PA (Spplrmimr 24.190(1). ibid.
as sensitive to the agent as the most
sensitive strains of animal species,
unless there is knowledge otherwise. As
a result, this allegedly possible change
in sensitivity of the colony of mice
maintained by Dr. Toth's laboratory
would not alter the weighl-of-evidence
determination for UDMI I.
Furthermore, there is no evidence
from pathological data on the control
animals evaluated in Dr. Toth's
laboratory to suggest that any
genetically enhanced susceptibility to
spontaneous carcinogenesis
(carcinogenesis that occurs without the
intentional administration of a test
substance) has occurred due to genetic
drift. If there was such heightened
sensitivity, then increased spontaneous
carcinogenesis in the control animals
would be expected to accompany any
genetically enhanced susceptibility to
exogenously induced carcinogenesis
(carcinogenesis that occurs as the result
of the administration of a test
substance). The EPA audit of the Toth
study did not reveal any increased rate
of spontaneous carcinogenesie in the
control animals maintained by Dr.
Toth's laboratory compared to animals
of the same species maintained by other
laboratories and the supplier. This fact
discredits Uniroyal's theory of in-
breeding leading to enhanced
susceptibility to carcinogenesis to
exogenous carcinogens.
In addition, the rate of spontaneous
carcinogenesis was seen to be identical
for the control groups maintained by Dr.
Toth's laboratory two years prior to the
UDMH bioassay as at the same time as
the UDMH bioassny. This further
supports the conclusion that there was
no genetic drift over time due to in-
breeding or other factors in the animals
tested.
Furthermore, the Swiss albino strain
of mice used In the Toth study are highly
susceptible to carcinogenesis. This
facilitates the development of tumors
over the short life span of this rodent
species. As a result, any genetic drift
thai would occur in these mice is likely
to lead to decreased sensitivity, not the
other way around. Thus, the results of
the Toth study are not compromised by
any alleged enhanced sensitivity of the
animals to carcinogens.
e. Uniroyal contended that another
deficiency in the Toth study was a lack
of suitable analytical verification of the
test material during the study.
Response: The EPA auditors
recognized that the overall Analytical
verification of the study did not conform
to today's General Laboratory Practice
standards,19 but concluded that despite
the deficiencies, there was no reason to
doubt that the mice received the test
substances (UDMH and Alar*) at the
indicated dosage levels. The EPA
auditors found, however, that the
UDMI I purchased from Aldrich
Chemical Company had been analyzed
for chemical composition by Aldrich. In
addition, the auditors found that the
UDMH mixed with water in known
proportions were in fact analyzed for
chemical composition, and that these
were the mixtures that were
administered to the animals in the Toth
study.
The EPA auditors as well as CAG
concluded that despite the uncertainties
with the analytical method, there was
no evidence to suggest that the UDMH/
water solutions did not contain the
concentrations reported in the study.
This Is because even in the absence of
analytical verification, laboratory
methods for making solutions of known
concentrations by the addition of
accurately measured portions of a
substance (UDMH in this instance) have
historically been found to be capable of
great nccuracy, in the absence of any
decomposition or other losses of the
substance from the water. Any
deterioration of the UDMH/water
solutions, through hydrolysis or
volatilization of the UDMH, would have
resulted in decreased cancer rates, not
the other way around.
In addition, even if the analysis of the
UDMH obtained from Aldrich Chemical
Company, the supplier, were inaccurate,
as impliedly alleged by Uniroyal, it was
known that Aldrich itself had analyzed
the UDMH for purity. There is no
evidence that the UDMH contained any
toxic contaminants, or that any toxic
contaminants were present in sufficient
concentration or of sufficient potency to
have confounded the observations of the
carcinogenic effects of UDMH,
f. Uniroyal contended that even if the
Tolh study were valid, then the
estimated risk from UDMH exposure
was lower than the value derived by
EPA, based on that study. The q, *
(carcinogenic potency) value of 8.60
(mg/kg/day) "'was calculated using nn
observed carcinogenic response of 42
out of SO mice by EPA. Uniroyal
claimed, however, that only 25 of 40
mice were diagnosed as having blood
vessel tumors, basing this contention on
an audit performed for Uniroyal.14
•» U.S. EPA. OPP (April 22,19B5). ibid.
" Veijelinovilch, S.D., Report to Uniroy.it, Inc.
(I9IM).
-------
1B500 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 85 / Wednesday. May 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Response: EPA's audit1S of the Toth
study confirmed the tumor incidence
found by Dr. Toth. In addition, GAG *»
has concluded that since the control
animals lived longer (not suffering the
acute toxic effects from UDMH that
resulted in premature death, thus
presumably having more time to develop
tumors) the potency of UDMH as a
carcinogen may even be underestimated
using data from the Toth study.
Moreover, even if the incidence of
tumors was the lower rate contended by
Uniroyal, that rate is still highly
significant and would not alter the
determination that UDMH is a category
B2 carcinogenic.
g, Uniroyal expressed the position
that EPA cannot list the UDMH
manufacturing wastes as hazardous
until the scientific validity of the
carcinogenicity study conducted by Toth
was ascertained or repeated. Uniroyal
noted that EPA itself was currently
conducting an audit of the Toth study as
a result of comments on the study
submitted by Uniroyal regarding
proposed regulations under F1FRA, and
suggested that EPA should take the
results of this audit into account.
Response: The results of the EPA
auditl7 referred to by Uniroyal became
available after Uniroyal submitted its
comments on the proposed UDMH
listings. As discussed earlier, this audit,
although acknowledging certain
deficiencies in the Toth study, noted
that the increases in the tumor
incidences were so striking that even if
the controls had been dropped from the
study, it would not weaken the findings
of the study in any regard. The audit
team found that data obtained from
missing pathology slides that were
subsequently located further
substantiated the tumor incidences
stated in the publication by Dr. Toth.
Thus, this audit does not provide any
support for Uniroyal's position that the
Toth study is invalid for performing a
carcinogenic risk assessment.
2. Use of the Interim Results of Studies
on UDMH Carcinogenicity Currently
Being Conducted by Uniroyal
As part of its review of the pesticide
manufactured from UDMH, Daminozide
(Alar®), under the Re-registration
Process under FIFRA, EPA required
Uniroyal Corporation to conduct
additional studies on the health effects
of both UDMH AND Daminozide. Based
on the interim results of the data
submitted by Uniroyal, EPA proposed to
cancel certain pesticide product
registrations under FIFRA.18
On August 17,1989, EPA announced
its intent to use this new interim data
developed by Uniroyal as part of the
basis for listing wastes from the
manufacture of UDMH as hazardous
under RCRA,19 since EPA believed that
this data provided strong evidence that
UDMH is a carcinogen. Uniroyal
responded to the August 17,1989 Notice
of Data Availability with the following
contentions that the data did not
support a determination that UDMH
was a probable human carcinogen. The
specific challenges to the significance of
these data for a carcinogenicity
determination are given below.
a. Uniroyal claimed that the biological
significance of the interim results of the
UDMH and Darninozide study are
questionable. For example, while
positive tumorigenic results were seen in
mice, no significant increases in tumor
incidences were detected in any of the
exposed groups of rats.
Response: The lack of detectable
effects in rats cannot be construed as
evidence for noncarcinogenicity. Only
an extremely potent carcinogen would
be expected to induce an increase in
tumor incidence as early as 12 months
from the start of exposure. In fact, the
positive results seen in mice as early as
8 months, suggest that UDMH is not
only a carcinogen, but a rather potent
one. Furthermore, it is generally
recognized that species may differ in
sensitivity to an applied dose, so the
interim results with rats is not
inconsistent with this expectation.
b. Uniroyal argued that there was no
increase in the number and severity of
liver islands, as would.be expected if an
agent was a carcinogen.
Response: The liver is made up of
liver cells called hepatocytes. In the
liver island assay most of the liver is
removed to stimulate rapid cell division
among the remaining hepatocytes.
Subsequent administration of a
potentially carcinogenic agent may
induce genetic changes resulting in the
gain or loss of specific enzyme systems
in the hepatocytes. Since the cells are
rapidly dividing, one enzymatically
altered cell will reproduce to form an
"island" of similar cells. These islands
can be made visible by differential
staining techniques. The assay is
regarded as a test for probable
carcinogenicity since the enzymatic
changes are considered by many
investigators to be early steps in the
progression of cellular changes leading
to cancer.
The tumors resulting from exposure to
UDMH, however, occur in blood vessels,
a different type of tissue than located in
the liver. Thus, the lack of any increase
or severity of the liver islands does not
negate the carcinogenicity
determination.
c. Uniroyal argued that since positive
results were seen in mice only at 40 and,
80 ppm, dosages that Uniroyal claims
are dearly in excess of the maximum
tolerated dose (MTD), any conclusions
on the carcinogenicity of UDMH based
on results from tests which exceeded the
MTD are not valid.
Response: According to established
Guidelines 10 using body weight gains,
survival, etc., EPA believes that the
MTD was not exceeded. Mortality that
did occur during the first 12 months of
exposure was considered by the EPA
reviewers 21 to more likely be the result
of cancer rather than liver necrosis.
Since tumor increases were detected in
intermediate dosed males as well as in
females, in which the pathological
effects and other toxic signs were
minimal, the results are not considered
to be invalidated by the alleged
overdosage.
Even if the MTD was exceeded, the
data can be used in assessing
carcinogenicity according to EPA's risk
assessment Guidelines, if the results are
carefully reviewed to ensure that
responses are not due to factors
operating only at levels above MTD.22
These include effects such as metabolic
activation at high concentrations and
hormonal changes. There is little
information to indicate that UDMH
requires this type of activation,
however, which would call into question
the possibility that the observed effects
were due to an exceedance of the MTD.
In addition, there is also no data to
indicate that important hormonal
changes are taking place, another effect
that could be caused if the MTD were
exceeded.
The pathological changes in the liver
would be of serious concern in
evaluating whether the MTD had been
exceeded if the liver itself was the
primary target organ for the
carcinogenic effects of UDMH. The
possible genetic alterations with
increased cell turnover rates resulting
from the pathological changes could
lead to tumor induction in some cases.
s U.S. EPA. OPP (April 22.1985), ibid.
1 U.S. EPA. CAC (January 7.1987), ibid.
' U.S. EPA. OPP (April 22,1985), ibid.
18 54 FR 22558. May 24.1989,
19 54 FR 33942.
10 U.S. EPA [September 24.1980). ibid,
" U.S. EPA. OPP (May IS, 1989). Second Peer
Review of Daminozide (Alar) and UDMH
(Unsymmetrical 1,1-dimethylhydrazme].
" U.S. EPA (September 24.1886). ibid. pp. 1-5
4.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. B8 / Wednesday, May 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 18501
UDMI I, however induces lumore in
blood vessels and not in the liver itself.
As a result, I!IB changes in the liver do
not confound thn observations of
c;,'in;inogc;nio effects in oilier organs, llio
blood vessels.
Thus, EPA docs nol believe that the
MTU was exceeded in the recent
Uniroyal studies. Secondly, even if the
MTD has been exceeded, EPA's careful
review of the data hns oscertoined thai
Ihe carcinogenic effects were
independent of nny physiological
changes which could have been caused
by an exceedance of Ihe MTD. The
results, therefore, still may be used to
determine thnt UDMII is a carcinogen.
d, Uniroyal claimed that the
carcinogenic effects were accompanied
by a variety of hematological, liver
enzyme and liver pathology changes
Ihut may well have boon responsible for
the (amor induction. Thus, the
commenter contended that the tumors
should not be considered to be the result
of a carcinogenic effect of UDMII.
Response: The hernalological, liver
enzyme, and liver pathology changes are
considered by EPA to be a result of
tumor growth, anil thus nol responsible
for their induction. In other words, these
changes in the liver and blood are
consitlered to be Ihe result of the
carcinogenic effects of UDMH, and not
due to any direct action of UDMH by a
lexicological mechanism unrelated to
caroinogenesis. In addition, it should be
noted that tumors were induced in
females in which alterations of liver
enzyme activity and hematological
parameters were minimal. Finally,
increased tumor incidences were also
seen in the lungs, nn organ showing few
indications of pathological changes.
Thus, Ihe Agency does not agree thai the
observation of hematological and liver
changes negates a conclusion that
UDMII should be considered a
causative agent for carcinogenesis.
e. In general, Uniroyal contended that
Ihe weight-of-evidence from Ihe interim
results of the studies on UDMH
cnrcinogenicily did not support a
determination that UDMH should be
classified as a category "B2" carcinogen,
a "probable human carcinogen."
Response; Given thnt significant
increases in tumor incidences were seen
at more than one silo, in both sexes of
mice, and to occur very early, nnd
because the responses occurred in the
lungs even at lower, relatively non-toxic
doses, the newer, interim data is
considered by the Agency to be
consistent with the earlier data
regarding the carcinogenicity of UDMH.
According to EPA's Guidelines for
cancer risk assessment, a chemical is
classified into category B2 when there is
sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in
animals, but insufficient data in humans.
Sufficient evidence for carcinogenicily
in animals occurs when there is an
increased incidence of malignant or
combined benign and malignant tumors
(a) in multiple strains or species (bj in
multiple experiments (e.g., with different
dose levels) or (c) to an unusual degree
in a single experiment. The interim
results of the studies satisfy both
categories "a" and "c" in that significant
tumor increases occurred in both mice
and hamsters and the response occurred
to an unusual degree, e.g., 84 percent
incidence of hemangiosarcomas in male
mice. Thus, since human data is
inadequate, while animal data is
sufficient, UDMH is slill considered to
fit the classification weight-of-evidence
category B2.
f. Uniroyal claimed that the interim
data were also inadequate to establish a
quantitative, or dose-response, risk
estimate for UDMI I.
Response; The Agency need not
develop quantitative wcight-of-evidence
for a potential carcinogen as a
necessary basis for a determination that
a toxicant of concern or wastes
containing that toxicant should be
regulated as hazardous under RCRA.
The available study on UDMH does
indicate that it is a potent carcinogen.
The final studies on UDMI I
carcinogenicity to be submitted to EPA
in the future are not likely to alter this
evaluation.
g. Uniroyal also claimed that the
results from the interim studies being
conducted by Uniroyal demonstrated
that UDMH was nol mulogcnic.
Response: A total of 8 mutagenicily
studies were submitted by Uniroyal to
EPA during 1909 as part of the Interim
results on UDMH oncogenicity. The
following three tests were considered to
be negative and acceptable: (1) The
Ames Salmonella test, (2) unscheduled
DNA synthesis, and {3) primary rat
hepatocyte and Cl lO/aberration. The
use of an unusual solvent (0.25 Normal
hydrochloric acid) in these tests,
however, limits the use of the results of
these tests to predict mutagenesis that
may occur under more usual.test
conditions.
Two CHO/hprl gene mutation assays
have also been submitted by Uniroyal,
one using the hydrochloric acid solvent.
In the second, an attempt was made to
buffer the solution. In these latter two
studies there were enough instances of
elevated frequencies to suggest that
there may be mutagenic activity. Token
as a whole, therefore, the results must
be considered to be equivocal, rather
thnn negative.
The interim results of the mutagrmicily
studies being conducted by Uniroyal
also do nol call into question the
validity of the earlier UDMH tests that
were positive for mutagenicity, since the
conditions used by Uniroynl differed
from those in earlier tests. The positive
results of earlier mutagenicity studies
are discussed in the background
documentation for this final rule as well
as in the May, 1908 technical support
document developed by EI'A as par! of
the FIFRA reregislration review of
Alar."
In summary, after carefully evaluating
(he comments, the Agency believes thnt
the available evidence supports a
determination that UDMH is
carcinogenic, mutagenic, and
leratogenic.
C. Additional Waste Stream$
The commenter, the generator of the
four wastes covered by today's
rulemnking, supplied information on Iho
generation of two additional
wastestreams, both having the potential
for significant UDMH contamination. As
a result of this new Information, the
Agency, in an accompanying action in
today's Federal Register, is proposing to
add two additional waste streams from
the manufacture of UDMH from
carboxylic acid hydrazides to the list of
hazardous wastes,
V, Relation to Other Regulations
A, Toxicity Characteristics (TC)
As one of the mandates of HSWA. Ihe
Agency expanded the loxicity
characteristics (TC) by including
additional toxic organic chemicals.
Under the March 29,1990 final rule (55
FR 11796J, hazardous waste listings will
not be affected by the toxicity
characteristic—that is, all the listings
will remain in effect, including those
listings that were based on the presence
of TC constituents. It is EPA's intention
that the hazardous waste listings will
continue to complement the TC.
Although the TC currently does nol
include UDMH as a toxicily
characteristic contaminant, any future
addition of UDMI! to the TC may
capture other wastes contaminated by
UDMH that are not covered by wastes
K107, K108, K109 and KllO. In addition,
the recently promulgated TC may
capture other wastes generated by the
UDMH manufacturing industry that
contain the current toxicity
characteristic contaminants that are not
covered by wastes K107, K108, K109 and
KllO.
1 U.S. EPA, OH' (Mny, 1900). ibid.
-------
1S502 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
B. Land Disposal Restrictions
HSWA mandated that EPA
promulgate under a specific schedule
land disposal restrictions for all wastes
listed or identified as hazardous prior to
the enactment of HSWA (see RCRA
section 3004(g)[4)(C}). HSWA also
requires the Agency to make a land
disposal prohibition determination for
any hazardous waste that is newly
identified or listed 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. The Agency is
evaluating treatment standards for
newly listed wastes K107, K108, K109,
and K110.
VI. Test Methods to Be Added to
Appendix III
Appendix HI of 40 CFR part 261 is a
list of test methods that are approved
for use in demonstrating that the
constituents of concern in listed wastes
are not present at concentrations of
concern. The Agency is designating
Method 8250 for testing for UDMH. and
is adding this method to Appendix III of
part 261. The proposed regulation
proposed the use of Method 8250 for
testing for UDMH in the wastes (49 FR
49556); no comments were received
regarding the use of this method for this
purpose. Method 8270 is also believed to
be a suitable method since most
commercial laboratories now prefer to
use the capillary column
chromatography specified in this method
to improve the chromatographic
resolution. The only difference between
these two methods is the use of a
capillary column gas chromatography
technique instead of a packed column
technique.
Persons wishing to submit delisting
petitions must use one of these methods
(or an equivalent one] to demonstrate
the concentration of UDMH in their
wastes.24 (See 40 CFR 260.22(d)(lJ.) As
part of their petitions, EPA requests
submission of quality control data
demonstrating that the methods they
have used yield acceptable recovery
(i.e., >80% recovery at concentrations
above 1 MS/8) on spiked aliquots of their
waste.
The above methods are in 'Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste:
Physical/Chemical Methods," SW-846,
14 Petitioners may use other methods to analyze
for UDMH if. among other things, they demonstrate
the equivalency of these methods by submitting
their quality control and assurance information
along with their analysis data. (See 40 CFR 260.21.)
3rd Ed., as updated, available from:
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington. DC 204C2, (202) 783-3238,
Document Number: 055-002-81001-2.
VII. CERCLA Impacts
All listed hazardous wastes, as well
as any solid waste that exhibits one or
more of the characteristics of a
hazardous waste (as defined in 40 CFR
261.21 through 261.24), are hazardous
substances under section 101(14)(C) of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA).
(CERCLA hazardous substances are
listed in Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4.
along with their reportable quantities
(RQs).) CERCLA section 103(a) requires
that persons in charge of vessels or
facilities from which a hazardous
substance has been released in a
quantity that is equal to or greater than
its RQ immediately notify the National
Response Center of the release [at (800)
424-8802 or in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area at (202) 426-2675]. In
addition, section 304 of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (SARA) requires the owner or
operator of a facility to report the
release of a hazardous substance to the
appropriate state emergency response
commission (SERC) and to the local
emergency planning committee (LEPC)
when the amount released equals or
exceeds the RQ for the substance.
According to the "mixture rule" used
for notification under CERCLA and
SARA (50 FR 13463, April 4,1985). the
release of mixtures must be reported
when the amount released equals or
exceeds the RQ for the waste, unless the
concentrations of the constituents of the
waste are known. When the
concentrations of the individual
constituents of a hazardous waste are
known, the release of the hazardous
waste would need to be reported to the
NRC and to the appropriate LEPC and
SERC when the RQ of any of the
hazardous constituents is equaled or
exceeded. RQs of different hazardous
substances are not additive under the
mixture rule (except for radionuclides.
see 54 FR 22536, May 24,1989), so that
spilling a mixture containing half an RQ
of one hazardous substance and half an
RQ of another hazardous substance
does not require a report.
Under Section 102 of CERCLA, all
hazardous wastes newly designated
under RCRA will have a statutorily-
imposed RQ of one pound unless and
until adjusted by regulation under
CERCLA. In order to coordinate the
RCRA and CERCLA rulemaking with
respect to new waste listings, the
Agency also proposed on December 20,
1984 regulatory amendments under
CERCLA authority in connection with
the proposed listings to: (1) Designate
wastes K107 to KllO based on the
hazardous substances under section 102
of CERCLA; and (2) adjust the RQs of
wastes K107 to KllO based on the
application of the RQ adjustment
methodology under section 102(a) (49 FR
49556).
The RQs for each waste and for each
of the hazardous constituents are
identified in the table below. The
constituent of concern, UDMH, has an
RQ that has undergone adjustment since
the proposed listing of UDMH
production wastes. On August 14,1989.
EPA adjusted the RQ for UDMH from
one pound to 10 pounds (54 FR 33426).
The adjustment of the RQs of wastes
K107, K108, K109 and KllO from the
statutory one-pound level is based on
the current RQ of the constituent in
these listings. Because the only toxic
constituent of concern in the wastes
(UDMH) has an RQ of 10 pounds, the
RQs of the four wastes likewise are
being set today as 10 pounds. These RQs
will become effective on the effective
date of today's action, when the wastes
simultaneously become hazardous
substances under CERCLA.
Hazardous substance
Waste No. K107
Waste No K108
Waste No K109
Waste No K110
Con-
stituent
UDMH...
UDMH...
UDMH...
UDMH...
RQ
10 !bs.
10 IDS.
10 Ibs
10 Ibs.
10 Ibs
10 Ibs.
10 Ibs.
10 Ibs.
VIII. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. (See 40 CFR
part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization, EPA retains
enforcement authority under sections
3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA.
although authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program entirely in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Kugisfor / Vol. 55, No. WO / Wednesday, May 2, 1900 / Hubs and Rc(|uliititms 13503
I(H!j»i;r applied in Ihu authorized Stale,
.•mil EPA could not issuu permits fur uny
futilities in the Stale Ihut (ho State was
tiiilhoraed to permit. When nnw, more
s!ringnnl Federal rci|ulrpmonts wore
promulgated or enonled, the State was
obliged to enact equivalent authority
wilhin specified time frames. New
Federal requirements did not lake effect
in fin nulhorizud Stati; unlil the Stiite
ndopled the requirements as Stale law.
In contrast, under suction 3000(g) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. n»2Q(gj. new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by the HSWA take effect in authorized
Slates at the same lime that they take
effect in nonaulliorizcd Slntes. EPA is
directed to implement those
requirements ond prohibitions in
authorized Stales, inr.Iuding the issuance
of permits, until the Slate is grunted
authorization to do so. While Stntes
roust still adopt I1SWA related
provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, the IISWA applies in
authorized States in the Interim.
Todny's rule is promulgated pursuant
to section 3001{e)(2) of RCRA, a
provision added by the IISWA.
Therefore, these wastes have been
added to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271,1(|),
which identifies the Federal program
requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA, and that lake effect
in all Suites, regardless of their
authorization stains. States may apply
for either interim or final authorization
fur the HSWA provisions identified In
Table 1, as discussed in the following
section of this preamble. Because EPA
promulgated rules regarding the timing
for I ISWA listings after this rule was
proposed, the existing regulatory time
frames supersede the discussions in the
preamble to the proposed rule.
O. Effect on Slate Authorizations
As noted above, EPA will implement
today's rule in authorized States until
ihny modify their programs to adopt
these rules, ond 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 section 3Q06(g)(2) or
300fl(ljJ, respectively, on the basis of
regulations that ore substantially
equivalent or equivalent to EPA's. The
procedures and schedule for State
program modifications under section
300(i(b) are described in 40 CFR 271.21.'
The same procedures should be
followed for section 3000(g)(2).
Section 27i,Zl(e)(2J requires that
Slates that have finul authorization
must modify their programs to reflect
Federal program chimges and must
subsequently submit the modifications
to EPA for approval. Slate program
modifications to conform to today's ruin
must be made by July 1,1091, if only
regulatory changes ore necessary, or by
July 1.1992, if statutory changes are
necessary. See 40 CFR 2?l,21(e)(2)(iv)
nnd 271.21(e)(2)(v). These deadlines can
be extended in exceptional cases. See 40
CI'R 271.21(e)(3).
States with authorized RCRA
programs already may have regulations
similar to those in today's rule. These
State regulations have not been
assessed against the Federal regulations
being promulgated today to determine
whether they meet the tests for
authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to implement these
regulations in lieu of EPA until the Stale
program modification is approved. Of
course, States with existing regulations
may continue to administer and enforce
their regulations as a matter of State
law. In implementing the Federal
program, EPA will work with Status
under cooperative agreements to
minimize duplication of efforts. In many
cases, EPA will be able to defer to the
States in their efforts to implement their
programs, rather than take separate
actions under Federal authority.
States that submit official applications
for final authorization less than 12
months after the effective dale of these
regulations are not required to include
standards equivalent to these standards
in their applications. However, a State
must modify ita program by the
deadlines set forth in 40 CFR 271.21 (e).
States that submit official applications
for final authorization 12 months after
the effective date of these standards
must include standards in their
application. Section 271,3 sets forth the
requirements a State must meet when
submitting its final authorization
application.
IX. Compliance Dates
A. Notification
Under section 3010 of RCRA, EPA
may waive the notification requirement
otherwise applicable to persons
managing newly-regulated hazardous
waste. The Agency has decided to
waive the RCRA section 3010
notification requirement for only those
persons who generate, transport, treat,
store, or dispose of hazardous wastes
subject to today's rule that have
previously notified EPA or an authorized
State of hazardous waste activities and
have received an identification number.
The Agency believes that most, if not
all, persons who manage these wastes
have already notified EPA and received
an EPA identification number and
therefore will not have to re-notify.
However, any person who generates.
transports, treats, stores, or disposes of
these wastes has not previously notified
and received an identification number,
that person must notify EPA or nn
aullioriznd Slate HO later than July 31,
1990. of these activities pursuant to
section 3010 of RCRA. Notification
instructions are set forth in 45 FR 12740,
February 20, 19UO.
O. I'eriniUiuy
Because I ISWA requirements ure
applicable in authorized States at the
same time ns in unauthorized Slates,
EPA will regulate K107-K110 unlil Stylus
are authorized to regulate these wastes.
Thus, once this regulation becomes
effective, EPA will apply Federal
regulations to these wastes and to their
management In both authoriznd nnd
unauthorized States. Facilities (h«t treal,
store, or dispose of K107-K110, but that
have not received a permit pursuant to
section 3005 of RCRA and are not
operating pursuont to interim status,
might be eligible for interim stalus undur
HSWA (see section 3005(e)(l)(A)(ii) of
RCRA, as amended). In order to operate
pursuant to interim status, the eligible
facilities are required to possess an EPA
ID number pursuant to 40 CFR 270.70(a),
and will be required to submit a I'urt A
permit application by November 2,1990.
Currently permitted facilities that
manage UDMH wastes must submit
Class I permit modifications if they are
to continue managing the newly
regulated wastes in units thai require a
permit. The facilities must oblnin the
necessary modification by the effective
date of the rule, or they will be
prohibited from accepting additional
UDMII wastes.
Interim status facilities that manage
UDMH wastes In units that require a
permit must file an amended Part A
permit application under 40 CFR
270.10(gJ if they are to continue
managing newly regulated wastes. The
facilities must file the necessary
amendments by the effective dale of the
rule, or they will not receive interim
status with respect to the UDMH wastes
(i.e., they will be prohibited from
accepting additional UDMH wastes until
permitted).
Newly regulated facilities (i.e.,
facilities at which the only hazardous
wastes that are managed are newly
regulated UDMH wastes) must qualify
for interim status by the compliance
dale of the rule in order to continue
managing UDMH wastes prior to
receiving a permit. Under 40 CFR 270.70,
an existing facility may obtain Interim
status by getting an EPA identification
number and submitting a Part A permit
-------
18504 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
application by the effective date of this
rule. To retain interim status, a newly-
regulated land disposal facility must
submit a Part B permit application
within one year after the effective date
of the rule and certify that the facility is
in compliance with all applicable ground
water monitoring and financial
responsibility requirements {see RCRA
section 3Q05(e)(3)),
EPA recently promulgated
amendments to the procedures for
permit modifications for treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities (see 53
FR 37934, September 28,1988). The
following discussion assumes
implementation in accordance with the
new rule. EPA will implement the
UDMH listing regulations by using the
new permit modification procedures,
consistent with EPA policy (see 53 FR
37933, September 28,1988).
Under the new regulation in 40 CFR
270.42, there are now three classes of
permit modifications with different
submittal and public participation
requirements for each class. In 40 CFR
270.42{g), which concerns newly listed
or identified wastes, a permitted facility
that is "in existence" as a hazardous
waste facility for the newly listed or
identified waste on the effective date of
the notice must submit a Class 1
modification by that date. Essentially,
this modification is a notification to the
Agency that the facility is handling the
waste. As part of the procedure, the
permittee must also notify the public
within 90 days of submittal to the
Agency.
Next, within 180 days of the effective
date, the permittee must submit a Class
2 or 3 modification to the Agency. A
permittee may submit a Class 2
modification if the newly regulated
waste will be disposed in existing TSD
units and will not require additional or
different management practices from
those authorized in the permit. A Class 1
modification requires public notice by
the facility owner of the modification
request, a 60 day public comment
period, and an informal meeting
between the owner and the public
within the 80 day period. The rule
includes a "default provision," so that
for Class 1 modifications, if the Agency
does not make a decision within 120
days, the modification is automatically .
authorized for 180 days. If the Agency-
does not reach a decision by the end of
that period, the modification is
permanently authorized. If the newly
regulated waste requires additional or
different management practices, a Class
3 modification is required. The initial
public notification and public meeting •
requirements are the same as for Class
2. However, after the end of the public
comment period, the Agency will
develop a draft permit modification,
open a public comment period of 45
days and hold a public hearing.
X. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must determine whether a regulation is
"major" and, therefore, subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. The generator subject to
today's rule, Uniroyal Corporation, is
not currently manufacturing UDMH. As
a result, none of the wastes covered by
this final regulation are currently being
generated, and therefore no costs from
their management as hazardous would
be incurred at the present time.
However, Uniroyal may resume
production; when this occurs the total
additional incurred cost for disposal of
the wastes as hazardous would be less
than 32,000 (based on previous
production levels), well under the $100
million constituting a major regulation,
This cost would be insignificant and
would result from minimal additional
compliance requirements, as these
wastes were already handled as if they
were hazardous.
Since EPA does not expect that the
amendments promulgated here will have
an annual effect on the economy of Si 00
million or more, result in a measurable
increase in cost or prices, or have an
adverse impact on the ability of U.S.-
based enterprises to compete in either
domestic or foreign markets, these
amendments are not considered to
constitute a major action. As such, a
Regulatory Impact Analysis is not
required,
The Agency received comments on
the economic impact analysis included
with the December 20, 1984 proposed
regulations. Uniroyal criticized the
Agency's economic analysis because it
did not consider the impact of co-
disposal of the aqueous wastes with
other plant wastes by deep well
injection. Uniroyal contended that in the
event that the subject hazardous wastes
are mixed with other solid wastes, the
resulting mixture would be hazardous
wastes bv the mixture rule (see 40 CFR
Because the commenter ceased
underground injection of their UDMH
manufacturing wastes in May, 1985
(because of having ceased the
production of UDMH itself), long before
promulgation of today's rule, the
commenter will not be subject to the
permitting requirements of parts 144 and
146 for Class 1 wells receiving hazardous
wastes (assuming no other hazardous
wastes are being injected). As a result.
no additional management costs would
be incurred by a designation as
hazardous wastes formerly disposed in
this manner. The commenter would stfll
be required to comply with She parts 144
and 146 requirements for Class 1 wells
for the disposal of non-hazardous
industrial wastes, however, if the deep
well continues to receive other wastes
from the facility not regulated as
hazardous under RCRA.
XI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. sections 601-612, whenever
an agency is required to publish a
general notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the impact of the rule on smail
entities [i.e., smail businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility
analysis is required, however, if the
head of the agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The hazardous wastes listed here are
not generated by small entities (as
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act), and the Agency received no
comments that small entities will
dispose of them in significant quantities.
Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This
regulation, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
XII. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any
information collection requirements
subject to OMB review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,44
U.S.C. section 3S01 et saq.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 281
Hazardous waste. Recycling.
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information, Hazardous materials
transportation. Hazardous waste, Indian
lands. Intergovernmental relations.
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water pollution control,
Water supply.
40 CFR Part 302
Air pollution control. Chemicals,
Hazardous materials, Hazardous
materials transportation, Hazardous
substances. Intergovernmental relations.
Natural resources. Nuclear materials,
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vul. 5S, No. 05 / Wednesday. May 2. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 18505
rijslir.ides and pests, Radioactive
inatcnuls, Reporting nnd rccordknopfng
requirements, Siipcrfund, Waste
h iNilinnnt nn(i disposal. Water pollution
control.
Diiied: April 23,1890.
William K. Rcilly,
Administrator.
For the reasons sot out in the
preamble, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 201
continues to read us follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 0905, 6912(a), 6921.
6022, and 6930.
2. In § 261.32, add the following wnsln
streams to the subgroup 'Organic
Chemicals':
§ 261.32 Hazardous wastes from specific sources.
Industry and EP/l
hazardous wss'.c No.
Hazatdous wcsle
Hazard
corio
Oiga.iic chemicals:
«•*«*»«
K107 Column bottoms tictn product separation from the production ol t.l-dimethyl-hydrazlns (UDMH) (torn carboxyllc ocid (CJ)
hydrazines.
K10S , Condensed column ovecrwwds Imm product separation and condensed reactor venl rjsses from the production ol 1.1- (I,T)
dim?thythydraztnB (UDMH) Irom carboxylic acid hydiazides.
K109 , Spent filter cartridges from product purification from the production of 1,t-dimethylhydra;r,in« (UDMH) from cartxjxyte acid (T)
hydraiides,
K110 Condensed coltimn overheads from intermediate separation Irom lha production of 1,1-dimethylhydraziiie (UDMH) Irom (T)
carboxylic acid hydrazides.
3, Add Ihc following compound and
unalysis methods in alphabetical order
to Table 1 of Appendix HI of part 2G1:
Appendix III—Chemical Analysis Tcsl
Methods
TABLE 1,—ANALYSIS METHODS FOR OR-
GANIC CHEMICALS CONTAINED IN SW-
846
Compound
Melhod
No.
4. Add the following entries in
numerical order to Appendix VII of part
201:
Appendix VII—Masis for Listing
Hazardous Waste
EPA
hazardous I lazardous constituents for which listed
waste No.
K107 t.l-Dlmelhylhydrazine (UDMH).
K108 1,1-Diroe!bythyd>azine (UDMH).
K109 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine (UDMH).
K110 1,1-Dimelhylhydrailne (UDMH).
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
5, The authority cilnlion for part 271
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C, 6905,0912(a), and 6920.
0. Section 271.1(j) ia amended by
adding the following entry to Table 1 in
chronological order by date of
publication:
§271.1 Purpose and scope.
1,1-Dimelhylhydrazine (UDMM)..
8250
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS Arm SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
date
Title of regulation
Federal
Register refer- FHoclive dale
ence
May 1, t990 Listing Wastes from the Production of UDMH from Carboxylic Acid Hydrazfdes..
[insert Federal November 2,
Register 1990.
page
numbers).
-------
10508 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
PART 302—DESIGNATION,
REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND
NOTIFICATION
7, The authority citiolion for part 302
continues to read as Follows:
Authority: Sees. 101(1)(14) and I02(b) of the 8, Section 302.4 is amended by adding
Comprohonsive Envlronmontal Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1900,42
U.S.C, 9001(14) and 9602; sees. 311 and 501(n)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
33 U.S.C, 1321 and 1301.
the wnstc streams K107, K108, K109. and
K110 to Table 302.4.
§ 302.4 Designation ol hazardous
substances.
TABLE 302.4—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES
Hazardous substance
KIDS'
Column boltoms from product separation horn lh« production ol 1,1-dimolhyIhy-
drazine (UDMH) Irom cnrtxxyllc «ck) hydrazines,
K108 . .
Condensed column oveiheads from product separation and condensed reactor
venl gases from the production ol 1,1-dimelhylhydrazine (UDMH) Irom carbox-
ylic ecid hydrazidos.
K109
SjMMit filler cartridges tram product purification Irom Jho production ol 1,1-
dimethythydrazins (UOMH) Irom carboxylic scid hydrazklos.
KIIO
Condensed column overheads Irom intermediate separation from th« production
ol 1,1-dimethythyrfrazine (UDMH) Irom carboxylic acid hydraiides.
CASRN
Rogulatory
synonyms
•
•
Statutory
RO
10
10
10
10
Code
4
4
A
4
RCflA
WR9tO
num.
bor
K«07
K108
KI09
K110
Final RQ
Category
*
X
X
X
X
*
Pounds
10 H.54J
10 H.54)
10 (4.54)
10 (4.5.1)
1 4—indicates thai !he slatutory source lor designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA Is HCRA section 3001.
[I'R Doc. 90-9970 Filed 5-1-90: 0:45 om|
BILl 1HQ CODE »560-50-H
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 76
Criteria for Listing Toxic Wastes; Technical Amendment
55 FR 18726
May 4, 1990
(Non-HSWA Cluster VI)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART B - CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE AND FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE
CRITERIA FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE
replace "unless" after
"Appendix VIII" with
"and"; delete "any of"
after "considering";
delete "not" after
"waste is"
261.11(a){3)
May 4, 1990 - Page 1 of 1
DCL76.9 - 12/9/91
-------
-------
18728
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 87 / Friday. May 4. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-764Z,
§52.2220 [Amended]
2. In § 52.2220, paragraph (c)(9l)(m) is
redesignated as (c)(91)(ii).
§52,2222 [Amended]
3. In § 52,2222 paragraph (C) is
redesignated as (c).
[FR Doc. 90-10353 Filed 5-3-90; 8:45 amj
BILLING CODE 6560-5O-M
40 CFR Part 261
[FRL-3762-3]
Hazardous Waste Management
System: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Technical amendment.
SUMMARY: On May 19,1980, as part of
its final and interim final regulations
implementing section 3001 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), EPA promulgated a series
of criteria for listing wastes as
hazardous. The Agency is today
conforming the language of the
regulation to reflect the Agency's intent
and consistent interpretation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4,1990.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800)
424-9348 or at (202) 382-3000. For
technical information, contact Mr.
William A. Collins, Office of Solid
Wastes (OS-332), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW..
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 382-4791.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION! On May
19,1980, EPA promulgated final and
interim final regulations implementing
section 3001 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Section 300l{a), among other
provisions, requires the Agency to
promulgate criteria for listing wastes as
hazardous. The Agency's regulations to
implement this section of the Act is
codified at 40 CFR 281.11.
The provision involved in this
technical correction is § 261.11(a)(3), the
criteria for listing toxic wastes. This
provision states that the Agency will list
a waste as toxic if the waste contains
any toxic constituent listed in appendix
VIII of part 261 unless, after considering
a series of enumerated factors, the
Administrator determines that the waste
is not capable of posing a substantial
hazard to human health and the
environment even if managed
improperly. Appendix VIII contains a
i list of substances shown in scientific
studies to be toxic, carcinogenic,
mutagenic or teratogenic. The factors set
out in the rule—drawn for the most part
from sections 1004(5) and 3001(a) of
RCRA—include the nature of the toxic
constituents, the concentration of toxic
constituents in the waste-, the migratory
potential of the constituents and their
mobility and persistence after migrating
from a waste. Other factors are the
plausible ways the waste could be
mismanaged, the quantity of waste
generated, damage incidents caused by
past management of the waste, and
action by other regulatory agencies
regarding the waste or waste
constituents.
In practice, the Agency has always
evaluated the waste factors (or those
factors that are relevant) in its specific
listing actions at issue, and then made
judgments as to whether wastes
containing an Appendix VIII constituent
is capable of causing substantial harm if
mismanaged. (See Listing Background
Documents of: May 19,1980,45 FR
33084-33137; November 12,1980,45 FR
74884-74894; November 23,1980,4S FR
78524-78550; January 16,1981,46 FR
4614-4620; May 29,1981, 48 FR 27473-
27480; May 10,1984, 49 FR 19922-19923;
January 14,1985, 50 FR 1978-2006;
October 23,1985, 50 FR 42936-42943;
December 31,1985, 50 FR 53315-53320;
February 13,1986, 51 FR 5327-5331,
February 25,1988, 51 FR 8537-6542; May
28,1986,51 FR 19320-19322; September
13,1988, 53 FR 35412-3S421; October 6,
1989.54 FR 41402-41408; and December
11,1989, 54 FR 50968-50979 (explaining
the basis for listing the waste in 40 CFR
281.31,261.32, and 261.33 based upon the
criteria for listing in § 261.11(a)(3))). As
written, however, the rule could
mistakenly be read to imply that wastes
are hazardous if they contain an
appendix VIII constituent (conceivably
in any concentration), without
considering the enumerated factors
which serve only to rebut the
presumption,
As stated above, the Agency has
never applied the rule in this way, and
has always interpreted the rule to
require consideration of the appropriate
factors in determining whether to list
wastes: By appropriate factors, the
Agency does not mean that each factor
enumerated in | 261.11(a)(3) must be
considered in a particular case. The
Agency therefore believes that the
wording of the rule should be corrected
to reflect the proper standard
established by the rule. Accordingly, the
Agency is amending § 261.11(a){3) to
state that wastes will be listed as
hazardous if they contain one or more
appendix VIII constituents and after
considering the enumerated factors, the
Administrator determines that the waste
is capable of posing substantial harm if
managed improperly. This change in
language is not intended to and will not
affect existing Agency listing practices
based upon the Agency's consistent
interpretation of the 1980 regulatory
language. Thus, EPA has and will
continue to provide more or less
detailed consideration of the factors, as
well as to consider factors jointly, as
appropriate.
Because this action is a technical
clarification of an existing rule, EPA
believes that notice and comment
requirements do not apply to and are
unnecessary for today's action. Any
regulatory action was achieved by the
1980 rule and by the numerous listings
providing EPA's interpretation of the
rule. In any event, EPA believes that
good cause exists for today's changes
under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the
Administrative Procedures Act because
this is a technical clarification (or at
most an interpretive rule).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 2S1
Hazardous waste, Recycling.
Dated: April 20,1990.
Henry L. Longest n,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 281
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, and
6922.
2. In § 261.11, paragraph (a)(3)
introductory text is revised to read as
follows:
§ 261.11 Criteria for listing hazardous
waste.
(a) * ' •
(3) It contains any of the toxic
constituents listed in Appendix VIII and,
after considering the following factors,
the Administrator concludes that the
waste is capable of posing a substantial
present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when
improperly treated, stored, transported
or disposed of, or otherwise managed:
[FR Doc. 90-10326 Filed 5-3-90; 8:45 am|
BILUNO COOi «5«0-50-*l
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 77
HSWA Codification Rule, Double Liners; Correction
55 FR 19262-19264
May 9, 1990
(HSWA Cluster II)
Note: The final rule addressed by this checklist corrects 264.221 (c) and 264.301 (c) as
promulgated on July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702; Revision Checklist 17 H). This correction is based
on a decision reached in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on June 23, 1987
concerning a lawsuit filed against EPA. States not yet authorized for Revision Checklist 17 H are
encouraged to adopt these corrections at the same time the Revision Checklist 17 H provisions
are adopted.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART K - SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
DESIGN AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
1 insert "for units where
the Part B of the
permit application is
received by the
Regional Administrator
after November 8,
1984" after "permit"
264.221 (c)
SUBPART N - LANDFILLS
DESIGN AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
add sentence regard-
ing applicability of
264.301 (c) only where
Part B of the permit
application is
received after
November 8, 1984
264.301 (c)
1
"Issuance" should not be changed to "insurance" in this paragraph; this is a typographical error
in the FR for this correction notice (55 FR 19263).
May 9, 1990 - Page 1 of 1
DCL77.9 - 12/9/91
-------
-------
19282
DIE. No. 9541.00-14
Federnl Register / Vol. 55, No, 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
be commingled in (he same sack and
counted toward the 10 pound minimum,
284.511 Direct Country Sack Label.
Direct country sacks must be labeled
with PS Tag 116. The tag is white and
specially coded to route the mail Jo a
specific country and airport of
destination. The blocks on the tag for
dale, weight, and dispatch information-
must be completed by the Postal Service
and may not be completed by the
mailer. Tag 115, International Priority
Airmail, must also be affixed to the
Direct Country Sacks, Tag 115 is a "Day-
Glo" pink tag that identifies the mail lo
ensure it receives priority handling.
234.52 Mixed Direct Country Bundle
Sacks
284.S21 General. The direct country
bundles containing six or more pieces
destined to a specific country that
cannot be made up in direct.country
sacks, must be enclosed.in orange
Priority Mail sacks unless other
equipment is specified by the
acceptance office.
284.522 Mixed Direct Country Sack
Label. The sack label must be completed
as follows;
Line 1: DIS Acceptance Post Office
Routing Code
Line 2: international Priority Airmail
Line 3: Mailer, Mailer Location
Example;
DIS, Philadelphia. PA 190
International Priority Airmail
ABC Store, Philadelphia, PA
284.53 Nonpresort/Residual Mail
Sacks
284.531 General. The working
bundles of mixed country mail and loose
items should be enclosed in orange
Priority Mail sacks unless other
equipment is specified by the
acceptance office. Nonpresorted letter-
size mail consisting of 400 pieces or
more may be presented In trays if
authorized by the acceptance office.
Working bundles of mixed mail cannot
be enclosed in Mixed Direct Country
Sacks.
284.532 Nonpresort/Residual Mail
Sack Label. The sack label must be
completed as follows:
Line 1: Appropriate U.S. Exchange
Office and routing code
Line 2: International Priority Airmail—
WKG
Line 3: Mailer, Mailer Location
Example:
AMF, Boston, MA 021
International Priority Airmail—WKG
CPA Company, Boston, MA
284.54 Tag* and Weight Maximum for
Sacks
284.541 Weight Maximum. The
maximum weight.of the sack and
contents must not exceed 66 pounds.
284.542 Tag 115 and Tag 118. All IPA
sacks (direct country, mixed direct
country bundle sacks and nonpresort/
residual mail sacks must be labeled with
Tag 115, International Priority Airmail,
Tag 115 is a "Day-Glo" pink tog that
identifies IPA mail to ensure that it
receives priority treatment Tag 116 is a
dispatching tag to be used only for
Direct Country Sacks. Tag 116 is white
and specially coded to route the mail to
a specific country and airport of
destination. The blocks on the tag for
date, weight, and dispatch information
must be completed by the Postal Service
and may not be completed by the
mailer. Postal tags and sacks are
available from the post office.
234.6 Bundle and Sack Label
Information. Mailers may obtain routing
information forfacing slips and sack
labels from the acceptance post office.
' Routing information is also printed In
Publication 507, International.Priority
Airmail Mailer Guidelines, and
Handbook IM-201 International Priority
Airmail Guide lines,
284.7 Customs Forms Requirements
284.71 Letters and Letter Packages.
See 224.5.
284.72 Printed Matter. See 244,6.
284.73 Small Packets. See 284.5.
A transmittal letter making the
changes in the pages in the Internattooal
Mail manual will be published and
transmitted to subscribers
automatically. Notice of issuance of the
transmittal letter will be published in
the Federal Register as provided by 39
CFR 20.3.
Fred Eggleston, ,
Assistant General Counsel, Legislative
Division.
[FR Doc. 90-10822 Filed &-8-90: 8:45 am)
BILLWQ CODE 7710-ia-U
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
IFRL-3783-5]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; Montana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule; correction,
SUMMARY: On December 2,1988 (53 FR
48645) EPA added 40 CFR 52.1382(c)
which described an air quality modeling
commitment made by Montana.
However. 40 CFR 52.1382(c) which
described Class II designations already
existed. Today's notice redesignates 40
CFR 52.1382(0), which pertains to air
quality modeling, as 40 CFR 52.1382(d),
On June 7.1989 (54 FR 24341) EPA added
40 CFR 52.1387, stack height regulations.
However, a § 524387. visibility
protection, already existed. Today's
notice redesignates § 52.1387, stack
height regulations, as § 52.1308.
EFFECTIVE DATES: January 31,1989, for
the corrections to 40 CFR 52.1382. July 7,
1989, for the corrections to 40 CFR
52.1387,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Laurie Ostrand, Air Programs Branch.
Environmental Protection Agency, 999
18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado
80202-2405, (303) 293-1814, FTS 330-
1814.
Dated:.April 28,1990.
Irwtn L. Dickstein,
Acting Regional Administrator.
40 CFR part 52, subpart BB. is
amended as follows.
PART 52—{AMENDED!
Subpart BB—Montana
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S;C. 7401-7642
5 52.1382 [Amended]
2. Section 52.1382 is amended by"
redesignating paragraph (c) (which was
inadvertently added on December 2,
1988 (53 FR 48845)) as (d),
§52.1387 [Amended]
3. Part 52 is amended by redesignating
§ 52,1387 (which was inadvertently
added on June 7,1980 (54 FR 24341J) as
| 52.1388.
[FR Doc. 90-10620 Filed 5-8-90:8:45 am)
BILLING CODE SMO-50-U
40 CFR Part 264
[FRL-3394-9J
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Final Codification Rule;
Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final Rule; correction.
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a correction
notice for || 2B4.221(c) and 264.301{c) as
promulgated on July 15,1985 (see 50 FR
28747 and 28748 respectively). This
-------
Federal Register / Vol. SS, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 19283
correction notice is based on a decision
reached in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia on
June 23,1987, concerning a lawsuit filed
against EPA. This correction notice
applies to certain landfill and surface
impoundment units for which the Pert B
of the permit application was received
by November 8,1984. Permits issued for
units in this category are not required to
include conditions Imposing double liner
and leachate collection system
requirements as a matter of statute
pursuant to section- 3004(o) but may
include such requirements where
necessary to protect human health and
the environment on a case-by-case basis
pursuant to section 3005(c).
EFFECTIVE DATE May 9, 1990.
FOB FURTHER INFORMATION COKTACTJ
Mr. Alessi Otte (202) 382-4854.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION; On fune
23,1987, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
issued its decision in United
Technologies Corp. vs. U.S,
En vironmental Protection Agency. The
lawsuit challenged a number of aspects
of EPA's July 15,1985, final rule
interpreting amendments to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) enacted in HSWA. The
Court of Appeals upheld all but one of
EPA's interpretations. The only portion
of the rule that the Court found lacking
dealt with the applicability of the
minimum technological requirements
(i.e., double liner and leachate detection
and collection systems) provision
contained in section 3004(o){l) of the
Act, 42 U.S.C section 6924(o}(l], The
Court concluded as follows:
We do find that 40 CFR Sec. 295.221,
265.301 are invalid to the extent that they
impose Section 3004(o) technological
requirements on owner* and operators whose
applications for a final determination on their
Section 3005 permits were received before .
November 0.1984.
EPA in this final rule is making
conforming changes to its regulations in
line with the Court of Appeals decision.
In this regard, EPA interprets the
decision as applying to section
3004 (o)(l) requirements where permit
applications were received by the date
of enactment of HSWA, for purposes of
requiring double liners and leachate
collection systems as permit conditions
under section 3005(c). The conforming
changes appear in 40 CFR part 264.221
and 264.301.
Petitioners did not challenge and the
decision does not address the
applicability of the minimum
technological requirements under
section 3013, which was also codified in
the July IS, 1985 rule. Section 3015
contains its own applicability provision.
It applies to new, replacement, and
expanded surface Impoundments and
landfill units that qualify for interim
status and that receive waste after May
8,1985 (six months after the dale of
enactment of HSWA}. It subjects these
facilities to the "requirements of section
3(XM(o)." In light of the separate
applicability plan describe above, EPA
interprets this language as referring to
the substantive requirements In section .
3004(o) rather than its applicability
provisions. Hence, section 3015 applies
without regard to the date the owner/
operator submitted a part B permit
application. Since part 265 Implements
section 3015, no change is necessary to
part 285.
Similarly, the decision has no impact
on the applicability of minimum
technological requirements under
section 30050). Section 3005(j) again
contains its own applicability provision.
It requires owners and operators of
surface Impoundments in existence and
qualifying for interim status on
November 8,1984, to stop receiving
hazardous waste by November 8,1988,
unless the owner or operator retrofits
the unit to come into "compliance with
the requirements of section - .
3004(o](l)(A)" by November 8,1988, or
qualifies for a statutory exemption.
Again, EPA interprets this provision as
applying the substantive requirements of
section 3004(o) to the units described in '
the separate furisdictional provisions of •
section 3005(j). Hence, the Court's
decision to read section 3004(o) as
applying to units for which part B •.
applications are first submitted after
November 8,1984, has no impact on the
surface impoundment retrofit
requirements. . • .
In addition, nothing in the Court of
Appeals decision addresses or affects
EPA's ability to condition permits • ..'
pursuant to RCRA section 3005(c)(3) to
ensure protection of human health and
the environment. Thus, regardless of the
date of permit application. Regional
Administrators can determine, based on
a case-by-case evaluation, that a permit
may need to be conditioned to include
minimum technological requirements,
due to the particular circumstances
associated with a facility or the
characteristics of a specific site.
List of Subjects in 40 Fart 264
Hazardous waste. Insurance, '
Packaging and containers, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures. Surety bonds.
Dated: April 27.1990.
William K. Reilly,
Adminislrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 2&4
continues to resd as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 8905, 8812(8), 69Z4 and
6925.
2. Section 264.221 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
§ 264.221 Design and operating
requirements.
* * # « '• # .>*'..
(c) The owner or operator of each new
surface impoundment, each new surface
Impoundment unit at an existing facility,
each replacement of an existing surface
impoundment unit, and each lateral
expansion of an existing surface
impoundment unit, must Install two or •
more liners and leachate collection • .
system between such liners. The liners
and leachate collection system must :
protect human health and the
environment. The requirements of this
paragraph shall apply with respect to all
waste received after insurance of the
permit for units where the part B of the
permit application is received by the
Regional Administrator after November
8,1984. The requirement for the
installation of two or more liners in this
paragraph may be satisfied by the
installation of B top liner designed,
operated, and constructed of materials
to prevent the migration of any
constituent into such liner during the
period such facility remains in operation
(including any post-closure monitoring
periodj, and a lower liner designed,
operated, and constructed to prevent the
migration of any constituent through
such liner during such period. For the
purpose of the preceding sentence, a
lower liner shall be deemed to satisfy
such requirement if it is constructed of
at least a 3-foot thick layer of
recompacted clay or other natural
material with a permeability of no more
than 1X10"* centimeter per second.
« * « * *
3. Section 264.301 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
-------
19264
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
5 264.301 Design and operating
requirements.
« t • • «
(c) The owner or operator of each new
landfill, each new landfill unit at an
existing facility, each replacement of an
existing landfill unit, and each lateral
expansion of an existing landfill unit.
must install two or more liners and a
leachate collection system above and
between the liners. The liners and
leachate collection systems must protect
human health and the environment. The
requirements of this paragraph shall
apply with respect to all waste received
after issuance of the permit for units
where the part B of the permit
application is received by the Regional
Administrator after November 8,1964.
The requirement for the installation of
two or more liners in this paragraph may
be satisfied by the Installation of a top
liner designed, operated, and
constructed of materials to prevent the
migration of any constituent into such
liner during the period such facility
remains in operation (including any
post-closure monitoring period), and a
lower liner designed, operated, and
constructed to prevent the migration of
any constituent through such liner
during such period. For the purpose of
the preceding sentence, a lower liner
shall be deemed to satisfy such
requirement if it is constructed of at
least a 3-foot thick layer of recompacted
clay or other natural material with a
permeability of no more than IXIO"'
centimeter per second.
* * * • *
|FR Doc, 90-10842 Filed 5-4-00; 5:45 am]
BILLING CODE MW-SO-M
40 CFR Part 350
[OPTS-400039A; FRL-3734-«J
Notice of Change of Address for
Submission of Information Under the
Emergency Planning and Community
Rlght-to-Know Act; Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: EPA issued a change of
address notice that was published in the
Federal Register of January 5,1990 (55
FR 420). The P.O. Box number was
inadvertently misstated. This notice
corrects that P.O. Box number.
DATES: This document is effective May
9.1990.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Doug Sellers, Project Officer, Title III
Reporting Center, Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M St.. SW..
Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: 202-
332-3587.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Federal Register of January 5,1990 (55
FR 420), EPA issued a notice announcing
the new mailing address to be used by
facilities when submitting toxic
chemical release forms and trade
secrecy claims to EPA under section.313
of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1988
(also known as Title III). The P.O. Box
numberfor the new mailing address was
incorrectly stated as "223779" in the
preamble and codified text on page 420,
in the third column, in two places: the
eleventh line of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION paragraph and the next to
the last line of the codified text. The
correct mailing address is: Title III
Reporting Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, P.O. Box 23779,
Washington, DC 20026-3779,
Dated: April 25.1990.
Linda A. Trevors,
Director. Information Management.Division,
Office of Toxic Substances.
|FR Doc. 90-10843 Filed 5-8-90; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLINO COOC *MO-«M>
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
(FCC 90-125)
Broadcast Services; Withdrawal of
Disqualifying Major Changs
Amendments
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Commission revises
5573.3571, 73.3572, and 73.3573 of its
rules regarding processing of AM. FM,
and television applications to allow an
applicant who submits a major
amendment, that would otherwise
require the assignment of a new file
number and place the applicant at the
end of the processing line, to withdraw
the amendment-Applicants In.
comparative cases may withdraw such
amendments any time prior to
designation of the application for
hearing: or subject to the discretion of
the Administrative Law Judge after
designation for a hearing. This policy
has existed with regard to applicants in
comparative cases since the late 1970's.
This action is taken to formally codify
the policy with regard to all applicants.
emcrivn DATI: May e, 1990.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communication
Commission, Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Marilyn Mohrman-Gillis, Mass Media
Bureau. (202) 632-7792.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission's Order.
FCC No. 90-125, adopted April 9,1990.
and released May 1,1990. The full text
of this Commission decision is available
for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC
Dockets Branch (Room.230), 1919 M
Street, N.W., Washington. DC. The
complete text of this decision may also
be purchased from the Commission's
copy contractor, Internationa!
Transcription Services, (202) 857-0800,
2100 M Street, NW., suite 140,
Washington. DC 20037.
Synopsis of Order
1. The Commission revises 47 CFR
73.3571, 73.3572, and 73.3573.regarding
processing of AM, FM, and television
applications to permit an applicant to
withdraw a pre-designation amendment
to an application that is mutually
exclusive with other applications if.it
would.require assignment assignment of
a new file number and place that
applicant at the end of the processing
line. The Order also amends the rules to
permit applicants.to withdraw pre-
designation:rnajor amendments during
the hearing stage of a proceeding at the
discretion of the Administrative Law
Judge. Finally, single applicants are
permitted to withdraw a major change
amendment.
2. The rules being amended had
required that where an applicant
submits a major amendment after the
period for amendment had expired but
before the application had been
designated for a hearing, if applicable,
the application would be assigned a new
file number and placed at the end of the
processing line. In comparative cases,
this had the effect of removing the
applicant from the processing. In cases
involving a single applicant, the
applicant was again subjected to
competing applications and petitions to
deny. Since the late 1970's the
Commission has permitted applicants in
comparative cases to withdraw such
amendments rather than be removed
from the proceeding. Sec e.g., Golden
Shores Broadcasting Co.. 2 FCC Red
4743 (1987); Tequesta Television, Inc.. 61
RR 2d 1403 (1937). The Commission
issued this Order to codify this
previously established policy.
3. In making these amendments, the
Commission recognized that the purpose
of the original rule was to eliminate
-------
-------
OSWER DIE. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78
Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes
55 FR 22520-22720
June 1, 1990
(HSWA Cluster II and Non-HSWA Cluster VI)
Notes: 1) The Federal Register addressed by this checklist is the last of five Congressionally
mandated prohibitions on land disposal of hazardous wastes. Previous checklists based on the
Congressional mandate include Revision Checklists 34, 39, 50 and 63. Revision Checklists 62
and 66 correct the First Thirds Rule addressed by Revision Checklist 50. Revision Checklist 83
(56 FR 3864) addresses changes to the Third Thirds Rule, Because of the changes made to the
tables and appendices by this correction notice, States are strongly encouraged to adopt them at
the same time as the provisions addressed by Revision Checklist 78.
2) This checklist may be subject to change in the future. EPA's State Programs Branch is
currently discussing the relationship of hazardous waste injection issues to the State authorization
program. In question are the changes made to 40 CFR Part 148 by the final rule addressed by
this checklist and whether they should be included In the checklist This present checklist does
not include these changes.
3) The checklist is in HSWA Cluster II, with the exception of the clarifying amendment to
§261.33(c) which is in non-HSWA Cluster VI. This clarification Is not immediately effective in
authorized States since the requirements are not imposed pursuant to HSWA. Thus, these
requirements are applicable only in those States that do not have interim or final authorization. In
authorized States, the requirements will not be applicable until the State revises its program to
adopt equivalent requirements under State law.
4) The following Part 268 sections are not delegabte to States because of the national concerns
which must be examined when decisions are made relative to them: 268.5 (case-by-case effective
date extensions); 268.42(b) (application for alternate treatment method); and 268.44 (variance from
a treatment standard). "No migration" petitions under 268.6 will be handled by EPA, even though
States may be authorized to grant such petitions in the future. States have the authority to grant
such petitions under RCRA Section 3006 because such decisions do not require a national
perspective, as is the case for decisions under 268.5, 268.42(b) or 268.44. However, EPA has
had few opportunities to implement the land disposal restrictions and expects to gain valuable
experience and information from reviewing "no-migration" petitions.
5) In the past, the nondetegabte sections/paragraphs of the LDR regulations have been omitted
from the LOR checklists because States could not assume the authority for them. However, this
procedure has led to confusion among the States on how to handle the sections/paragraphs in
their code. For this reason, the Agency has decided to include these nondetegable sections on
the LDR checklists. To differentiate these sections from the detegabte portions of the LDR
restrictions, asterisks precede (a single row) and follow (a double row) each non-delegable section.
If States have already filled out a version of Revision Checklist 78 which does not include the
nondetegable sections, they need not fill out a revised version containing these sections. This
change in format was made only to improve clarity.
June 1, 1990 - Page 1 of 28 ocuss
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
The Agency suggests that States incorporate the nondelegable portions of the LDR regulation into
their regulations. It is essential, however, that States leave the terms "Administrator", "Federal
Register" and "Agency" unchanged, i.e., States may not substitute analogous State terms for these
Federal terms. Similarly, States incorporating by reference must be careful to exclude these
sections from blanket substitutions of State terms for Federal terms. For a more complete
discussion of issues surrounding nondelegable sections, see Appendix J of the State Authorization
Manual (SAM).
6) Note that while 268.40 is delegable to States, "Administrator* in the following phrase
"Approved by the Administrator under the procedures set for this in 268.42(b)" should not be
replaced with an analogous State term because it is referring to decisions under 268.42(b). Such
decisions will be made by the EPA Administrator.
7) States which have not submitted any land disposal restrictions are strongly encouraged to use
the Consolidated Land Disposal Restriction Checklist rather than the seven individual revision
checklists.
8) Note that the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) referred to by the Third Third
Scheduled Waste Rule is the TCLP entered into the Federal code at 40 CFR 261 Appendix II by
the Toxicity Characteristic Rule (55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990) and amended at 55 FR 26986
(June 29, 1990). (Both the Toxicity Characteristic Rule and the June amendment are addressed
by Revision Checklist 74.) The TCLP procedure previously located at 40 CFR Part 268, Appendix
i and introduced by the Solvents and Dioxins Land Disposal Restrictions Rule (51 FR 40572;
November 7, 1986; Revision Checklist 34) is the outdated version of the TCLP. Thus, States
adopting the Third Third Scheduled Waste Rule must also adopt the new version of the TCLP.
The Revision Checklist 34 version of the TCLP should be removed from their code as well.
9) Guidance regarding the use of the new TCLP versus the EP Toxicity Test may be found at 55
FR 22660 (June 1, 1990). The code (40 CFR 268.40(a) and 268.41 (a)) addressing this issue
contains a serious technical error which is discussed In Footnote 11 found at th d of this
checklist.
10) Adopting the alternate treatment standards for lab packs Is optional. However, if a State
chooses to adopt these alternate standards, all of the requirements related to these standards
must be adopted, including all of the provisions added by the Third Third Scheduled Waste Rule
(i.e., Revision Checklist 78) at 264.316(1), 265.316(1), 288.7(a)(7), 288.7(a)(8), 268,42(e),
268.42(c)(1)-(4), and Appendices IV and V to Part 268.
June 1, 1990 • Page 2 of 28 ocL7s,s -12*91
•• * ..
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
'Stiff ATOLWTg!
EDOI^"
ALENT
MORE BROADER
STRINGENT IN SCOPE
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART C - CHARACTERISTICS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERAL
remove ", but is not
listed as a hazardous
waste in Subpart D";
change "the EPA"
to "every EPA";
insert "that is
applicable as"
before "set forth";
remove "In the
respective charac-
teristic" before "in
this Subpart"; before
"recordkeeping",
change "certain" to
"all applicable"
261.20(b)
CHARACTERISTIC OF IGNITABILITY
remove ", but is
not listed as a
hazardous waste
in Subpart D,"
261.2Kb)
CHARACTERISTIC OF CORROSIVITY
remove ", but is
not listed as a
hazardous waste
in Subpart D,"
261.22(b)
CHARACTERISTIC OF REACTIVITY
remove ", but is
not listed as a
hazardous waste
in Suboart D."
261.23(b)
June 1, 1990 - Page 3 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/9/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQ1NT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
CHARACTERISTIC OF EP TOXICITY
remove ", but is
not listed as a
hazardous waste
in Subpart D."
261.24(b)
SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
add the waste
code "F039" to list
in alphanumeric
order to list as
specified below
261.31
Industry and EPA hazardous
waste No.
Hazardous waste
Hazard
code
F039.
Leachate resulting from the treatment, storage,
or disposal of wastes classified by more than
one waste code under Subpart D, or from a mixture
of wastes classified under Subparts C and D of
this part. (Leachate resulting from the manage-
ment of one or more of the following EPA Hazardous
Wastes and no other hazardous wastes retains its
hazardous waste code(s): F020, F021, F022,
F023, F026, F027, and/or F028.).
(T)
DISCARDED COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, OFF SPECIFICATION SPECIES,
CONTAINER RESIDUES. AND SPILL RESIDUES THEREOF
1 insert "or (f)"
after "(e)";
change "261 .7(b)(3)"
to "261 .7(b)"
261,33(c)
June 1, 1990 - Page 4 of 28
DCL78.8 -12/8/81
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SlArfe ANALOQ IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE BROADER
STRINGENT IN SCOPE
APPENDIX VII TO PART 261
BASIS FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS
add "F039" to list
in alphanumeric order
as shown below:
Appendix
WASTE
VII
EPA hazardous
waste No.
Hazardous constituents for
which listed
F039.
.All constituents for which treatment
standards are specified for multi-source
leachate (wastewaters and non-
wastewaters) under 40 CFR 268.43(a),
Table CCW.
June 1, 1990 - Page 5 of 28
DCL78.8 -12/9/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUltf- 1
ALENT 1
MORE I BROADER
STRINGENT | IN SCOPE
PART 262 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION
in the first sentence,
replace "If with
"For purposes
of compliance with
40 CFR Part 268, or
if; remove "as a
hazardous waste"
after "listed"; replace
"of 40 CFR Part 261"
with "of this part";
replace "he must
determine" with
"the generator must
then determine"
262.1 1(c)
SUBPART C - PRE-TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS
ACCUMULATION TIME
replace "and with
§265.16" with
", with §265.16,
and with 40 CFR
268,7(aH4)"
262.34(a)(4)
June 1, 1990 - Page 6 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
revise comment
following paragraph
(a)(2) as follows;
remove "or alt" after
"supply part"; add ",
except as otherwise
specified in
in 40 CFR 268.7(b)
and (c)." to the
second sentence
264.1 3(a)f2)
SUBPART K - SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OF REACTIVE WASTE
insert "the wast©
and impoundment
satisfy all applicable
requirements of
40 CFR Part 288 and"
after "unless"
264.229
SUBPART L - WASTE PILES
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
insert "the waste and
waste pile satisfy all
applicable requirements
of 40 CFR Part 268,
and" after "unless"
264.256
June 1, 1990 - Page 7 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/9/81
. •-*»*,
*_a./">.,.
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REV'SiON CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS ^
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL5S 15:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART M - LAND TREATMENT
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES
insert "the waste and
the treatment zone
meet all applicable
requirements of
40 CFR Part 268, and"
after "unless"
264.281
SUBPART N - LANDFILLS
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES
replace "in treated,
rendered, or mixed
before or immediately
after placement in a
landfill so that:" with
"and landfill meet all
applicable requirements
of Part 268, and:"
begin the first
sentence with "Except
for prohibited wastes
which remain subject
to treatment standards
in Subpart D of
Part 268,"
264.31 2(a)
264.31 2{b)
:
t,2
DISPOSAL OF SMALL CONTAINERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN OVERPACKED
DRUMS (LAB PACKS)
add new paragraph
regarding disposal in
compliance with Part
268; requirement for
fiber drums to meet
DOT specifications
and 264.31 6(b)
requirements if
incinerate lab packs
264.31 6(f)
June 1, 1990 - Page 8 of 28
DCL78.S -12/8/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATS ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 265 - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE. SCOPE. AND APPLICABILITY
replace "Part 268" with
"40 CFR Part 268, and
the 40 CFR Part 268
standards are
considered material
conditions or
requirements of the
Part 265 interim
status standards"
265.1(e)
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
revise comment
following subparagraph
(a) (2) as follows:
remove "or all" after
"supply part"; add
", except as otherwise
specified in 40 CFR
268.7(b) and (c)."
to the second
sentence
265.1 3(a)(2)
SUBPART K - SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
insert "the waste
and impoundment
satisfy all applicable
requirements of
40 CFR Part
268, and"
after "unless"
265.229
June 1, 1990 - Page 9 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
FoUNT
AL1NT
MORE
STfMNQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART L - WASTE PILES
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
insert "the waste and
pile satisfy all
applicable requirements
of 40 CFR Part 268,
and" after "unless"
265,256
SUBPART M - LAND TREATMENT
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES
insert "the waste and
treatment zone meet
all applicable require-
ments of 40 CFR
Part 268, and" after
"unless"
265.281
SUBPART N - LANDFILLS
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES
replace "is treated,
rendered, or mixed
before or immediately
after placement in a
landfill so that:" with
"and landfill meet all
applicable requirements
of 40 CFR 268, and:"
begin the first
sentence with "Except
for prohibited wastes
which remain subject
to treatment standards
in Subpart D of
Part 268,"
265.312(a)
265.31 2(b)
June 1, 1990 - Page 10 of 28
DCL78.S -13/W91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Thin! Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
t,2
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
DISPOSAL OF SMALL CONTAINERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN OVERPACKED
DRUMS (LAB PACKS)
add new paragraph
regarding disposal in
compliance with Part
268; requirement for
fiber drums to meet
DOT specifications
and 264.31 6(b)
requirements if
incinerate lab packs
265.31 6(f)
PART 268 - LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE. SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
wastes that are
hazardous only
because they exhibit
a hazardous charac-
teristic, and which
are otherwise
prohibited from
land disposal
if the wastes:
disposed into
a nonhazardous
or hazardous injection
well as defined in
40 CFR 144.6(a)
do not exhibit
any prohibited
characteristic of
hazardous waste at
the point of injection
paragraph
removed
268.1(cM3)
268.1 (c)(3)(i)
268.1 (c)(3Mii)
268.1(c)(5)
June 1, 1990 - Page 11 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/9/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
JsIA^E ANALOQ IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PART
new introductory
paragraph for
definitions
redesignate
"halogenated organic
compounds" or "HOCs"
as 268.2(a)
4 redesignate
"hazardous constituent
or constituents"
as 268.2(b)
5 redesignate "land
disposal" as 268.2(c)
6 add
"nonwastewaters"
7 redesignate
"polychlorinated
biphenyis" or "RGBs"
as 268.2(e)
add
"wastewaters" and
the following
exceptions:
"F001, F002, F003
F004, F005 solvent-
water mixtures"
"K011, K013, K014
wastewaters"
"K103 and K104
wastewaters"
add "inorganic solid
debris"; specific
inorganic or metal
materials:
metal slaas
classified slaa
alass
concrete
268.2
268.2(a)
268.2{b)
268.2(c)
268.2(d)
268.2(6)
268.2(f)
268.2ff)m
268.2(f)(2)
268.2(M3)
268.2(a)
268.2(a)(1)
268.2(aX2)
268.2(a)(3)
268.2(a)(4)
«
June 1, 1990 - Page 12 of 28
DCL78 9 -12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
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 CFR261.1(c)(6)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.2(a)(5)
268.2(a)(6)
268.2(a)(7)
268.2(Q)(8)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
DILUTION PROHIBITED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR TREATMENT
8 begin sentence with
"Except as provided
in paragraph (b)
of this section,"
new paragraph;
permissible forms
of dilution related
to Sections 307 or
402 of the CWA
268.3(a)
268,3(W
WASTE ANALYSIS AND RECORDKEEPING
revise section to
include more guidance
on specifying treat-
ment standards
revise section to
include more
guidance on
specifying treatment
standards
9 revise section to
include more guidance
on specifying treat-
ment standards
268.7«M1Mii)
268.7(a)(2)(i)(B)
268.7(a)(3){ii)
June 1, 1990 • Page 13 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/8/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
replace entire
paragraph with new
requirements for
the development of
a waste analysis
plan and record-
keeping requirements
when treating in
262.34 tanks/con-
tainers; other
requirements:
what the waste
analysis plan must be
based on and contain
requirements for
filing of waste
analysis plan
compliance with
268.7(a)(2)
notification
requirements for
wastes shipped
off-site
remove
suboaraaraDh
notification for a
generator managing
a lab pack that
contains wastes
identified in
Appendix IV if use
alternate treatment
standards under
268,42;
268.7(a}(5)&(6)
compliance;
certification
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(a)(4)
268.7(aM4)(i)
268.7(aM4)(H)
268.7(aK4)(iii)
268,7(aM4)(iv)
268.7(a)(7>
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG (S:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t,2
June 1, 1990 - Page 14 of 28
DCL78.9 -18/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
notice for a
generator managing
a lab pack that
contains organic
wastes specified in
Appendix V if use
alternate treatment
standard under
268.42;
268.7(a)(5)&(6)
compliance; certi-
fication
notification and
certification
requirements for
small quantity
generators with
tolling agreements
pursuant to
40 CFR 262.20(6)
revise section to
include more guidance
on specifying treat-
ment standards
insert "impermissible"
in front of "dilution"
in the certification
paragraph
certification require-
ments for wastes with
treatment standards
expressed as concen-
trations in the
waste pursuant to
268.43
remove paragraph
268.7(b)(7) and
redesignate
268.7(b)(8)
as 268.7(b)(7)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(a)(8)
268.7(a)(9)
288.7(bH4Hli)
268.7(bH5Mi)
288.7(b)(5Hili)
268.7(b)(7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALoS IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t,2
10
June 1, 1990 - Page 15 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
begin the paragraph
with "Except where
the owner or operator
is disposing of any
waste that is a
recyclable material
used in a manner
constituting disposal
pursuant to
40 CFR 266.2Q(W,"
remove paragraph
remove paragraph
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7{c)
268.7(eM3)
268.7(c)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STA™ ANALOG is:
E5J31V-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPi
LANDFILL AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
insert
"As of May 8, 1990,
this section is
no longer in effect"
at the end of the
paragraph
268.8(a)
SPECIAL RULES REGARDING WASTES THAT EXHIBIT A CHARACTERISTIC
determination of
applicable treatment
standards under
Subpart D of Part 268
by initial generator
of a solid waste;
code designation
268.9(3)
June 1, 1990 - Page 16 of 28
DCL78.S -12/8/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78; Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
the treatment standard
for the waste code
listed in 40 CFR
Part 261, Subpart D
will operate for wastes
both listed under
Subpart D, Part 261
and exhibit a
characteristic under
Subpart C,
Part 261 ; conditions
under which treatment
standards for ail
applicable listed and
characteristic waste
codes must be met
no prohibited waste
which exhibits a
characteristic under
40 CFR Part 261 ,
Subpart C may be
land disposed unless
waste complies with
Part 268, Subpart D
treatment standards
wastes that exhibit
a characteristic are
subject to all 268.7
requirements unless
wastes are no longer
hazardous; if not
hazardous, notification/
certification sent to
EPA Regional
Administrator or
authorized State
information needed
with each notification
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.9(W
268.9fc)
268.9(d)
268,9{d){1)
288.9(d)(1)m
268.9(d)(1)fii)
268.9(dH1)(iii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STAT6 ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORi
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 1, 1990 - Page 17 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/8/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
certification signed
by authorized
representative stating
language found in
268.7(b)(5Hi)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.9(d)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STAIE ANAUOU is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE BROADER
STRINGENT IN SCOPE
SUBPART C - PROHIBITIONS ON LAND DISPOSAL
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - THIRD THIRD WASTES
effective August 8,
1990, prohibition
from land disposal of
certain wastes
specified in
261,31, 261.32,
261.33{e) and 261.33(f)
effective November 8,
1990, prohibition
from land disposal
of certain wastes
specified in 261.32
effective May 8, 1992,
prohibition from land
disposal of certain
wastes specified in
261.31, 261.32,
261.33(6), 261.33(f),
certain characteristic
wastes, inorganic
debris defined in
268.2(a}(7), and RCRA
hazardous wastes
containing naturally
occurring radioactive
materials
effective May 8, 1992,
prohibition from land
disposal of 268.1 2
mixed radioactive/
hazardous wastes
268.35(a)
268.35(W
268.35(c)
268.35W)
June 1, 1990 - Page 18 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
effective May 8, 1992,
prohibition from land
disposal of wastes
specified in 268.35
as having Subpart D,
Part 268 treatment
standards based on
incineration, mercury
retorting, or vitri-
fication, and which
are contaminated
soil or debris
between May 8, 1990,
and August 8, 1 990,
wastes included in
paragraph 268.35(a)
may be disposed of in
a landfill or surface
impoundment only if
such unit is in
compliance with
268.5{h)(2)
between May 8, 1990,
and November 8,
1990, wastes included
In paragraph
268.35(b) may be dis-
posed of in a landfill
or surface impound-
ment only if such unit
is in compliance with
268.5(h)(2)
between May 8, 1990,
and May 8, 1992,
wastes included in
paragraphs 268.35(c),
(d) and (e) may be
disposed of in a
landfill or surface
impoundment only if
such unit is in
compliance with
268.5(h((2)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.35(6)
268.35(f)
268.35(0)
268.35(h)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 1, 1990 - Page 19 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/9/81
JLt
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPAS
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
conditions under
which requirements
of paragraphs
268.35(a), (b), (c) (d)
and (e) do not apply
wastes meet appli-
cable 268 Sub-
part D standards
persons granted
exemption under 268.6
wastes meet
applicable alternate
standards under
268.44
persons granted
extension to the
effective date
of a prohibition
under 268.5
testing of waste
to determine if
268.10, 268.11 and
268.12 wastes exceed
applicable treatment
standards specified
in 268.41 and 268.43;
consequences of
exceed! nq standards
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.35(f)
268.35(0(1)
268.35{IH2)
268.35(i)(3)
268.35(i)(4)
268.35(i)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STAT1 ANALOG IS:
EoTJIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART D - TREATMENT STANDARDS
11
APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENT STANDARDS
revise paragraph
by adding the
exception for
certain wastes that
may be land disposed
if test methods
in Appendix 1, Part
268 or Appendix il,
Part 261 methods
are used
268.40(a)
June 1, 1990 - Page 20 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
begin the paragraph
with "Except as
otherwise specified
in §268.43(cL"
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.40(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL5S 15:
r EQUI\T
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
revise paragraph
by adding the
exception for
certain wastes that
Table CCWE identifies
and whose
constituents are
extracted using
test methods
In Appendix 1, Part
268 or Appendix II,
Part 261; compliance
based on grab
samples
replace Table CCWE
with new table
as shown on pages
22690 through 22692
of this final rule
268.41 (a)
268.41 (a)/
Table CCWE
11
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS SPECIFIED TECHNOLOGIES
treatment of wastes
identified in
268.42(a)(1)&(2) with
technology specified
in those sub-
paragraphs and in
Table 1 of 268.42
insert "40 CFR" in
front of "Part 264"
and "Part 265";
remove "or in boilers
or industrial furnaces
burning in accordance
with applicable
regulatory standards"
remove paragraph
268.42(a)
268.42(a)(2)
268.42(aU3)
June 1, 1990 - Page 21 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78; Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
remove oaraaraoh
add new
Table 1 addressing
Technology Codes and
Description of
Technology-Based
Standards as
shown on pages
22693 and 22694 of
this final rule
add new table on
Technology-Based
Standards by RCRA
Waste Code as shown
on pages 22694
through 22700 of this
final rule
add new table on
Technology-Based
Standards for Specific
Radioactive Hazardous
Mixed Waste as
shown on page 22700
of this final rule
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.42(a){4)
268.42(a)/Table 1
268.42(a)/Table 2
268.42(aVTable 3
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5TAT1 ANAL05 I§:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268.42 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 5 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this paragraph into their code.
replace
"paragraph (a)" with
"paragraphs (a), (c),
and (d)" in two places
268.42(b)
t.2 ALTERNATE TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR LAB PACKS
conditions for
eligibility of
lab packs for
land disposal:
268.42(c)
June 1, 1990 - Page 22 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78; Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
compliance of
lab packs with
applicable
provisions of
264.316 and 265.316
Part 268 Appendix IV
and Appendix V
hazardous wastes
contained in
lab packs
incineration of
lab packs in
accordance with
Part 264, Subpart O
and Part 265,
Subpart O
requirements
treatment standards
for incinerator
residues from lab
packs containing
D004, D005, D006,
D007, D008, D010
and D011
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.42(c)f1)
268.42(cM2)
268,42(eM3)
268.42{c)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATl ANAL5Q IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
12
radioactive
hazardous mixed
wastes with
Table 3 treatment
standards not
subject to 268.41,
268.43 or Table 2
treatment standards;
radioactive
hazardous mixed
wastes not subject
to Table 3 treatment
standards remain
subject to 268.41,
268.43 and Table 2
treatment standards
268.42W)
June 1, 1990 - Page 23 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/9/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPi
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS WASTE CONCENTRATIONS
replace the last
sentence with
"Compliance with
these concentrations
is required based
upon grab samples,
unless otherwise
noted in the
following Table CCW
replace Table CCW
with new table
as shown on pages
22701 through 22713
of this final rule
conditions for
demonstrating
compliance with
treatment standards
for organic
constituents
provided:
treatment for
organic constituents
established based on
incineration in units
operated in accor-
dance with Subpart O
requirements of Part
264 or Part 265 or
based on combustion
in fuel substitution
units in accordance
with applicable tech-
nical requirements
organic constituents
treated using
paragraph
268.43(c)(1) methods
good-faith efforts
fail to detect the
organic constituents;
when such efforts
must be demonstrated
268.43(a)
268.43(a)/Table CCW
268.43(c)
268.43(cM1)
268.43(c>{2)
268.43(c)(3)
June 1, 1990 - Page 24 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78; Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STAlfc ANALOG IS:
EQlW-
ALENT
MORi
STRINGENT
BROADiH
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX IV TO PART 268
t,2 ORGANOMETALLIC LAB PACKS
add Appendix IV
as shown on page
2271 3 of this final
rule
Appendix IV
APPENDIX V TO PART 268
ORGANIC LAB PACKS
add Appendix V
as shown on pages
22713 and 22714 of
this final rule
Appendix V
APPENDIX VI TO PART 268
RECOMMENDED TECHNOLOGIES TO ACHIEVE DEACT1VAT1ON OF CHARACTERISTICS IN
SECTION 268.42
add Appendix VI
as shown on pages
22714 and 22715 of
this final rule
Appendix VI
APPENDIX VII TO PART 268
EFFECTIVE DATES OF SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULATED LDRs
(COMPREHENSIVE LIST)
add Appendix VII
as shown on pages
22715 through 22718
of this final rule
Appendix VII
June 1, 1990 - Page 25 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/W91
,
w t,
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX VIII TO PART 268
NATIONAL CAPACITY LDR VARIANCES FOR UIC WASTES (COMPREHENSIVE LIST)
add Appendix VIII
as shown on pages
22718 and 22719 of
this final rule
Appendix VIII
PART 270 - EPA-ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS; THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM
SUBPART D - CHANGES TO PERMIT
PERMIT MODIFICATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE
13 CLASSIFICATION OF PERMIT MODIFICATION
redesignate old
B(1)(b) as B(1)(c)
and add new item
involving F039
under General
Facility Standards
as shown below
270.42,
Appendix I
Modifications
Class
B. General Facility Standards
1. *
b. To incorporate changes associated
with F039 (multi-source teachate)
sampling or analysis methods
June 1, 1990 • Page 26 of 28
DCL78 9 -12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (eont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
1
8
Unlike the other changes addressed by this checklist, the change to 261.33(c) is not imposed
pursuant to HSWA. Thus, this change is placed in non-HSWA Cluster VI.
This code is part of the optional requirements for the alternate treatment standards for tab packs
under the Third Third Scheduled Waste Rule. If adopted, ail of the requirements (I.e.,
264.316(f), 265.316(1), 268.7(a)(7), 268.7(a)(8), 268.42(c), 268.42(c)(1)-(4), and Appendices IV
and V to Part 268) related to these alternate treatment standards must be adopted.
This is a new subparagraph introduced into the code by Revision Checklist 78. The original
subparagraph 268.1 (c)(3) was introduced by Revision Checklist 34, modified by Revision
Checklist 39, then removed by Revision Checklist 50, with 268.1(c)(4) redesignated as (c)(3).
The redesignated subparagraph 268.1 (c)(3) was subsequently removed by Revision Checklist 66.
This paragraph was originally part of 268.2(a) when it was entered into the code by Revision
Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 78 renumbered it as 268.2(b) and removed the old 268.2(b)
Introduced by Revision Checklist 34,
The definition of land disposal was introduced into the code as part of 268.2(a) by Revision
Checklist 34. It was modified by Revision Checklist 39 and designated as 268.2(c) by Revision
Checklist 78.
Note there is a typographical error in the Federal Register notice for Revision Checklist 78 (55
FR 22520, June 1, 1990). The reference to "(g)(6)" should be to "(f)."
This definition was introduced by Revision Checklist 39 as part of 268.2(a). it was,redesignated
as 268.2(e) by Revision Checklist 78.
Paragraph 268.3(a) was originally introduced into the code by Revision Checklist 34 as 268.3,
and was then revised by Revision Checklist 39. Revision Checklist 78 revised and redesignated
it as 268.3(a).
Note that on page 22687 of the final rule addressed by this checklist, It appears that
268.7(a)(3)(iii)-(v) were removed. This is an error and these three subparagraphs should remain
in the code.
10
11
This paragraph was originally 268.7(b)(8) when it was entered into the code by Revision
Checklist 50, but it was redesignated as 268.7(b)(7) by Revision Checklist 78 because the old
278.7(b)(7) and 278.7(b)(7)(i)-(iv) were removed by Revision Checklist 78. Revision Checklist
66 corrected 268.7(b)(8) before it was redesignated by Revision Checklist 78.
The current text of 268.40(a) and 268.41 (a) indicates that an extract or treatment residue of
certain wastes may be land disposed only if certain requirements are met using either the test
method in Appendix I of Part 268 or the test method in Appendix II of Part 261. Following
promulgation of the March 29, 1990 Toxicity Characteristics rule addressed by Revision
Checklist 74 (55 FR 11798, as amended at 55 FR 26986), both of these appendices relate to
June 1, 1990 - Page 27 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/9/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 78: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPi
12
13
the same test method, the TCLP. Previously, the Part 261 appendix contained the EP Toxicity
test procedures while the Part 268 appendix contained the TCLP. EPA will issue a correction
to the rule for these particular paragraphs in the near future, clarifying which procedures may
be used. Until such time, however, EPA indicates that for the specific waste exceptions listed
In these paragraphs the TCLP can be used for measuring compliance with the treatment
standards for those specified wastes, and, If the extract or treatment residue fails that test, the
EP Toxicity test can be used. If the extract or residue passes that less stringent test, then
such waste is considered in compliance with the treatment standards. For more information
related to the use of either of the two test methods, see the discussion at 55 FR 22660 (June
1, 1990).
The 55 FR 22520, June 1, 1990, code incorrectly states that a subparagraph 268.42(e) is
added. The Federal Register did not contain a 268.42{e); it only added 268.42(d).
Appendix I was introduced by Revision Checklist 54 as an optional modification to section
270.42. Changes to this appendix addressed by Revision Checklist 78 are relevant only if a
State has modified its code to include Appendix I as per Revision Checklist 54.
June 1, 1990 - Page 28 of 28
DCL78.9 -12/9/91
M
i.JL
-------
= ES
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-1A
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 Register /Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 148, 281, 262, 264, 265,
258, 270, 271, and 302
[EPA/OSW-FR-90-010;SWH-FRL-3751-1J
KIN 2050-AC73
Land Disposal Restrictions for Third
Third Scheduled Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: 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
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), enacted in the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of
1984. When fully effective in May 1992,
this rule, combined 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. .
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
rulemaking is identified as Docket .
Number F-90-LD13-FFFFF, and is
located in the EPA RCRA Docket, room
2427,401 M Street SW., Washington. DC
20460. The docket is open from B 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 copies cost $.15 per
page.
FOB FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information contact the
RCRA Hotline at: (800) 424-9346 (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 BOAT 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 Kobelski, Office of
Drinking 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 Bassi, Office
of Solid Waste (OS-322), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202)
475-6673.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Expanded Summary
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
treatment standards and effective dates
for hazardous wastes that exhibit one or
more of the following characteristics:
Ignitibility, corrosivity, reactivity or EP
toxiciry (40 CFR 261.21-261.24). 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 level;
or (4) a treatment standard of
"deactivation" to remove the
characteristic, with guidance on
technologies the Agency believes will
remove the characteristics (see
appendix VI to 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 including wastes
regulated under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination 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 treatment
requirements and associated dilution
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
prevent underground injection which
endangers drinking 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,
construction, 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 pretreatment 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
-------
OSVJER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
"Federal Register / Vol. 55,'No. 108 / Friday, June 1, 19SO /Rules and Regulations
22321
impermissible to dilute these wastes and
avoid treating them by the designated
treatment 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 specified 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, 202,
254, and 265 to require that all relevant
waste codes must be provided; we
believe this revision will enhance the
ability to enforce the accurate labeling
of hazardous wastes. Finally, the
Agency emphasizes that the mislabeling
of hazardous wastes is a serious
violation of the land disposal
restrictions, and potentially a criminal
act. The Agency will be modifying the
existing Waste Analysis Plan Guidance
to aid treatment and disposal facilities
in determining whether waste has been
properly classified.
The Agency is promulgating certain
provisions of general applicability in
today's rulemaking, including certain
revisions to the existing rule that
prohibits dilution of prohibited wastes,
amendments to 40 GFR 262.11, which
outlines the procedures for identification
of hazardous wastes, and modifications
to the tracking and recordkeeping
requirements of 40 CFR 268.7. In
addition, EPA is modifying existing
testing requirements for treatment and
disposal facilities, and amending
subparagraph (c) of 40 CFR 261.33
(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 j
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. Nonetheless,
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, such
units must meet minimum technological
requirements. Furthermore, wastes
subject to this extension of the effective
date must be in compliance with all
applicable recordkeeping 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
I. Background
A. Summary of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 and the
Land Disposal Restrictions Framework
1. Statutory Requirements
2. Applicability to Injected Wastes
3. Solvents and Dioxins
4. California List Wastes
5. Disposal of Solvents, Dioxins, and
California List Wastes in Injection
Wells
6. Scheduled Wastes
7. Newly identified and Listed Wastes
B. Regulatory Framework
1. Applicability
2. Treatment Standards
3. National Capacity Variances from the
Effective Dates
4. Case-By-Case Extensions of the Effec-
tive Dates
5. "No Migration" Exemptions from the
Restrictions
6. Variances from the Treatment Stand-
ards
7. Exemption for Treatment in Surface
Impoundments
8. Storage of Prohibited Wastes
9. "Soft Hammer" Provisions
C. Pollution Prevention (Waste Minimizii-
tlon) Benefits
D. Summary of the Proposed Rule
1. Characteristic Wastes
2. Determining When Dilution is Permis-
sible
3. Other Impermissible Dilution Issues
4. Treatment Standards for Multi-Source
Leachate
5. Alternate Treatment Standards for
Lab Packs
8. Applicability to Mineral Processing
Wastes
7. Clarification of "P" and "U" Soiid
Wastes
8. Treatment/Disposal Facility Testing
Requirements
9. Testing of Wastes Treated in 90-Day
Tanks or Containers
10. Generator Notification Requirements
11. Storage Prohibition
12. Applicability of California List Prohi-
bitions After May 8. 1990
II. Summary of Today's Final Rule
A. Applicability of Today's Final Rule
1. Three Month National Capacity Vari-
ance for Third Third Wastes
2. Hazardous Woste Injection Wells
Regulated Under 40 CFR 148
3. Remaining Scheduled Listed Hazard-
ous Wastes
4. Characteristic Hazardous Wastes
5. Characteristic Wastes Reguhited
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SWDAJ and the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and RCRA
8. 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 Vari-
ance
4. Use of TCLP v. EP Analytical Meth-
ods for Compliance
5. Newly Identified Toxicity Characteris-
tic (TCJ Wastes
-------
22522
Federal Register / ¥ol. 55, No. 100 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
6. Further Principle* Governing Applica-
bility
C. Amended Tracking System for Charac-
teristic Prohibited Wastes
D. The Dilution Prohibition as it Applies to
Centralized Treatment
£. Treatment Standards for Multi-Source
Leechate
F. Alternate Treatment Standards for Lab
Packs
G. Mixed (Hazardous/Radioactive) Wastes
H. 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. Caie-by-Case Extension Petitions
O. Applicability of California list Prohibi-
tions After May 8.1990
P. Analysis of Treated Wastes
Q. Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs)
R. Best Demonstrated Available Technol-
ogies (BOAT)
S. Reformatting of Treatment Standard
Tables and Addition of Appendix VI! to
Part 268, Effective Dates for Prohibited
Wastes
T. Relationship of Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council v. EPA to Treatment
Standards Promulgated in Today's Final
Rule
III.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
BDAT
c. Applicability of Treatment Standards
to Treatment Residues Identified as
"Dcrived-From" Wastes and to Waste
Mixtures
d. Wastewater 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
g. Analytical Requirements, the BDAT
List and Relationship of PQLs to
BDAT
h. Relationship of Detection Limits to
Concentration-Based Standards
1. Relation of Hazardout Waste Treat-
ment Council v. EPA
1II.A.2, Treatment Standards for Certain
Characteristic Wastes
a. General Issues on Developing Treatment
Standards for Characteristic Wastes
b, 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 285
for Ignitable and Reactive Wastes
f, EP Toxic Halogenated Pesticide Wastes
UI.A.3. Treatment Standards for Metal
Wastes
a. Introduction
b. Arsenic {D004. K031, K084, K101, K102.
P010, POll, P01Z, P036, P038, U138]
c. Barium {D005, P013]
d. Cadmium JD006, Cadmium Batteries]
e. Chromium [D007, U032]
f. Lead [D008, K069, K100, P110, U144,
ui4s, ime}
g. Mercury fJDOW, K071, K106, P06S, P092,
U151]
h. Selenium [D010, P103, P114, U204, U20S)
i. Silver [D011. P099, P104J
j. Thallium [P113, P114, P11S, U214, U21S,
U218, U217J
k. Vanadium (P119, PI20]
1II.A.4. Treatment Standards for Remaining F
and K Wastes
a. F002 and F005
b. F006 and F019
c. F024
d. F025
e. K001 and U051
f, K002, K003, K004, KOOS, K006, K007, and
KOOB
g. K011, KOT3, and K014
h. K015
i. K017 and K073
|. K021
k. K022. K025, K026, K035, and KOS3
I, K028, K029, KD95. and K098
m. K032, K033, K034, K041, K097, and K096
n. K038 and K037
o. K042. K085, and K105
p, K044, K045, K048, and K047
q. K04S, K049, KOSO, K051. and K052
r, K060
s. K061
t, K088
I1I.A.5. Development of Treatment Standards
for U and P Wastewaters and Non-
wastewater* Excluding Metal Salts and
Organo-metallics
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. Gases
e, U and P Cyanogens
III.A.6, Development of Treatment Standards
for Multi-Source Leachate •
a. Background
b. Final Approach for Regulating Multi-
Source Leachate
c. Multi-Source Leachate That Exhibits a
Characteristic of Hazardous Waste
d. Multi-Source Leachate Containing Diox-
ins and Furans
e. Status of Multi-source Leachate that is
Mixed with Other Prohibited Wastes
III.A.7. Applicability of Treatment Standards
to Soil and Debris
III,A,8, Radioactive Mixed Waste
n. Characterization and Industries Affect-
ed
b. Applicable Technologies
c. Determination of BDAT for Certain
Mixed Wastes
UI.A.9, Alternate Treatment Standards for
Lab Packs
B. 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 Land-Disposed
Wastes
b. Required Alternative Capacity for
Surface Land-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 for Third
Third Wastes
D, Applicability of Land Disposal Restric-
tions
1. Introduction
2. Legal Authority Over Characteristic
Wastes
a. Introduction
b. General Standard for Agency Con-
struction of Statutes
c. Scope of *.gency Authority for
Treatm<>~ airements
d. Agency £ amework for Addressing
Treatment Standards for Character-
istic Wastes and Integrating Them
with Other Regulatory Programs
3. Treatment Levels
a. Environmental Considerations
(1) Toxic Wastewaters
(2) Toxic Nonwastewaters
(3) Other Characteristic Wastes
b. Regulatory Problems
4, Methods of Treatment
a. Environmental Considerations
b. Regulatory Problems
S. General Dilution Prohibition
a. Environmental Considerations
b. Regulatory Problems
8. Exemption to Dilution Prohibition for
Characteristic Wastes Treated for Pur-
poses of Certain Clean Water Act Pro-
gram*
a. Introduction
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22523
b. Environmental Considerations
c. Regulatory Problems
7, Exemption for U3R Prohibitions for
Characteristic Wastes Disposed Below
Characteristic Levels in Wells Regu-
lated Under the Safe 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
Z. Revisions 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
6, Further Principles Governing Applica-
bility
a. Other Statutory Exemptions or Ex-
clusions
b. Restricted Wastes Versus Prohibit-
ed Wastes
c. Changes in Treatability Groups
F. Amended Tracking System for Charac-
. (eristic Prohibited Wastes
G, The Dilution Prohibition as it Applies to
Centralized Treatment
H. Applicability of Today's Final Rule to
Mineral Processing Wastes
I. Generator Notification Requirements
|. 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. 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 Regulated Under the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act
C. Wellhead Protection Regulated Under
the Safe Drinking Water Act
D. Air Emissions Regulated Under the
Clean Air Act (CAA)
E. Clean-Up Actions Regulated Under the
. Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act
F. Applicability of Treatment Standards to
Wastes from Pesticides Regulated Under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act
G, Regulatory Overlap of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) Under the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act (TSCA) and Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act
VI. 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. Humsn 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 Flexibility Analysis—Under-
ground Injected Wastes
E, Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Review of Supporting Documents
I. 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 8,1S84, prohibit the land
disposal of hazardous wastes;
Specifically, the amendments specify
dates when particular groups of
hazardous wastes are prohibited from
land disposal unless "* * * it has been
demonstrated to the Administrator, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, thai
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)(l), (e)(l), (g)(5); 42 U.S.C, 6924 (d)(l),
MID. (8)15)).
The amendments also require the
Agency to set "* ' * levels or methods
of treatment, if any, which substantially
diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents
from the waste so that short-term and
long-term threats to human health and
the environment are minimized" (RCRA
section 3004(m)(l), 42 U.S.C. 6024(m)(l)).
Wastes that meet treatment standards
established by EPA are not prohibited
and may be land disposed. In addition, a
hazardous waste that does not meet the
treatment standard may be land
disposed provided the "no migration"
demonstration specified in RCRA
sections 3004 (d)(1), (e)(l) 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
Give" (RCRA section 3004(k), 42 U.S.C.
6i24(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)J,
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
30050)(il)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6925(j)(H)(B)).
In addition to prohibiting the land
disposal of hazardous wastes. Congress
prohibited storage of any waste which is
prohibited from land disposal unless
"* * * such storage is solely for the
purpose of the accumulation of such
quantities of hazardous waste as are
necessary to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment or disposal" (RCRA,section
3004(j), 42 U.S.C. 6924(j)J.
2. Applicability to Injected Wastes
As noted 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
-------
22524 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
with other regulations of the
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program under the SDWA in parts 124.
144, 145, 148, 147, and 146 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
3. Solvents and Dioxins
Effective November 8, 1988, HSWA
prohibited land disposal (except by deep
well injection] of solvent-containing
hazardous wastes numbered F001-F005
listed in 40 CFR 261.31 and dioxin-
containing hazardous wastes numbered
F020-F023 and F028-F028 {RCRA
sections 3004 fe)(l), (e)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924
(e)(l j, (e}(2)). In response to this
mandate, EPA promulgated a final rule
(51 FR 40572} on November 7. 1986.
implementing RCRA section 3004fe).
This rule established the general
framework for the land disposal
restrictions program, and established
treatment standards for the F001-FOOS
solvent wastes and F020-F023 and FQ26-
F028 dioxin-containing wastes.
4, California List Wastes
Effective July 8. 1987, the statute
prohibited further land disposal (except
by deep well injection] of the following
listed or identified wastes (RCRA
section 3001) set out in RCRA sections
3004 (d)(l) and (d](2) (42 U.S.C. 6924
(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/L
(B) Liquid hazardous wastes,
including free liquids associated with
any solid or sludge, containing the
following metals (or elements] or
compounds of these metals (or elements)
at concentrations greater than or equal
to those specified below:
(!) Arsenic and/or compounds (as As)
500 mg/1;
(ii) Cadmium and/or compounds (as
Cd) 100 mg/1
(iii) Chromium (VI and/or compounds
(as Cr VI)) 500 mg/1;
(iv) Lead and/or compounds (as Pb)
500 mg/1;
(v) Mercury and/or compounds (as
Hg) 20 mg/1:
(vi) Nickel and/or compounds (as Ni)
134 mg/1;
(vii) Selenium and/or compounds (as
Se) 100 mg/1; and
(viii) Thallium and/or compounds (as
Tl) 130 mg/1.
(C) Liquid hazardous waste having a
pH less than or equal to two (2.0).
(D) Liquid hazardous wastes
containing polychlorinated biphenyla
(PCBs) at concentrations greater than or
equal to SO ppm.
(E) Hazardous wastes containing
halogenated organic compounds (HOCs)
in total concentration greater than or
equal to 1,000 mg/kg.
On July 8,1987, EPA promulgated a
final rule (52 FR 25760) implementing
RCRA section 3004(d). This rule
established treatment standards for
California list wastes containing PCBs
and certain HOCs, and codified the
statutory prohibition on liquid corrosive
wastes. The statutory prohibition also is
in effect for the California list wastes
containing free cyanides, metals, and
the California list dilute HOC
wastewaters.
5. Disposal of Solvents, Dioxins and
California List Wastes in Injection Wells
Section 3004(f) of RCRA required that
the Administrator prohibit the disposal
of solvents, dioxins and California list
wastes in deep wells, effective August 8,
1988, unless such disposal had been
determined to be protective of human
health and the environment for as long
as the wastes remained hazardous, or
unless a variance had been granted
under RCRA section 3004(h). On July 28,
1988, the Agency established effective
dates for the prohibition on injection of
solvents and dioxin wastes (53 FR
28118). In another regulation, effective
August 8,1988 and published August 16,
1986 in the Federal Register, die Agency
established effective dates for the
prohibition on injection of California list
wastes (53 FR 30908).
6. Scheduled Wastes
HSWA required the Agency to
prepare a schedule by November 8,1986,
for restricting the land disposal of all
hazardous wastes, including
underground injected wastes, listed or
identified as of November 8,1984, in 40
CFR part 281, excluding solvent- and
dioxin-containing wastes and California
list wastes covered under the schedule
set by Congress. The schedule, based on
a ranking of the listed wastes that
considers their intrinsic hazard and their
volume, ensures that prohibitions and
treatment standards are promulgated
first for high volume hazardous wastes
with high intrinsic hazard before
standards are set for low volume wastes
with low intrinsic hazard. The statute
further requires that these
determinations be made by the
following deadlines:
(A) At least one-third of all listed
hazardous wastes by August 8,1988;
(B) At least two-thirds of all listed
hazardous wastes by June 8,1989; and
(C) All remaining listed hazardous
wastes and all hazardous wastes "
identified as of November 8,1984, by
one or more of the characteristics
defined in 40 CFR part 281 by May 8,
1990.
Furthermore, if EPA failed to set a
treatment standard by the statutory
deadline for any hazardous waste in the
first or second third of the schedule, •
should such waste be disposed in a
landfill or surface impoundment that
unit must meet the minimum
technological requirements specified in
RCRA section 3004(o] for new facilities
(RCRA section 3004(g)(B)). (Note: In the
August 17,1988 First Third final rule,
EPA interpreted the term "such facility"
in section 3004(g)(6) to refer to die
individual surface impoundment or
landfill unit) In addition, prior to
disposal in such unit the generator was
required to certify to the Administrator
that he had investigated the availability
of treatment capacity and had
determined that disposal in such landfill
or surface impoundment was the only
practical alternative to treatment
currently available to the generator.
This restriction on the use of landfills
and surface impoundments that met the
minimum technological requirements
applied until EPA set a treatment
standard for the waste, or until May 8,
1990, whichever was sooner. These
requirements were collectively referred
to as the soft hammer provisions. Other
forms of land disposal, including
underground injection, were not
similarly restricted, and could continue
to be used for disposal of untreated
wastes until EPA promulgated a
treatment standard, or until May 8,1990,
whichever was sooner.
If the Agency fails to set a treatment
standard for any scheduled hazardous
waste by May 8,1990, the soft hammer
provisions are superseded by the hard
hammer. (Note: It is EPA's interpretation
that me hard hammer applies to
characteristic wastes. See 54 FR 48409.)
These wastes are automatically
prohibited from all forms of disposal on
May 8,1990, unless the wastes are the
subject of a successful "no migration"
demonstration (RCRA section 3004(g)(S),
42 U.S.C. 6924(g)(5)). (Note: RCRA
section 3004(h)(2) permits extensions of
the effective date such as national
capacity extensions or case-by-case
extensions beyond die hard hammer
date.)
On May 2& 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 288.10,268.11
and 268.12.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22525
For the scheduled wastes, the statute
does not provide different deadlines for
restriction of wastes that are injected
underground versus disposed of in
surface land units. The Agency did,-
howcver. propose and promulgate First
Third regulations for surface disposed
and injected wastes on separate dates.
The First Third final rule, promulgated
on August 8,19S8, and published in the
Federal Register on'August 17,1988 (S3
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 14,1389 (54 FR
25416).
The Second Third final rule,
promulgated on lune 8,1989, and
published in the Federal Register on
June 20,1989, (54 FR 2B5i4) established
treatment standards and prohibition
effective dates for land disposal and
underground injection for certain
wasles. In addition, EPA promulgated
treatment standards and effective dates
for certain First Third soft hammer
wastes. Third Third wastes and newly
listed wastes.
Today's notice promulgates me
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 the Agency to make a
land disposal prohibition determination
for any hazardous waste that is newly
identified or listed in 40 CFR part 261
after November 8,1984, within six
months of the date of identification or
listing (RCRA section 3004(g)(4), 42
U.S.C. 8924(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 III.A).
B. Regulatory Framework
The November 7,1986, 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 268.4 and RCRA
section 3005(j)(ll). 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 less
than 1 kilogram of acute hazardous
waste) per calendar month are
conditionally exempt from RCRA,
including the land disposal restrictions
(sec 40 CFR 268.1).
The land 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
restrictions 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 21016, 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.l(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)(lJ), 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)(6) 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 in 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 / Vol. 55, No, 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
expressed as specific technologies, such
technologies must be employed,
3. National Capacity Variances From the
Effective Dates
The Agency has the authority to grant
national capacity variances 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(h)(2)). To
make capacity determinations, EPA
compares the nationally available
alternative treatment, recovery, or
protective disposal capacity at
permitted and interim status facilities
which will 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 based on the
earliest date such capacity will be
available. During the period such a
capacity variance is in place, if the
waste is disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment, such disposal may only
be in a unit meeting the minimum
technological requirements of RCRA
section 3004(o) (53 FR 31188 and 40 CFR
2W.5(hH2)). It should be noted, however,
that if a waste subject to a national
capacity variance is treated to meet the
applicable treatment standards, the land
disposal restrictions allow such waste to
be disposed in a subtitle C landfill or
surface impoundment regardless of
whether the unit meets minimum
technological requirements. Note,
however, that independent RCRA
provisions may require such wastes to
be disposed in units meeting minimum
technological requirement.
4. Case-By-Case Extensions of the
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 requirements
outlined in 40 CFR 268.5 must be
satisfied, including a demonstration that
adequate alternative treatment,
recovery, or disposal capacity for the
petitioner's waste cannot reasonably be
made available by the effective date due
to circumstances beyond the applicant's
control, and that the petitioner has
entered into a binding contractual
commitment to construct or otherwise
provide such capacity. If a waste is
placed in a surface impoundment or
landfill during the period that such a
case-by-case extension is in place, such
unit must meet the minimum
technological requirements of RCRA
seciion
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 hazardous (40 CFR 268.6). If a
petition is granted under 40 CFR part
268, it can remain in effect no longer
than ten years for disposal in interim
status land disposal units, end for no
longer than the term of the RCRA permit
for disposal in permitted units (40 CFR
268.6(h)),
However, for injected wastes, 40 CFR
148.20 (promulgated on July 26,1988, see
53 FR 28118) outlines in detail the
Agency's requirements for "no
migration" petitions for hazardous
waste injection facilities. Briefly, a
petitioner is required, through modeling.
to demonstrate that there is no
migration of hazardous constituents
from the injection zone for as long as the
waste remains hazardous. This
demonstration can be made in one of
two ways: the use of flow and transport
models to show that injected fluids will
not migrate vertically ne year is not for the
purpose of accumulating sufficient
quantities to facilitate proper treatment,
recovery, or disposal. Id,
9. The "Soft Hammer" Provisions
First and Second Third wastes for
which EPA did not promulgate
treatment standards by their respective
effective dates could continue to be
disposed of in landfill and surface
impoundment units until May 8,1990.
Such land disposal could occur only if
certain demonstrations were made, and
provided technology requirements of
RCRA section 3004(o) (see 53 FR 31181,
August 17,1988). Other types of land
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register /Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22527
disposal were not similarly restricted
(e.g., underground injection). On May B,
1990, wastes for which EPA has not
established treatment standards are
prohibited from land disposal (including
underground injection). This prohibition
is referred to as the hard hammer.
Effective May B, 1990, therefore, the soft
hammer provisions are no longer in
effect.
C. Pollution Prevention (Waste
Minimization) Benefits
EPA's progress over the years in
improving environmental quality
through its media-specific pollution
control programs has been substantial.
Over the past two decades, standard
industrial practice for pollution control
concentrated to a large extent on "end
of pipe" treatment or land disposal of
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.
However, EPA realizes that there are
limits to how much environmental
improvement can be achieved under
these programs which emphasize
management after pollutants have been
generated. EPA believes that reducing or
eliminating discharges and/or emissions
to the environment through the
implementation of cost-effective source
reduction and environmentally sound
recycling practices can provide
additional environmental improvements.
Many corporations are seeking to
incorporate waste minimization
planning programs into their strategic
planning to lower emission volumes and
toxicities as a function of actual plant
processes through either recycling or
source reduction.
Under sections 3002(b) and 3005(h),
hazardous waste generators are
required to certify that they have a
program in place to reduce the volume
or quantity and toxicity of hazardous
waste to the degree determined by the
generator to be economically
practicable. EPA encourages hazardous
waste generators to pursue source
reduction and environmentally sound
recycling wherever possible to reduce
the need for and costs of subsequent
treatment, storage and disposal. In many
cases, there may be economic as well as
environmental benefits for companies
that pursue pollution prevention options.
Waste minimization planning programs
have been suggested by EPA and
mandated by some state governments.
Several EPA documents on waste
minimization are available to the public .
(Draft Guidance to Hazardous Waste
Generators on the Elements of a Waste
Minimization Program; Notice and
Bequest for Comment, Federal Register
Vol. S4, No. Ill, June 12,1889; The EPA
Manual for Waste Minimization
Opportunity Assessments, EPA 600/2-
88/025, April liBB). Several state
governments have already enacted
waste minimization legislation
(Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction
Act of 1989; Oregon Toxics Use
Reduction and Hazardous Waste
Reduction Act, House Bill 3S15, July 2,
1989). About six other states have
legislation pending that will mandate
some type of waste minimization
program and/or facility planning. About
25 other states offer some type of
technical assistance to companies that
seek alternatives to treatment, storage
and disposal of waste.
Many companies have already
implemented waste minimization
programs. Most of these waste
minimization programs have elements in
common. The most successful programs
have incorporated waste minimization
into company policy. It is advantageous
for top corporate management and/or
individual plant management to provide
support for assessing and understanding
the economic and regulatory benefits of
pursuing waste minimization versus
treatment, storage and disposal options.
Typically, management supports
assessment of the true costs associated
with waste production, including the
costs of compliance, loss of production
potential, and potential liability.
Program success generally requires
that each individual, regardless of status
or rank, be encouraged to make a
contribution to minimize waste.
Collective and individual pay incentives
can be provided for productivity
improvements. Waste minimization
circles can be established using self-
managing teams chosen from a broad
spectrum of production and .
management personnel. These
management teams can be provided
with all information necessary to
adequately assess waste minimization
opportunities. Additionally, it is very
beneficial for production personnel to be
trained and retrained in optimum use of
plant equipment and raw materials.
Some companies set explicitly defined
objectives for the reduction of waste
volume and toxicity that are achievable
within a reasonable time frame.
Typically, the objectives should not
exceed the ability of the operations
personnel to support and maintain them.
In all cases, it is necessary to
determine the causes of waste
generation. This can be done for
individual processes or for several
combined processes if the plant process
waste streams are particularly complex.
Many corporations have implemented
this type of "waste minimization
assessment" as part of an overall waste
minimization program.
For a waste minimization assessment,
it Is generally necessary to accurately
characterize the type of waste generated
by volume, toxicity and source(s). Most
companies track their waste generation
by a variety of means and then
normalize the results to account for
variations in production rate(s). One
State (Massachusetts Toxics Use
Reduction Act) requires each generator
of a toxic or hazardous substance to
track the rote of waste generation and
release/transfer per unit of product. The
EPA Manual for Waste Minimization
Opportunity Assessments aids In
tracking waste streams which can be
quite difficult to analyze in complex
plant operations, where many processes
discharge into one waste stream.
Next, individual processes can be
examined to search for opportunities for
waste reduction such as recycling,
substituting less hazardous raw
materials, modifying existing equipment,
novel technologies, capital
improvements, and increasing process
efficiency. EPA and State funded
technical assistance programs (e.g.,
Minnesota Technical Assistance
Program—MnTAP, California Waste
Minimization Clearinghouse, U.S. EPA
Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse) are becoming
increasingly available to identify some
of these opportunities. Information is
also available through industry trade
associations, professional consultants
specializing in waste minimization,
technical literature, and chemical and
equipment vendors.
It is important to realize that waste
minimization, especially when
incorporated into company policy, is a
continual process. Ideally, a waste
minimization program becomes an
integral part of the company strategic
plan to increase manufacturing
productivity,
D, Summary of the Proposed Rule
On November 22,1989, the Agency
proposed treatment standards and
prohibition effective dates for
approximately 350 hazardous wastes,
including hazardous wastes listed in 40
CFR 288.12 (Third Third wastes), certain
wastes listed in 40 CFR 268.10 and
268.11 (First and Second Third wastes).
Five newly listed wastes, and wastes
exhibiting a characteristic (i.e.,
ignitability, corrosiviry, reactivity, and
EP toxicity) as described in 40 CFR
261.21-261.24. In addition, the Agency
proposed one modification to the land
disposal restrictions regulatory
framework and several interpretations
of general applicability. Furthermore,
the Agency proposed to revise the
-------
22528
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 19iO / Rules and Regulations
treatment standards for wastes from the
petroleum refining Industry, EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos, K048-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 to human health and the
environment can attach at that point.
Waste that is hazardous at the point of
generation and destined for land
disposal remains subject to the
requirements 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 8 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 for the purpose of
treatment in a centralized treatment
system must, at a minimum, result in
"actual reduction in the toxiciry or
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 Impermissible Dilution Issues
The Agency proposed 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 8264). In 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 characteristic 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.
8. Applicability to Mineral Processing
Wastes
On September 1,1989 (54 FR 36592),
EPA narrowed the scope of the RCRA
exclusion for solid wastes from the
extraction, beneficiation, and processing
of ores 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
wastei to such wastes. Therefore, these
wastes would not be subject to the
BDAT 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 261.33 to
include residues of 40 CFR 261.33(11
materials remaining in containers and in
inner liners, in addition to 40 CFR
26l.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
261.33(d) wastes be considered to be
solid wastes unless they are recycled
within 90 days of the spill, regardless of
intent to recycle hi the future. See 54 FR
48493,
8. Treatment/Disposal Facility Testing
Requirements
EPA proposed revisions to the facility
testing requirements contained in 40
CFR 264.13(8), 265.13(8), 288.7(b), and
288.7(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 { 262.34.
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
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22529
in accordance with part 2B8, and must
be retained as a facility record. See 54
FR 48497.
10. Generator Notification Requirements
EPA proposed to clarify 40 CFR 268.7
by allowing generators to reference the
treatment standards in 40 CFR 260.41,
265.42, 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 CFR
268.7 to allow a one-time notification
and certification requirement for small
quantity generator (SQG) shipments
subject to tolling agreements. See 54 FR
48498.
11. Storage Prohibition
Section 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 are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or
disposal" (40 CFR 268,50(ap) and 51 FR
1709). The Agency proposed an
interpretation of this section such that
the storage prohibition does not apply
where storage precedes legitimate,
protective treatment, or recovery. See 54
FR 48498.
12, Applicability of California List
Prohibitions After May 8,1990
The Agency outlined three situations
where the California List is still
applicable: (1) Liquid hazardous wastes
that contain over 50 ppm PCBs, where
PCBs are not a regulated constituent In
the treatment standards; (2) HOC-
containing wastes identified as
hazardous by a characteristic property
that does not contain HOCs; and (3)
liquid hazardous wastes that exhibit a
characteristic and also contain over 134
mg/1 of nickel and/or 130 mg/1 of
thallium.
The California list regulatory and
statutory prohibitions are superseded by
more specific prohibitions and treatment
standards. However, EPA solicited
comment on a national capacity
variance (to May 8,1992) for injected
corrosive wastes, but did not propose a
capacity variance for corrosive wastes
disposed of in surface impoundments.
The legal basis for this approach was
that without it, in the case of a waste
which received a national capacity
variance under the California list rule,
EPA would effectively grant a national
capacity variance far • California list
waste for longer than two years. EPA
also proposed to modify the language of
40 CFR 2R8.32(h) to ensure that there are
no periods of time in which neither the
California list or superseding HOC
standards would operate. See 54 FR
48488.
II, Summary of Today's Final Rule
Today's final rule is the fifth
rulemaking required under the land
disposal restrictions program as outlined
in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments to RCRA. The Agency is
required to promulgate regulations
establishing conditions under which the
Third Third wastes included in 40 CFR
268.12 may be land disposed by the
statutory deadline of May 8,1990.
A. Applicability of Today's Final Rule
The Agency today is promulgating
treatment standards and effective dates
for all Third Third wastes, including
wastes exhibiting a characteristic as
described in 40 CFR 261.21-261.24 (see
sections IHA.3 and III.A.4J. The Agency
also is promulgating treatment
standards and effective dates for all
First and Second Third soft hammer
wastes (previously subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR 268.8).
In previous rulemakings, the Agency
amended the schedule so that certain
First and Second Third wastewoter
residues, derived-from wastes (i.e.,
multi-source leachate), and mixtures of
scheduled hazardous/radioactive
wastes were moved to the Third Third
of the schedule (see 53 FR 31214.
I 288.12 (b), (c), and (d); S4 FR 8264; and
54 FR 26648, § 268.12 (b) and (c)). The
Agency today is promulgating treatment
standards for these wastes. In addition,
the Agency is promulgating treatment
standards for five newly listed wastes
(i.e., wastes listed after enactment of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984); four wastes that
fall into the F002 and FOC5 (spent
solvent) waste codes, and F025.
In the Second Third rulemaking, the
Agency solicited comments, data, and
specific suggestions regarding the
regulation of lab packs. In today's rule,
the Agency is promulgating alternate
treatment standards expressed as
specified technologies for lab packs
meeting certain criteria.
1. Three-Month National Capacity
Variance for Third Third Wastes
The Agency is granting a three-month
national capacity variance for all wastes
effected by this rule, based on the time
required for the regulated community to
make adjustments necessary to comply
with the new regulations. The
prohibitions en land disposal In thia
final rule, therefore, will be effective on
August 8,1990, During the period
between May 8,1990, and August 8,
1930, wastes (that do not meet the
treatment standards) disposed in
landfills or surface impoundments, must
be disposed in units that meet the
minimum technological requirements set
out in 40 CFR 26B.5(h)(2), and must
comply with the California list
prohibitions, where applicable. Sea 52
FR 25760, July 8,1987. In addition, the
reccrdkeeping requirements of 40 CFR
268,7 (a)(3) and (b)(6) apply to all Third
Third wastes during the three-month
national capacity variance. See section
Ht.C of today's preamble for a
discussion of this capacity variance.
2. Hazardous Waste Injection Wells
Regulated Under 40 CFR 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 (g)
separately from regulations addressing
wastes disposed in surface facilities.
EPA is addressing all methods of land
disposal of wastes in today's
rulemaking, including hazardous waste
injection wells regulated jointly under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
and RCRA.
3. Remaining Scheduled Listed
Hazardous Wastes
Today's final rule establishes
treatment standards and effective dates
for those listed hazardous wastes
included in 40 CFR 288.10-208.12 for
which treatment standards have not
been promulgated to date. In section
III.A, the Agency identifies the waste
treatability groups by waste code and
identifies the best demonstrated
available technology (BDAT) 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 technology
not otherwise prohibited (e.g.,.
impermissible dilution] may be used tu
meet the concentration-based treatment
standards.
In addition, EPA is re-scheduling
wastes from the petroleum refining
industry, K048-K052, to the Third Third,
and promulgating revisions to existing
treatment standards for these wastes.
The Agency is also rescinding all
existing treatment standards expressed
as "no land disposal" for
nonwastewaters. A detailed discussion
of the revised treatment standards for
these wastes may be found in section
III.A.
-------
22530 Federal Register / Vol. i5, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
4. Characteristic Hazardous Wastes
In today's final rule, EPA is
promulgating treatment standards and
effective dates for hazardous wastes
that exhibit one or more of the following
characteristics: Jgnitibility, corrosivity,
reactivity or EP toxicity (40 CFR 261.21-
261.24), 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 rale establishes treatment
standards for the characteristic wastes
in one of four forms: (1) A concentration
level equal to or greater than the
characteristic level for the EP toxic
metals; (2} a specified treatment
technology; (3) a treatment standard of
"deactivation" to remove the
characteristic, with guidance on
technologies the Agency believes will
remove the characteristics (see
appendix VI to part 268]; 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 the treatment
standards promulgated for the
characteristic wastes is provided in
sections III.A.2. IU.A.3 and OLD of
today's preamble,
5. Characteristic Wastes Regulated
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SOW A) 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
NPOES 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 CWA 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 Ml § 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 III.D of
today's preamble.
6. Mineral Processing Wastes
On September 1,1989 and January 23,
1990, EPA published final rules in the
Federal Register (54 FR 36592 and 55 FR
2322, respectively) that removed a
number of mineral processing wastes
from the so-called "Bevill Exclusion."
RCRA section 300l(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 ores 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
technically the wastes are not being
identified by a new characteristic, they
are being brought into the subtitle C
system after the date of enactment of
HSWA on November 8,1984. The
Agency, therefore, is clarifying in
today's final rale that these newly
identified mineral processing wastes are
not subject to the BOAT treatment
standards promulgated today for
characteristic hazardous wastes. A
detailed discussion is provided in
section III.H.
A Implementation of Requirements for
Characteristic 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 characteristic; 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 point of
disposal is prohibited unless the
treatment standard for that
characteristic component is above the
characteristic level. See section IH.E.l
for a more detailed discussion.
2. Revisions to Waste Identification
Requirements
Section 282.11 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
§ 262.11 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 261.24 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.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
.,, I .•',.. I 1 •'•... I '• • •• - . , , • • r • t • •- , I ' . I !•:...!
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22531
EPA does not read the statute or the
rules this way, and is making this
clarification in section IILE.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 is 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 BOAT standards. A detailed
discussion is provided in section III.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
constituent causing the waste to exhibit
the TCLP is also a constituent controlled
by the EP, This point is also discussed in
section IILE.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 ruletnakings, 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 1II.E.3
of today's preamble.
B. Further Principles Governing
Applicability
The Agency notes that the issues in
this rulemaking concerning when
hazardous wastes become prohibited
from land disposal do not change the
status of other regulatory or statutory
inclusions or exclusions to the definition
of solid or hazardous waste found at 40
CFR 261.2-261.8. 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.
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
III.E.6 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 provisions
contained in 40 CFR 268.7. These
changes are summarized below, and a
detailed discussion of each of these
provisions is provided in section III.F of
today's preamble.
1. Clarification of and Changes to
Generally Applicable Recordkeeping
Requirements
Most of the existing provisions of
I 268,7 contemplate that restricted
wastes are being shipped off-site for
treatment or disposal (see §§ 268.7 (a)(2)
and (a)(3), and §§ 268.7 (b){4) and
(b}(5)). 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 restricted waste was
treated, stored, or disposed—whether
treatment, storage, or disposal occurs '
on-site or off-site. 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
261.2-261.8, The Agency also notes that
those wastes exempted from all of part .
268 under 40 CFR 268.1 (b) and (e) are
not subject to any recordkeeping
requirements,
2. Tracking (i.e.. 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 0
facility). The Agency believes that under
the present rule, 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
prohibited characteristic wastes 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 ID
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 contain
hazardous waste 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 in today's
rule), and must-dispose of certain types
of wastes in 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
§ 268.7(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 § 268.7 to state that the
treatment standard was not achieved by
a form of impermissible dilution.
-------
22532 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
D. The Dilution Prohibition as It Applies
to Centralized Treatment
The existing rules on dilution and
EPA's interpretive statements regarding
those rules indicate that the dilution
prohibition has a two-fold objective: (1)
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 which are
aggregated are not diluted
impermissibly if they are treated
legitimately in centralized 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 impermissibly.
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 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 hazardous
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. In most cases.
EPA has determined also not to apply a
dilution prohibition to characteristic
wastes that are managed in treatment
systems regulated under the Clean
Water Act or the Safe Drinking Water
Act. However for aggregation of listed
wastestreams or toxic characteristic
wastestreams 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.
E. Treatment Standards for Multi-
Source Leachate
On February 27.198i, 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 3284). 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 carries the waste
codes of all of the listed hazardous
wastes from which it is derived and,
therefore, is subject to each of the
prohibitions and treatment standards for
those wastes. In the event a particular
constituent in the leachate is present in
more ban one prohibited waste, the
stricter treatment standard would apply
(53 FR 31138, August 17,1988).
The Agency today is promulgating a
fixed set of wastewater treatment
standards and a set of nonwastewater
treatment standards 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
constituents in the wastewater and
nonwastewater treatability groups.
The Agency is also specifying that
leachate derived solely from F020-F023
and FQ28-F028 (dioxin) wastes, and no
other listed wastes, 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
BOAT list constituents, the treatment
standards 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
disposal, 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 leachate is contained in
section IIIA.6 of today's final rule.
F. Alternate Treatment Standards for
Lab Packs
The Agency is today promulgating
alternate treatment standards for lab
packs that contain certain prohibited
organometallic and organic wastes
specified in appendix IV and appendix
V to 40 CFR part 288, respectively. The
alternate treatment standards are
expressed as a specified technology for
each of the waste categories: (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 administrative relief, while
minimizing the threats posed by land
disposal of these small volumes of
hazardous waste. Section IILA.9 of
today's preamble contains a detailed
discussion of the alternate treatment
standards for these wastes.
G. Mixed (Hazardous/Radioactive)
Wastes
EPA is granting a two-year national
capacity variance under section
3004{h)(2) for mixed scheduled
hazardous/radioactive wastes subject to
today's rulemaking. The Agency bases
the national variance for these wastes
upon a determination that there i*
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 IILA.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 nonradioactive wastes.
The BOAT treatment standard for high-
level radioactive wastes generated
during the reprocessing of fuel rods is
vitrification. For radioactive lead solids,
the BDAT treatment standard is
macroencapsulatiQn. The BDAT
treatment standard for radioactive
elemental mercury is amalgamation. For
radioactive hydraulic oil contaminated
with mercury, BDAT is incineration.
-------
GSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22S33
H. Nationwide Variances From the
Effective Date
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 1 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 | 2G8.2(a}(7) (which also
applies to chromium refractory bricks
carrying the EPA Hazardous Waste Nos,
K048-K052). The Agency is also granting
a six-month capacity variance to
nonwastewaters from the petroleum
refining industry, EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. K04S-K052. See section III.B of
today's preamble for a detailed
discussion 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-YEAR NA-
TIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCES FOR SUR-
FACE-DISPOSED WASTES '
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF TWO-YEAR NA-
TIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCES FOR SUR-
FACE-DISPOSED WASTES 1M3ontinued
Heoui'ed
alturnanvs
treatment
technology
Acid Leaching and
Chemical
Precipitation.
Combustion of
Sludge/Solids.
Mercury Retorting....
Waste code/
physical form
D009
K108
P06S
P092
U151
F039*
K048>
K049
KOSO
K05J
K052
D009
K106
Low Mercury
Nonwastewater.
Low Mercury
Nonwastewater.
Low Mercury
Nonwastewater.
Low Mercury
Nonwastewaler.
Lew Mercury
Nonwastewater,
Nonwastawater.
Nonwastewatar.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwaslewater.
Nonwastewttar,
High Mercury
Nonwistewater.
High Mercury
Nonwastewater.
Required
alternative
treatment
technology
Secondary
Smelling.
Thermal Recovery ..
Vitrification . ....
poes
P092
U151
DOOS
P087
OC04
K031
K084
KiOi
K102
P010
P011
P012
P036
P038
U138
Waste cods/
physical form
High Mercury
Nonwastewater.
High Mercury
Nonwestewatar,
High Mercury
Nonwastewater.
Lead Materials
Stored before
Secondary
Smelling.
Nonwastewater/
wastewatv,
Nonwastewator.
Nonwastewater,
Nonwastewater,
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwaslewater.
Nonwastewater.
1 EPA is granting these wastes • two-year national
capacity variance, except for K048-K052 non-
wastswaters. This table does not include mixed
radioactive wastes, certain contaminated soil and
debris, or inorganic debris as defined in 268.2(a)(7)
which are receiving two-year national capacity var-
iances.
1 Multi-source Leachate.
'For KQ48-KOS2 petfoteurrwefining non-
wastewaters, EPA Is granting a six-month variance.
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF TWO-YEAR NA-
TIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCES FOR UN-
DERGROUND INJECTED WASTES
Required
alternative
treatment
technology
Acid Leaching and
Chemical
Precipitation.
AIRailine
Chlorination.
Chemical Oxidation
followed by
Chemical
Precipitation.
Chemical Oxidation
followed by
Chromium
Reduction and
Chermcal
Precipitation.
Chromium
. Reduction
followed by
Chemical
Precipitation.
Mercury Retorting „..
Neutralization _..
Wei-Air Oxidation
Waste code/
physical form
0009
0003 «
0003 •
DC03»
0007
DOOS
DOG2"
K011
K013
K014
Low Mercury
Nonwastewater.
Wastewator/
Nonwastewater.
Wastswater/
Nonwaslewater.
Wastewater/
Nonwastewaler.
Wastewater/
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater,
Wastewatsr/
Nonwastewater.
Wastawat*r,
Waste water.
Wastewater/
Nonwastewater,
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF TWO-YEAR NA-
TIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCES FOR UN-
DERGROUND IMJECTED WASTES—Con-
tinued
Required
alternative
treatment
technology
Wet-Air Oxidation
Followed by
Carbon
Adsorption
Followed by
Chemical
Precipitation;
Biological
Treatment
Followed by
Chemical
Precipitation.
Wast* code/
physical form
FQ39*
Wastewatar.
1 D003 (Cyanides).
1D003 (Sulfides).
3 D003 (Explosives, water reactivss, and other
reactive*},
' Oeepwell Injected D002 liquids with a pH less
than 2.0 must meat the California list prohibitions on
August 8.1890.
' Multi-Source Leachate.
I. Generator Notification Requirements
The generator notification
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 268.7
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 writing of the
appropriate treatment standards. This
notice must include, among other items,
the applicable treatment standard and
all applicable prohibitions set forth in
1288.32 or RCRA section 3Q04(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 § 268.7 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 wastc(s) (e.g., Wastewater or non-
wastewater), and the section where the
treatment standards appear. This
change does not apply to spent solvents
{FQ01-F005), multi-source leachate
(F039), or California list wastes because
these waste categories each contain a
number of Individual constituents or
waste groups.
In addition, the Agency is amending
§ 208,7 to allow a one-time notification
-------
22534
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
and certification for SQG shipments
subject to tolling agreements, A detailed
discussion of these changes is provided
in section III.I of today's preamble.
/, Waste Analysis Plans and Treatment/
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. Under 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 268 treatment
standards are being met. Today's final
rule amends the comment in 40 CFR
264.13(aJ(2J 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
III.) for a detailed discussion.
K. Testing of Wastes Treated in 90-Day
Tanks or Containers
The Agency is promulgating testing
requirements for wastes treated to
comply with the BOAT treatment
standard in so-called 90-day tanks (or
containers] as proposed. A regulatory
gap existed widi respect to treatment of
prohibited wastes in such tanks or
containers regulated under § 262.34
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 268.7
recordkeeping requirements. A detailed
discussion of these requirements is
provided in section UI.K of today's
preamble.
L. Clarification of "P"and "U" Solid
Wastes
The Agency is amending 40 CFR
26l.33(c) to clarify the regulations
pertaining to "P" and "U" hazardous
wastes. The amendment will add
residues of | 261.33(f) 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's
revisions.
In the November 22,1989 proposal, the
Agency also proposed amendments to
§ 261.33 regarding soil, water and spill
debris contaminated with § 261.33 (e)
and (f) (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 minimi's losses of "P"
and "U" wastes (§ 261.3(a)(iv)(D}) to
underground injection units. Today's
notice provides this clarification. A
detailed discussion of these issues is
provided in section III.L of today's final
rule.
M Storage Prohibition
Section 3004(f) provides that storage
of prohibited hazardous waste is
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." See § 268.50f.ap), and 51FR
1709, January 14.1988. This language
applies only to storage of prohibited
wastes in non-land based storage units
[e.g., tanks and containers), as land-
based storage is a form of disposal. In
the November 22,1989, notice, the
Agency proposed an interpretation that
the storage prohibition does not apply
where storage precedes legitimate,
protective fre«tmenl, recovery, or
disposal. The Agency is not pursuing a
definitive reinterpretation in today's
final rule as proposed. The Agency
continues to believe, however, that the
statutory 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 is provided in section III.M of
today's preamble.
N, Case-by-Case 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 treatability
variance. See preamble section III.N for
a more detailed discussion.
O. Applicability of California List
Prohibitions After May 8,1990
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.1 The only
continued applicability of the California
list appears to be (1) for liquid
hazardous wastes that contain over 50
ppm PCBs; (2) for HOC-containing
wastes identified as hazardous by a
characteristic property that does not
involve HOCs, as, for example, an
ignitable 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) for liquid
hazardous wastes that exhibit a
characteristic and also contain over 134
mg/1 of nickel and/or 130 mg/1 of
thallium.
Today's final rule also addresses
several issues 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 ruleraakings. 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 8,
1984) as the statute does not compel a
contrary interpretation, A more detailed
discussion of these issues appears in
section IILO of today's preamble.
P, Analysis of Treated Wastes
The Agency today is using the same
approach to waste analysis promulgated
in the First and Second Third final rules
1 See S2 FR 29993 (Auguit 12,1917) «nd 52 FR
25773 (July 8,1987): set also «Q CFR 268.32(h) (HOC
prohibition supeneded by treatment standard and
effective date for a particular HOC),
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June I, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22535
(53 FR 31148 and 54 FR 26594). (The
fohowing discussion and later preamble
discussion are included for purposes of
information and do not reopen the issue
for judicial review.) Where BOAT is a
destruction or removal technology, a
total waste analysis is required because
it is most appropriate 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., S9179, daily ed. {uly 25,1984,
statement of Senator Chafee), and the
only reliable way to verify that
destruction has occurred is to measure
the total waste. Similarly, where BOAT
is identified as an immobilization
technology such as stabilization,
analysis of a TCLP waste extract is
required because it is the most
appropriate measure of immobilization.
In cases where both technologies are
identified as BOAT, 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 268.41, 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 288.7(a)(i), The Agency has
discussed this principle in past
rulemakings. and is repeating it here for
the reader's convenience.
Q. Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs)
As noted above, where BDAT is
based on a destruction/removal
technology, total waste analysis is
performed to measure compliance with
the BDAT levels. Several commenters
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 quantitation that the Agency
believes a competent laboratory car.
reliably achieve.
The Agency is currently developing
guidance material on waste analysis
which the Agency believes will resolve
many of these problems. In the interim,
the Agency believes that where a waste
has been treated with a combustion
BDAT process (i.e., incineration or fuel
substitution unit), 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
III.A.1 of today's final rule.
R. Best Demonstrated Available
Technologies (BDAT)
Today's rule defines 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.l). Treatment standards are based
on the performance levels achievable by
the BDAT identified for each waste
code. Any technology not otherwise
prohibited (e.g., impermissible 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.
5. Reformatting of Treatment Standard
Tables and Addition of Appendix VII to
Part 268, Effective Dates for Prohibited
Wastes
The Agency is reformatting all of the
tables of treatment standards in 40 CFR
part 268 subtitle D 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 (i.e., 40
CFR 268,41, 268.42, and 268.43) are
arranged a-'- 'irding to waste code in
alphanumeric; order and include the
CAS number 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
tables. No substantive changes are
being made to the treatment standards
that were previously promulgated in the
November 7,1986, the July 8,1987, the
August 17,1988, and the June 23,1989,
final rules except as discussed in other
preamble sections of today's rule; (As
an example, regulated constituents are
being added to the wastes KQ48-K052,
as well as F002 and FOOS, wastes for
which certain treatment standards were
previously promulgated. See preamble
section III.A.4.a. for a discussion of F002
and FOOS and section III.A.4.0. for a
discussion of K048-KOS2.)
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 VII to
part 268. 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 Hazardous Wests
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,
citing portions of the recent opinion
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v.
EPA, 886 F.2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
(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's 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. 15,1990 The
standards EPA is adopting in this rule
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 minimi's levels of
hazardous constituents that would
determine when threats to human health
and the environment from disposal of
prohibited wastes are minimized. 55 FR
6642. Further discussion of this point
may be found in section III.A.1.1 of
today's preamble. As discussed in
section OLD, EPA believes that HWTC
III is not dispositive on the issue of
appropriate treatment standards for
characteristic wastes,
1II.A, Detailed Discussion of Today's
Final Rule
1. Development and Identification of
Treatment Standards
Today's rule promulgates treatment
standards for the remaining Third Third
scheduled wastes, and for the First
Third and Second Third wastes which
heretofore were subject to the "soft
hammer" provisions of 40 CFR 268.8.
-------
22536 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 /Friday, June 1, 1990 /Rules and Regulations
Development and identification of the
treatment standards are presented on a
waste code basis in sections ffl.A.2.
through II1.A.5. of today's notice. Section
ffl.A.8. presents the development of
treatment standards for wastes
identified as F039, multi-source leachate.
Section ffl.A.7. discusses the
applicability of today's treatment
standards to contaminated soil and
debris. Section UI.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, Volume 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 each treatability
group. A treatment technology is
considered to be "demonstrated"
primarily based on data from full-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 waste's hazardous
constituents. EPA prefers to base BDAT
on technologies that further the
statutory goals of waste minimization
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 minimizes 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 7,1986 final rule (51FR
40572),) Where data exist for only one
technology, the Agency uses best
engineering judgment to assess whether
that technology represents tha 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.
Treatment standards 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
BDAT
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 BDAT 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 31146-7,
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 baaed on: (1) The development of a
concentration-based standard that
utilizes a surrogate or indicator
compound that guarantees effective
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22537
treatment of the hazardous constituents;
(2) the development of a new analytical
method for quantifying the hazardous
constituents; and (3) other
demonstrations of equivalence for an
alternative method of treatment based
on a statistical comparison of
technologies, including a comparison of
specific design and operating
parameters,
c. Applicability of Treatment Standards
to Treatment Residues Identified as
Derived-From Wastes and to Waste
Mixtures
(1) Derived-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 CFR 281,3{c){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
through a no-migration determination or
by a capacity variance. Residues from
the treatment of characteristic wastes,
however, are not automatically
considered the characteristic waste;
these residues are considered
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 today are
generally based on treatment of a
relatively concentrated form of the
waste (i.e., the "original" waste), the
Agency believes that residues from
subsequent treatment will be less
difficult to treat.
The Agency is investigating de
minimls levels for certain hazardous
constituents in listed wastes below
which the waste will no longer be a
hazardous waste for purposes of sobsitle
C regulation. The Agency has yet to
propose these de mirdmis levels. UK
Agency has indicated, however, tluat
these de minimis levels will cap
treatment standards if they are higtar
than the treatment standards (55 Fl
6640; Feb. 28,1990).
(2) Mixtures of Different /fozonfeasr
Waste Streams. Today's treatment
standards apply to mixtures of dlfiasai
waste streams. Where a waste misfflBe
consists of listed wastes and hasnsse
than one applicable concentration-
based treatment standard for a
particular constituent, the most stringent
standard must be met prior to land.
disposal (see 40 CFR 288.41(bJ). In the
event that such a waste mixture cannot
be treated to meet the moat stringent
standard, one may petition the Agency
for a variance from the treatment
standard pursuant to 40 CFR 268.44.
d. Wastewater Versus Nonwastewater
Standards
In today's rule, the treatment
standards (both concentration-based
and specified methods) are generally
presented as applicable to wastewaters
or to nonwastewaters (see 40 CFR
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 less than 1% total
suspended solids (TSS), except for those
wastes identified as FOOl, F002, F003,
F004, and F005 solvent-water mixtures.
(See 53 FR 31145 (August 17,1988) which
adopts this definition for most First
Third wastes, and 51 FR 40579
(November 7,1986) for the definition of
FOOl, F002, F003, F004, and F005 solvent-
water mixtures.) Those wastes (listed
wastes, including wastes that are
hazardous as a result of the mixture and
derived-from rules) that do not meet
these criteria are defined as
nonwastewaters and thus contain
greater than or equal to 1% TOC, or
greater than or equal to 1% TSS. (Note,
however, the discussion in ffl.B. of
further subcategorization of ,
nonwastewaters for purposes of
national capacity variances based on a
lack of solids incineration capacity.)
(1) Impermissible Switching of
Wastewater and Nonwastewater
Standards for Listed Wastes. (See also
discussion at III.D. below for issues
associated with characteristic wastes.)
It is not permissible to dilute or partially
treat a prohibited listed waste in order
to switch the applicability of a
nonwastewater standard to a
wastewater standard, or vice versa (see
52 FR 21012 (June 4,1987); but see 52 FR
25767 (July 8,1987) noting special
circumstances when California list
wastes are involved). The Agency has
established this principle because
technologies applicable to
nonwastewaters are not generally
applicable to wastewaters, or require
special designs (in the case of
incineration) in order to simultaneously
handle wastewaters. Furthermore,
treatment residues meeting the
definition of nonwastewaters must
comply with all applicable
nonwastewater treatment standards;
likewise, residual wastewaters must
comply with all applicable wastewater
treatment standards.
The Agency recognizes, however, that
certain technologies are specifically
designed to separate wastewaters from
nonwastewaters. Such technologies may
or may not be considered partial
treatment under this principle, as
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Dewatering technologies such as
filtration 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% TOC, the
resultant liquid residue will probably
meet the definition of a wastewater (i.e.,
it will probably contain less than 1%
TSS and less than 1% TOC). The Agency
does not consider this impermissible
switching of applicable treatment
standards. (Note: For the purposes of
applying BOAT treatment standards, the
Agency does not consider carbon
adsorption a dewatering technology
even though it may act as a filter for
suspended material.)
When the suspended material is
organic and the overall untreated waste
contains peater 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 nonwastewater
treament standards depending on their
TOC and TSS content If the liquid
residues from these dewatering
technologies meet the definition of
wastewaters, the Agency does not
consider this to be impermissible
switching of applicable standards.
The importance of the TOC level in
determining impermissible switching of
applicable wastewater or
nonwastewater treatment standard is
apparent in the scenario of treatment of
a waste containing less than 1% TSS and
slightly more than 1% TOC (such aa 2 or
3% TOC), and thereby being a
nonwastewater by definition. If EPA has
established concentration-based
treatment standards for the
corresponding wastewater form of this
waste, it would be permissible to use
carbon adsorption to treat this
nonwastewater, BO long as these
concentration-based treatment
standards for the wastewaters are .
ultimately achieved (i.e., if the residual
wastewater contains hazardous
constituents at levels above the
concentration-based wastewater
treatment standards, additional
treatment with other technologies is
necessary prior to land disposal.)
However, if EPA has established a
-------
22530 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
wastewater treatment standard
expressed as Carbon Adsorption as a
Method of Treatment for this waste
code, the nonwastewater described
above must comply with the standard
for the nonwastewater form, despite the
fact that the TOG 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 treatability group determined at the
point of generation, EPA established
Carbon Adsorption as a Method of
Treatment standard for certain
wasteweters based on the assumption
that wastewaters typically contain TOG
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 adsorption
for this nonwastewater, is not permitted
as a means of complying with BDAT.
The Agency considers this an
impermissible 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, 26630, 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 treatment trains
incorporating these technologies are
true: (1) Scrubber waters from
incinerators in compliance with the
substantive provisions of 40 CFR part
264 subpart O or part 265 subpart O 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 284 subpart O
or part 265 subpart O are not required to
undergo Carbon Adsorption as a
Method of Treatment when this
specified wastewater treatment method
ilso has been established; (3)
incinerator ashes and residues from the
subsequent treatment of scrubber
waters from incinerators in compliance
with the substantive provisions of 40
CFR part 264 subpart O or part 265
subpart O 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
264 subpart O or part 265 subpart O, 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
constituents tn 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 treatability 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 end 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 transferring 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 F or 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 wastes. The
Agency believes that these lower
treatment standards are achievable for
these F and K wastes based on the
ability to achieve detection limits for
organics in the waste matrix from which
the standard was transferred.
-------
OSMER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 108 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
2253!:
f. Treatment Standards Based on Single
Facility Data, Grab Samples 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
wastes that are representative of those
most difficult to treat.
The Agency recognizes that there is
variability 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. This 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/QC
plan as outlined in the BDAT Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan.
Standards based on incineration are
always established above the limit of
detection for that particular waste
rather than at the detection limit. This is
because the Agency prefers to account
for the variability inherent in the
treatment system and in the analysis of
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 well-designed, well-
operated incineration system,
(2) Grab 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 efficiency 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
268. 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 violate 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). In
such an instance, the disposal facility
must demonstrate that the waste
analysis plan (and the specific deviating
feature) is adequate to assure
compliance with part 268 (see 40 CFR
264.13). This might require, for example,
a demonstration of statistical
equivalence between a composite
sampling protocol and one based on
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 on the facility's waste
analysis plan. (See preamble section
III.G. for further discussion of WAPs.)
g. Analytical Requirements, the BDAT
List, and Relationship of PQLs to BDAT
(1) Waste Analysis Requirements, in
today's rule, BDAT has been identified
as a destruction technology for organic
constituents and cyanides 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-S179 (July 25,1984) (statement of
Sen, Chaffee) (wastes with high organic
content should be incinerated). This
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)(l), 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.
(Note: The land disposal restrictions
for solvent waste codes FOOI-FOQ5 (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
F001-F0Q5 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
formetais 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 BOAT List. 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
-------
22540 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1880 / Rules and Regulations
present in a listed waste. The rationale
for selection of the particular
constituents to be regulated can be
found in the background document for
each waste or waste treatability group.
The Agency believes that it is not
limited to regulating only those
constituents for which a waste is listed
[40 CFR part 261 appendix VII).
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 fcr taking this
approach is found in RCRA section
3CQl(f), which specifies that EPA must
consider additional hazardous
constituents other than those for which
the waste was listed when evaluating
delisting petitions. Section 30M(f) thus
acknowledges that appendix VI! is only
a partial list of the hazardous
constituents that can be present in a
listed waste.
(3) Relationship cf Treatment
Standards to PQLs, In proposed
revisions to the September 1986 edition
of Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes (also known as and herein
referred to as SW-848). the Agency
defines practical quantisation limits
(PQLs) as '*• * * Ae lowest level of
quantitation that the Agency believes a
competent laboratory can be expected
to reliably achieve." PQLs are directly
related to the amount of interferences
that are present in different waste
matrices, and the PQLs listed in SW-848
are not always achievable for
constituents as measured in untreated
wastes. Most treatment processes,
however, particularly destructive
tachnologies such as incineration,
destroy not only the hazardous
constituents of the waste but also other
organics that typically interfere with the
analysis for constituents in untreated
wastes. Thus, PQLs typically are
significantly lower for treatment
residuals such as incinerator ash than
for untreated wastes. Such differences
in FQLs for untreated versus treated
wastes are demonstrated by the data for
almost every incineration test burn
performed by the Agency in developing
the treatment standards.
Potential users of PQLs should keep in
mind that the PQLs in SW-646 were
established to provide guidance for the
analysis of waste samples by acting as
minimum performance criteria for
analytical laboratories. The PQLs do not
necessarily represent the lowest limits
of analytical performance achievable for
any given waste.
The PQLs in SW-B48 were intended to
be broadly applied to groups of wastes.
As a result, matrix dependent correction
factors were not developed for any
particular waste code, and do not
specifically apply to any particular
treatment residuals (i.e., only correction
factors for matrices identified as ground
water, low-level soil, high-level soil, and
non-water miscible waste were
specified in Method 8250 of SW-84iJ.
Furthermore, the Agency is currently
modifying and expanding the matrix
correction factors, as well as modifying
the detection limits from which the PQLs
are derived.
The PQLs listed in SW-846 for some
constituents are less stringent than some
of the treatment standards. This
apparent anomaly results primarily from
the fact that the PQLs in SW-B48 were
not based on the same waste matrices
(i.e., treatment residues) that were
tested in developing the treatment
standards. The treatment standards for
a given waste code are based on
analysis of the treatment residuals of
the waste (or in some cases, a similar
waste from which the treatment
standards are transferred).
Consequently, the resulting treatment
standards appropriately reflect the level
of analytical performance achievable far
that waste. Thus, the PQLs in SW-648
are generally not used directly in
developing the Part 268 treatment
standards.
Today's promulgated concentration-
based nonwastewater standards based
on combustion derive from detection
limits from EPA's 14 test burns (which
generated the data supporting virtually
all of the proposed rale's concentration-
based standards) plus a data set
submitted by a commenter representing
the hazardous waste treatment industry.
This comment is discussed at length in
subsequent paragraphs.
This commenter submitted a study
that was undertaken to verify whether
industry labs can reliably quantify
regulated constituents at the level of
both the existing and the proposed
concentration-based standards. The
study's secondary purpose was to
identify any regulated constituents for
which the concentration-based
treatment standards may be
inappropriate. The study consisted of
analyzing regulated constitutents in
incinerator ash at levels near the
concentration-based standards.
In the commenter's opinion, the data
and observations indicate that many
treatment standards are inappropriate,
and also made three major assertions
with respect to PQLs. First, the
commenter asserted that based on the
FQLs calculated using his data, certain
previously promulgated concentration-
based standards are not achievable.
EPA rejects this assertion because no
specific treatment data were received in
either this study or during the comment
period for the appropriate ruiemaking
that indicated on a waste-specific busis
that these treatment standards could not
be achieved. (Note; The Agsncy is sot
precluded, however, from promulgating
revisions to these standards in a later
rulemaking after giving sufficient public
notice.)
Second, the commenter 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. EPA
evaluated the commenter's detection
limit data rather than his PQLs and has
determined that the majority of the
commenter's detection limits
demonstrate compliance with the
concentration-based standards that
were proposed, and all but a very few,
comply with the standards being
promulgated in today's rule. Because of
this, and for reasons discussed below,
the Agency has generally rejected the
use of the PQLs calculated by the
commenter in promulgating treatment
standards.
However, several nonwastewater
standards promulgated in today's rale
reflect revisions baaed on the
commenter'a detection limit and
recovery data. EPA has indicated where
these data were used to revise specific
standards in later sections of today's
preamble. Although EPA revised these
standards based on some data from this
study, EPA generally found Saws with
the commenter's study (such as:
Incomplete untreated waste
characterization; probable analytical
interferences; and incomplete
incinerator process documentation) that
precluded incorporation of much of the
data into the treatment standards for
nonwastewaters. For example, BOAT
analytes were detected at levels above
the detection level (i.e., at measurable
quantities) in several of the commenter's
ash samples. Also, different ash samples
appeared to have different compositions
of these BOAT analytes. apparently
indicating that these ashes differ
significantly from one another. (See
detail responses of these data in the
Response to BDAT-Related Comments
Background Document for Third Land
Disposal Restrictions in the
administrative record for today's rule.)
Third, the commenter stated that EPA
had inappropriately calculated
nonwastewater treatment standards in
terms of both numerical detection levels
and the best procedure for calculating
standards, specifically, considering the
-------
QSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
..->•• ' •• \ • :•.,.• • , r," .:!•: •-• h. V -. :': ! M M V.! t •'{ >>;;;
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22541
use of PQLs. The commenter 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
November 11,1986 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, hi certain cases, analytical
problems (i.e., difficulties in reliable
quantitation at detection limits near the
concentration-based treatment
standards) may prevent demonstrating
compliance with the proposed treatment
standards for Third Third wastes. They
also pointed out that this same problem
already may exist for some Fkst and
Second Third wastes.
EPA has examined the data submitted
to the Agency in support of these
comments. (See discussion of these data
as they relate to PQLs in the preceding
section of the preamble.) While the
Agency does not believe that the
currently available data is conclusive,
EPA acknowledges 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 evaluation, the
Agency incorporated a portion of these
data into the promulgated standards in
today's rule. In addition, the Agency has
reevaluated the existing BDAT data
generated by the Agency, the transfer
procedures used for some of the wastes,
and recently available information and
data on recovery of the BDAT organic
constituents. Thus, EPA concurred with
the commenters 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
treatabiliry variance petition process
would place an unnecessary burden on
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),
and if the person has made a good faith
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 demonstrate 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 above, the
treatment standard. To provide a more
concrete basis for 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
(August 8,1990).
In developing the treatment standards
in today's rule, the Agency selected the
treatment data (i.e., detection limit data)
that best represented what the majority
of wastes could meet. (Note: 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 reexamination of all of the
available detection limit data, the
Agency has found that the majority of
the detection limit data for these wastes
will generally not exceed the
promulgated treatment standards by
more than one order of magnitude. The
Agency also points out that there is an
inherent three-fold difference in
detection limits that may arise 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 (i.e., 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 O 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 with 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.,
biotreatment), 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
288.7(a){2)). If 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 demonstrate compliance
with the standard.
EPA is thus amending 11 268.7 and
268.43 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 284 subpart
O and part 265 subpart O) and a waste
has been treated using that treatment
method, the treatment facility may
•4*
-------
22542
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
certify compliance with the organic
constituent standard if a good faith
effort has been made to analytically
demonstrate compliance with this
standard and a detection limit within an
order of magnitude of the organic
constituent standard has been achieved.
This includes all waste codes in the
First, Second, and Third Thirds where
standards for organics are based on
such combustion processes or were
transferred from wastes based on such
combustion processes. These standard!
are specifically indicated in Table CCW
of § 268.43.
The Agency points out that in cases
where a facility believes that waste-
specific treatment standards cannot be
met because their laboratory is still
unable to achieve detection limits below
the treatment standards on specific
treatment residuals, and: (1) The facility
complies with all the other conditions
mentioned above; or (2) a facility
utilizes a combustion technology other
than incineration or fuel substitution: or
(3) a facility utilizes a technology other
than combustion that can be
demonstrated to be equivalent, the
facility may submit a petition for a
variance from the treatment standards
for that particular waste code (EPA
construes 40 CFR 268.44 as
encompassing such petitions). The
facility must demonstrate that the
analyses are in compliance with all
other BDAT QA/QC provisions (as
outlined in the BDAT Generic Quality
Assurance Project Plan (EPA/530-SW-
87-011, March 1987]. Moreover, the
petitioner must also demonstrate that
the treatment process is a well-designed
and well-operated BDAT process.
i. Relation of Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council v. EPA
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,
citing portions of the recent opinion
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v,
EPA, 886 F. 2d 355 (D.C.Cir. 1989)
(HWTC ni). 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
properly explain why it had chosen this
approach. EPA's 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 15,1990.
. The standards EPA is adopting in this
rule are also technology based.
However, as diacusse*1 ln detail in
section ULD. below, the Agency believes
that with respect to disposal of
prohibited characteristic wastes that are
no longer "hazardous" under the
regulations, the Agency must harmonize
the competing considerations of section
3C04(g) and ICOfi (b) (relating to a
regulatory framework for subtitle D
systems) with those of section 3004(m]
(relating to treatment to fully minimize
threats) before determining the extent of
the prohibition.
EPA notes further that it believes that
treatment standards established below
characteristic levels can result in
nonredundant minimization of threats to
human health and the environment and
thus be permissible under RCRA section
3004(m) and the Court's opinion. Indeed,
the Court itself noted that characteristic
levels do not serve as a bar to further
treatment (886 F. 2d at 363). The
treatment standards for characteristic
wastes in today's rule thus are not
premised on any finding that the
characteristic level, in and of itself,
creates a bar to further treatment.
2. Treatment Standards for Certain
Characteristic Wastes
This section of today's preamble
presents a discussion of D001 Ignitable,
D002 Corrosive, and D003 Reactive
characteristic wastes, as well as the six
EP Toxic pesticides (D012 through D017).
Treatment standards for the eight EP
Toxic metals are found in section HI.A-3.
of this preamble.
a. General Issues on Developing
Treatment Standards for Characteristic
Wastes
There were a number of options
proposed for developing treatment
standards for the characteristic wastes.
One option considered by the Agency
was to promulgate concentration-based
standards (for those characteristic
wastes that were defined by a level)
based on available data. A second
option was to promulgate a treatment
standard expressed as a required
method, A third option was to simply
establish the characteristic level as the
treatment standard, and a fourth option
was to establish a method of treatment
along with a required performance level.
The Agency received extensive
comments discussing these options,
particularly the option of setting
treatment standards expressed as the
characteristic levels. A few commenters
strongly supported establishing
treatment standards for characteristic
wastes at levels below the characteristic
levels, stating that available
performance data supported such an
approach. The majority of commenters.
however, supported limiting tile
treatment standards at the characteristic
levels.
The Agency found some of the
technical issues raised by these
commenters persuasive. (Discussion of
the policy issues associated with setting
treatment standards for characteristic
wastes is found in preamble section
HID.) The Agency agrees with
commenters that argued that
characteristic wastes may be generated
in many matrices, and thus, can take
any number of different forms;
transferring data from specific listed
wastes to these variable characteristic
wastes, the commenters indicated, may
not account for such differences.
In addition, for certain DOOl. D002.
and D003 treatability groups, there are
currently no available analytical
methods to quantify residual ignitability,
corrosiveness, and reactivity. Until EPA
can develop analytical methods capable
of accurately determining quantitative
characteristic hazards, industry must
Judiciously make qualitative technical
decisions dependent on the waste
definition. Treaters must complete
treatment until qualitative technical
judgement indicates that the waste or
waste residual no longer exhibits the
characteristic hazard specified by the
definition.
Many commenters supported the
Agency's approach for setting treatment
standards for Igni table. Corrosive, and
Reactive (with the exception of Reactive
Cyanides) wastes expressed as a
required method of treatment:
Deactivation. The Agency, therefore, is
promulgating the Deactivation treatment
standard and is providing suggested
deactivation methods to remove the
characteristic for the various Ignitabte,
Corrosive, and Reactive treatabiSity
groups in appendix VI to 40 CFR part
268.
No comments were received on the
proposed approach for regulating the EP
Toxic pesticides P011-D017). The
Agency is promulgating concentration-
based treatment standards for the
nonwaatewater forma of these wastes
and methods of treatment for the
wastewaters. The Agency is taking this
action based on data indicating that
incineration can remove organic
constituents to non-detectable levels in
nortwastewaters as evidenced by
incineration data available for certain
halogenated pesticides. Further
discussion of issues associated with
promulgating treatment standards for
these characteristic wastes is found in
the following sections of today's
preamble.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22543
b. Ignitable Characteristic Wastes
Under 40 CFR 281.21, there are four
criteria for identifying a waste as D001
Ignitable. Paraphrasing these criteria, a
waste is a DOOl Ignitable if: (1) It is a
liquid with a flash point less than 140 *F;
(2) it is an ignitable compressed gas; (3)
it is not a liquid and is capable of
causing fire through friction, absorption
of moisture, or spontaneous chemical
changes and when ignited bums
vigorously and persistently; or (4) it is
an oxidizer. EPA has determined that
these four criteria translate directly into
four major D001 subcategories (although
EPA has further subcategorized the
ignitable liquid subcategory into three
treatability groups). If a waste is
classified as D001 because it fits under
more than one D001 subcategory, the
waste must be treated by a treatment
method or treatment methods that will
remove all characteristics of ignitability
for each applicable subcategory.
(1) Ignitable Liquids Subcategory, The
first D001 subcategory, the Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory, refers to those
D001 wastes that exhibit the properties
listed in § 281.21(a)(l). Commenters
specifically questioned whether the
determination of liquid under
§ 281.21{a)(l) was based on the paint
filter test ("free liquid" Method 9095),
the EP test (Method 1310), or 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 (EP),
and in Methods- 9095 and 9096, there is
not a specific definition of liquid with
respect to this characteristic in the
regulations. Therefore, the generator of a
potentially ignitable waste may use any
method for determining whether the
waste is classified as a liquid for which
he can provide an appropriate scientific
or technical justification.
One cornmenter requested
clarification regarding the D001 liquid
exclusion for aqueous alcohol wastes
which is found in 40 CFR 261.21(a), This
provision states that a solid waste
exhibits the characteristic of ignitability
if "it is a liquid, other than an aqueous
solution containing less than 24 percent
alcohol by volume, and has a flash point
less than 60 'C (140 T) * * *" The
Agency notes that, in this definition, the
term alcohol refers to any alcohol or
combination of alcohols. (Note: If the
alcohol has been used for solvent
properties and is one of the alcohols
specified in EPA Hazardous Waste No.
F003 or F005, the waste must be coded
with these Hazardous Waste Numbers
(which cover the hazard of ignitability).)
Data indicate that the majority of all
D001 wastes generated fall into the D001
Ignitable Liquids Subcategory and are
typically described as solvents, paint
thinners, contaminated 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, flammable hydrocarbons or
oxygenated hydrocarbons that provide
the characteristic of ignitability to the
waste (i.e., a flash point of less than 140
*F). (Note: Currently, the length of time
over which combustion is 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 wastewafers that flashes but
does not sustain combustion.)
For purposes of BOAT determination,
most of the ignitable liquid wastes are
typically classified as nonwastewaters
because of their high organic content
(usually greater than 1 percent TOG).
Technologies applicable for treatment of
these organic nonwastewaters include
incineration, fuel substitution, and
recovery processes such as distillation
or liquid-liquid extraction. Thermal
destruction, technologies such as
incineration and reuse as a fuel
completely remove the characteristic of
low flash point by completely destroying
the volatile organic 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 demonstrated and available
because EPA has data showing that the
majority (i.e., 75%) of D001 Ignitable
Liquids are already treated by
incineration, reused as a fuel substitute
because of their high BTU content, or
recovered for reuse through processes
such as distillation. Based on the fact
that these demonstrated, available
technologies remove the characteristic
of ignitability permanently and
completely, as well as destroying a
number of hazardous constituents, EPA
proposed a treatment standard of
"Incineration, Fuel Substitution, or
Recovery as Methods of Treatment" for
D001 nonwastewaters In the Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory (54 FR 48420).
At the time of proposal, the Agency
was unable to determine whether any
DOOl wastes in the Ignitable Liquids
Subcategory, as initially generated,
conformed to EPA's regulatory
definition of wastewaters (i.e., wastes
containing less than 1 percent TOC and
1 percent TSS). Accordingly, EPA did
not believe that wastewater treatment
technologies such as biodegradation
were applicable for treatment of any
waste forms in the DOOl Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory because of the high
organic contents and large BTU values
thought to be inherent in these wastes,
as well as the concern 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
ignitability characteristic and
destruction of the hazardous
constituents. See 54 FR 48420-22.
Concerning the issue of wastewater
generation, the Agency received many
comments indicating that there are
wastes in the DOOl Ignitable Liquids
Subcategory that consist primarily of
water. The commenters also emphasized
that most of these low-organic, aqueous
DOOl wastes are best treated using
wastewater treatment technologies even
though such aqueous streams may
contain greater than 1 percent TOC and
may thus be classified as
nonwastewaters. With respect to
wastewater treatment technologies
being appropriate methods of treating
aqueous ignitable wastes, some
commenters said that biological
treatment is applicable for some of the
DOOl aqueous wastes that contain
water-soluble organics. Other
commenters indicated that wet air
oxidation and carbon adsorption are
also applicable forms of treatment for
DOOl aqueous wastes. Nonetheless, the
Agency is still concerned about possible
air emissions associated with the
aeration and dilution steps that are
often part of wastewater treatment
processes such as biodegradation.
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 tanks equipped
with air pollution control devices. The
Agency believes some facilities are
already practicing these precautions. For
example, one commenter mentioned a
biodegradation system used to treat
DOOl that was anaerobic and kept any
air emissions contained inside the
system.
After evaluation of all the appropriate
waste characterization data and
treatment performance data presented
in the comments, the Agency decided
that wastewater treatment technologies
-------
22544
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. Ii90 / Rules and Regulations
that are capable of providing legitimate
treatment for such aqueous wantes 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 D001 Ignitable Liquids
Subcategory should be further
subcategorized by division into three
treatability groups as follows: (1) DOQ1
Ignitable Liquids High TOC
Nonwastewaters, (2) D001 Ignitable
Liquids Low TOC Nonwastewaters, and
(3) D001 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 stripping, 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 III.B.) The Agency
is promulgating "Incineration (INCINJ,
Fuel Substitution (FSUBS), or Recovery
(RORGS) 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 it 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 ignitability
characteristic to the waste. The toxics 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
disposal. 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 Nonwaetewater 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 B, 1987J.
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 wastewater technologies; however.
Incineration may also be applicable,
especially for the Low TOC
Nonwastewaters. EPA is promulgating
"Deactivate (DEACT) to Remove the
Characteristic of Ignitability" for both
the Ignitable Liquids Low TOC
Nonwastewater Subcategory and the
Ignitable Liquids Wastewater
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 § 268.42 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.)
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
pretreatmentj 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
ignitability 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 in.D.
below.)
EPA is aware that some D001
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 7,1986, final rule (51 FR
40842), 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 D001 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 D001
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 D001
wastes to conduct the significant
amount of testing and certification
required under the land disposal
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regula'iona
22545
restrictions when it is likely that the
constituents will not be present in most
true DOQ1 wastes. Therefore, the Agency
is not promulgating concentration-based
DOOl treatment standards based on a
transfer of F001-FD05 data at this time,
although it may reevaluate this decision
in the future.
(2) Ignitable Compressed Gases
Subcategory, The second subestegory,
the Ignitable Compressed Gases
Subcategory, refers to those D001
wastes that exhibit the properties listed
in § 261.21(a)(3). The Agency has limited
information on the generation and
characterization of D001 wastes in this
Subcategory, but suspects that although
these wastes are generated, it is unlikely
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
dispose of them by means of deep well
injection. Some cylinders containing
D001 ignitable gases may be placed in
waste piles; however, such placement of
a container in a storage unit is not land
disposal under section 3004{k). See 54
FR 48439. In addition, these types of
cylinders are usually returned to
distribution facilities to be refilled. The
Agency does not intend to prevent
short-term storage 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 a
treatment standard 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. However, several
commenters presented information
about the limitations of the proposed
technologies and provided information
about additional technologies that the
Agency also believes to be applicable
treatment methods for removing the
characteristic of ignitability for this
Subcategory,
In regard to the feasibility of the
recovery option, one commenter stated
that it is viable within the compressed
gas industry, except for cases such as
cylinders that have defective valves,
that have lost the identity of the
manufacturer, that ara lecture bottle
size, ur that are damaged. In any of
these four cases, the contents in the
cylinders must instead be treated. The
commenter also stated that the most
prevalent treatment method is to feed
the ignitable gas 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, Ihe 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 "incineration of
vented gases" as a treatment method,
EPA believes that there may be cases
when it is preferable to vent the gas into
an appropriate adsorbent material (e.g.,
water, solvents, activated cajbon) and
then to incinerate the adsorbed gas/
adsorbent material combination to
permanently remove the characteristic.
Additionally, a commenter said that for
small volume containers of ignitable
compressed gases (e.g., aerosol cans of
18 oz. or less), the containers can be fed
directly into the kiln and vented within
the kiln itself by the melting of the small
cans. The vented gases are then
incinerated in the kiln or afterburner.
One commenter described a method
of treatment for pyrophoric gases.
Typical gases in this class include
tributyl aluminum, dimethylzine,
triethylborane, and tetramethylin. The
commenter claimed that these gases,
because of their air reactive
characteristics, cannot be vented into an
incinerator without considerable risk.
The cominenter's method of treatment
for such gases has been by remote
control penetration and detonation
under a column of appropriate scrubbing
solution.
Another method of treatment
described by the commenters to
deactivate the ignitable characteristic in
some compressed gases is to chemically
oxidize them in an aqueous medium.
The commenters claimed that carbonyl
sulfide and methyl mercaptans are
efficiently treated by oxidation.
Chemical oxidation and chemical
redaction technologies include reactions
with reagents in aqueous mediums that
will oxidize or reduce the hazardous
constituents.
The Agency believes that all these
technologies can remove the
characteristic of ignitability and is
promulgating a treatment standard of
"Deactivation (DEACT) to Remove the
Characteristic of Ignitability" for the
Ignitable Compressed Gas Subcategory.
The Agency has established this
standard to allow the regulated
community the flexibility to use the
"best" technology for the specific
gaseous waste. See section 268
Appendix ¥1 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 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.) This treatment standard will
apply to all forms of wastes to the
Ignitable Compressed Gases
Subcategory since the definitions of
wastewater and nonwastewater do not
apply to this group of wastes.
(3) Ignitable Reactives Subcategory,
The third Subcategory, the Ignitable
Reactives Subcategory, refers to those
DOOl wastes that exhibit the properties
listed in § 261.21(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 include reactive
alkali metals or metalloids (such as
sodium and potassium] and calcium
carbide slags. Most of these are very
reactive with water and will generate
gases that can ignite as the result 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 examination
of the definitions in § 261.21(a)(2) for
ignitable wastes and §§ 281.23(a) (2), (3).
and (6) for reactive wastes reveals the
distinction between these two groups.
The key difference is in the definition of
ignitable wastes, which states:
" * * * when ignited, bums vigorously
and persistently." This phrase implies
that the hazard is due primarily to the
ignition potential rather than to the
extreme reactivity.
The Agency proposed a treatment
standard of "Deactivation as a Method
of Treatment" for wastes in the DOOl
Ignitable Reactive Subcategory. The
Agency took this approach for these
wastes since the hazardous
characteristic is based on imminent
hazard (i.e., ignition and violent
reaction) rather than on other criteria
such as levels of hazardous constituents
and since technologies exist that can
completely remove this characteristic.
Current management practices for
some of these wastes, such as calcium
carbide slag, involve controlled
deactlvation with water. Other DOOl
Ignitable Reactives, such as those
containing reactive alkali metals
-------
22546 Federal Register /Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(sodium or potassium) are sometimes
chemically deactivated using chemical
oxidation or chemical reduction
technologies. Several commenters 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
subeategory. 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 D001 Ignitable Reactives
Subcategory because these technologies
will remove the characteristic of
ignitability. However, the Agency
believes that because of the diversity in
physical and chemical forms of the
wastes in the Ignitable Reactives
Subcategory it is not possible to
determine a "best" 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 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 § 268.42 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.) This
treatment standard is established only
for nonwastewaters since ignitable
reactive wastes are described as being
very reactive with water and hence
cannot exist as wastewaters.
(4) Oxidizers Subcategory. The fourth
subcategory, the D001 Oxidizers
Subcategory, refers to those D001
wastes that exhibit the properties listed
in § 2ei.21(a){4) and meet the definitions
in 49 CFR 173.151. Several commenters
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 D001 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 D001 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 oxidizer for the purpose of this
subchapler is a substance such SB 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 subcategory since it is
possible that certain aqueous solutions
of waste oxidlzers 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 2B4.229 and
265.229).
Several commenters wrote about
different technologies that are
applicable to wastes in the oxidizer
subcategory. One commenter generates
calcium hypochlorite and
trichlorocyanuric acid wastes that Fit
into the oxidizer subcategory. They are
both off-spec or contaminated
swimming poolchlorination chemicals.
The wastes are normally generated as
solids and routinely disposed of through
deactivation by adding the material to
large quantities 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 D001 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 D001 Oxidizer
Subcategory and is promulgating a
treatment standard of "Deactivation
(DEACT) to Remove the Characteristic
of Ignitability" for the DOOl Oxidizers
Subcategory. See section 266 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 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.) This
standard will allow the regulated
community the flexibility to determine
the "best" treatment based on the
physical and chemical characteristics of
the oxidizer wastes.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D001
ISNITABLE LIQUIDS 261.21(3)(1)
[NonwastevwtersJ—[High TOO Ignitable Uouids
Subcategory—Greater than or equal to 10% total
organic carbon!
Incinoratkm (INCIN), fuel substitution (FSUBS), or
recovery (RORGS) as a method of treatment"
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D001
IQNITABIE UQUIDS 26l.2l(a)(l)
tNormastewatera)—CLo* TOO Ignitable Liquids
Subcategory—Less than 10% total organic carbon]
Deactivation (DEACT) to remove the characteristic
ol ignitability*
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS TOR D001
IGNITABLE LIQUIDS 261.21 (a)(l)
[Waslewaters]
DaacUvation (DEACT) to remove the characteristic
of lomtabiliry'
4.'
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22547
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D001
IGNITABLE COMPRESSED GASES
261.21(a)(3)
DeactivaBon (DEACT) to remove the characteristic
ol ignitabilily*
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D001
IGNITABLE REACTIVES 261.21 (a)(2)
[Nonwastewaters]
Deactivation (DEACT) to remove the characteristic
ol kjnitjibility"
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D001
OXIDIZERS 261.21 (a)(4)
[Wastewaters and Nonwastewaters]
Deactivation (DEACT) to remove the characteristic
of ignitability'
* See 5 268.42 Table 1 in today's rule lor a de-
tailed description ol all technologies referred to by a
five letter technology code. See also pan; 268 ap-
pendix VI for a list of applicable technologies that
used alone or in combination can achieve deacttva-
bon of ignitability.
c. Corrosive Characteristic Wastes
Paraphrasing the criteria for defining
a D002 Corrosive waste (40 CFR 261.22),
a waste can be a D002 waste if it is
aqueous and has a pH less than or equal
to 2; or it is aqueous and has a pH
greater than or equal to 12.5; or it 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 Acid Subcategory, the
Alkaline Subcategory, and the Other
Corrosives Subcategory (54 FR 48422). In
general, commenters supported this
subcategorization of D002 wastes.
Therefore, EPA is adopting this
classification scheme in the final rule.
(1) D002 A cid and Alkaline
Subcategories. The Acid Subcategory
and the Alkaline Subcategory, refer to
those D002 wastes that exhibit the
properties listed in 40 CFR 261.22(a)(l)
and are distinguishable by the
appropriate pH specifications. The Acid
Subcategory is defined as those wastes
with a pH of less than or equal to 2.0, •
and the Alkaline Subcategory is defined
as those wastes with a pH of greater
than or equal to 12.5. Also by definition
In § 261.22, D002 wastes in these two
subcategories only include wastes
which are considered to be "aqueous",
due to the fact that standard pH
measurement can only be performed in
the presence of significant amounts of
water (i.e., pH is the measure of the
concentration of hydronium ions in
water).
D002 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 cleaners. 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 6 to 9 and
Insoluable Salts" for the D002 Acidic
Subcategory (54 FR 48422). Likewise,
EPA proposed a treatment standard of
Acid Neutralization to a pH 6 to 9 and
Insoluble Salts" for the D002 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
mean a pH range of 6 to 9. This range
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 8.5). While a "true" neutral pH
is equal to 7, by proposing the pH 8 to 9
range, the Agency was recognizing that
even in natural systems, pH can
fluctuate significantly. Thus, 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 a waste with a pH 2
to 6 could have a negative impact on the
effectiveness of a clay liner in mitigating
the mobility of hazardous constituents
from surface impoundments. In fact, this
was one of the major concerns of
Congress with respect to the statutory
land disposal restrictions imposed by
HSWA on all hazardous wastes with pH
less than 2. (See generally 52 FR 25760
through 25792 (July 8,1987) where EPA
codified these restrictions for all
corrosive wastes (without specifically
referring solely to D002 wastes.)).
EPA received many comments
pertaining to the impact that the pH
range of 8 to 9 would have on generators
and treaters of D002 wastes.
Commenters documented that enormous
disruptions of existing wastewater
treatment systems would occur if the
standard were promulgated with the
proposed pH restrictions. For example,
every surface impoundment or injection
well receiving commingled wastes
(some of which were D002 corrosive
wastes at the point of generation, but
once commingled were above pH 2 (or
below pH 12.5) and therefore no longer
considered hazardous by section 261.22)
that were outside of the pH 6 to 9 range
would be in violation of the standard.
This would effect thousands of such
units (most of which are RCRA subtitle
D units and hence not presently affected
by RCRA subtitle C).
With regard to the proposed pH 8 to 9
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 D002 waste only to a
pH of 4.5 prior to commingling with
other wastes that require
biodegradation. This is done in order to
counter the production of alkaline
ammonia during the biodegradation
process, and thereby aids in maintaining
a "neutral" pH in the biodegradation
process.
Other commenters pointed out that a
pH of 10 is often considered the
optimum pH for removal of most metals
from wastewaters and that requiring a
pH of 8 to 9 would cause severe
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
to discharge.
As a result 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 6 to 9. While the Agency maintains
that in some cases a pH of 8 to 9 may be
considered desirable, the Agency
believes the Clean Water Act. end-of-
pipe, NPOES 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). (Note: 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
-------
22548
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
eommenters (and discussed above),
requiring a pH range of 6 to 9 before
discharge to most surface
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 currently
has little data on the impact that wastes
containing pH of 2 to 8 may have on clay
liners. Finally, regarding the proposed
pH range, the Agency did not intend to
Interfere with optimum pH levels
desired for treatment of metals in tanks,
nor did it intend for these standards to
interfere with other legitimate
wastewater treatment operations (such
as the biotreatment processes
mentioned by the commenter).
(ii.) Comments Concerning the
Proposed Acid and Base Requirements.
EPA additionally proposed that
"neutralization" of wastes in the D002
Acidic and Alkaline subcategories be
accomplished specifically through the
use of the corresponding neutralization
chemicals (i.e., acids to neutralize the
Alkaline Subcategory and bases to
neutralize the Acidic Subcategory}. As
commenters quickly pointed out, almost
all chemicals (including water which
dissociates into hydronium and
hydroxide ionsj have some acid
character and some basic character
depending upon the reference chemical.
That is what is historically been taught
in academia as the "Lewis Acid
Theory". The Agency never intended to
dispute basic chemical theory, but was
merely stating its preference to
neutralize the corrosive characteristic of
these wastes with chemicals that would
result in an overall reduction in total
dissolved solids in effluent (i.e., the use
of these chemicals is coupled with the
concept of the proposed requirement to
create insoluble salts rather than the
concept of neutralization to a specific
pH) (See also the discussion on
insoluble salts in the preamble
discussion following this one.)
With respect to the use of these
chemicals (i.e., acids and bases) to
achieve the treatment standard, several
commenters stated that it is not always
necessary to use chemicals that are
specifically identified as commercial
aaas or bases to achieve treatment of
DGC2 wastes. In fact many facilities
generate both acidic and alkaline
wastes (often from different processes)
and commonly use them to neutralize
each other. This situation also occurs at
commercial hazardous waste treatment
facilities, h thnt the facilities will take
acid wastes from various generators and
will neutralize them with alkaline
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 wastewater
discharges. Many commenters also
pointed out that the mixing of D002
corrosive wastes with other
wastewaters (even other acidic,
noncorrosive wastes) will contribute to
an overall neutralization due to the
resultant change in pH. This is because
pH is merely a measure of the
concentration of hydronium ions {H*J in
water and is dependent upon the
equilibrium constant for the dissociation
of water into hydronium and hydroxide
ions. As more water is present, the
equilibrium will be shifted and thereby
increase the pH; resulting in
"neutralization." Because of this, EPA is
specifically allowing mixing of D002
wastes with each other and with other
wastewaters to remove the
characteristic of corrosivity (i.e.,
resulting in a pH between 2 and 12,5).
However, EPA's allowance of mixing
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 commenters declared that
incineration should also be allowed as
treatment for D002 wastes, especially for
organic acids, mixed D001/D002 waste
streams, and other D002 wastes with
organics. Pollution control devices on
incinerators will remove corrosive gases
from the burning of these D002 wastes.
Alkaline scrubber waters are often
employed in these air pollution control
devices hi order to neutralize acidic
emissions. These scrubber waters are
then further neutralized if necessary.'
The Agency agrees with the commenters
that incineration is an applicable
treatment method for some D002 wastes
and is thus not precluding incineration
as treatment of D002 wastes.
(iii.) Comments Concerning the
Insoluble Salt Requirement. The Agency
proposed that neutralization of wastes
in the D002 Acid and Alkaline
Subcategories should be required to
result in insoluble salts. The reason was
that the Agency felt that the overall
dissolved solids loading on fresh water
aquatic systems could be reduced by
establishing such a standard, even
though it would result in an insoluble
sludge that would require landfilling.
The Agency believed that such a
standard would discourage the
generation of D002 acids and alkaline
wastes and thereby promote
minimization/source reduction as well
as recycling of acids (either directly or
after some form of pretreatment). While
the Agency maintains that the goal
behind the proposed standard is
consistent with national policy on wasle
minimization and the Agency's overall
concerns on cross-media impacts of
both hazardous and nonhazardous
constituents on the entire environment,
many commenters presented technical
complications with the proposed
requirement on insoluble salts 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 DOC2 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 proposed
requirement to generate insoluble salts
would result in treatment with exotic
chemicals in order to comply (if there
are any methods at all to create
insoluble salts). The Agency concurs
with the commenters. This is further
supported by the fact that almost all
nitrate and chloride salts of the major
metals are very soluble in water.
Other commenters stated that
requiring the formation of insoluble salts
often will nsgate the use of alkaline and
acidic process wastes that are generated
on-site for neutralization. This would in
effect, result in double the volume of
insoluble salts that would have to be
disposed and use up valuable virgin
commercial acids and bases that
otherwise would not be needed. As
stated in the preceding sections of this
discussion on corrosive wastes, the
Agency never 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.
Additionally, one commenter points
out that in many cases neutralization of
D002 wastes that contain organics, is
often a necessary pretreatment step foi
other treatment processes (such as
steam stripping, biological treatment
and/or carbon adsorption) that remove
or destroy the organics in the waste. If a
sludge must be formed during the
neutralization process, organic
constituents that could have been
destroyed or removed while in the
wastewalers are instead being •
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register /Vol. 15, No, 108 / Friday, June i, 1990 / Rules and' Regulations
22549
transferred to the solid phase where
they will be either disposed of untreated
or where they may require treatment
with incineration. The Agency shares
the commenters concerns on treatment
of organics in D002 wastes.
As a result, the Agency is
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 acids and bases to
provide neutralization is a moot point.
(iv.) Promulgated Treatment
Standards. For the reasons outlined in
the previous discussions, the Agency is
withdrawing the proposed treatment
standards for D002 Acid and Alkaline
Subcategories. The Agency considered
promulgating a treatment standard as a
specified technology, namely
"Neutralization". However, the Agency
found that in certain cases,
"incineration" and "recovery" processes
were also quite applicable to wastes in
these subcategories.
In addition, many D002 wastes also
are hazardous for other reasons, and
may requke that additional treatment
processes be employed besides
neutralization, incineration, or recovery.
For example, a facility may have
interpreted that biodegradation would
have been precluded from use, for a
D002 waste that also contained
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 (Testability 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 health
and the environment.
As a result, EPA is promulgating a
general treatment standard for wastes in
the D002 Acid and Alkaline
Subcategories that allows the use of any
appropriate treatment technology,
namely: "Deactivation (DEACT) to
Remove the Characteristic of
Corrosivity", This means that the facility
may use any treatment (including
neutralization achieved through mixing
with other wastewaters) that results in a
pH above 2 but less than 12.5, and
thereby removes the characteristic of
corrosivity. 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 § 268.42 Table l for a technical
description of these technologies. A five
letter code (acronym) for each
technology has been established in
order to simplify the tables.)
EPA has adopted 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 mass-loading in the
environment. With respect to the issue
of toxics present in these corrosive
wastes, EPA notes that if 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 III.A.l. 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 definition .
of corrosive solids in § 261.22 at this
time..Until the Agency amends § 261.22
to include a definition for corrosive
solids and promulgates a treatment
technology, generators must prudently
handle wastes with regard to known
hazards. Although not required under
current regulations, many generators of
corrosive solids prefer to classify these
•wastes as D002 corrosives and choose
waste management and disposal
protocols accordingly in an added effort
to protect the environment.
(2) Other D002 Corrosives. The third
major subcategory is classified as the
Other Corrosives Subcategory and is
defined as those D002 wastes that
exhibit corrosivity to steel as defined in
§ 28l.22(a)(2). They often are
nonaqueous corrosive wastes such as
certain organic liquids, but can
represent inorganic chemicals as well.
Wastes in the Other D002 Corrosives
Subcategory are generated on a
sporadic basis and generally in low
volumes. The Agency suspects that
these wastes are often identified as
corrosive without performing the
specified testing with steel (I.e., the
corrosivity of the waste may be
assumed due to the presence of known
corrosive constituents). This may also
be due, in part, to the high cost of testing
and to the difficulties in identifying
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 SAE1020 steel. Examples of
chemicals that may contribute to
corrosivity include ferric chloride.
benzene sulfonyl 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 subcategory, 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 incinerated; however,
due to the great variety of potential
corrosive organics, the Agency does not
believe that it should establish
concentration-based standards based on
incineration for these DOOZ wastes.
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 is no
longer corrosive to steel.
EPA proposed a treatment standard of
"Deactivation" for D002 wastes in the
Other Corrosives Subcategory. The
Agency took this approach for these
wastes since the hazardous
characteristic is based on imminent
hazard (i.e., the corrosivity to steel may
cause rupture of a tank or container,
thus releasing the contents either
suddenly or through leaks) rather than
on other criteria such as levels of
hazardous constituents, and that
technologies exist that can completely
remove this characteristic.
EPA continues to believe that the
proposed standard is appropriate for
wastes in the D002 Other Corrosives
Subcategory and is promulgating a
treatment standard of "Deactivation
(DEACT) to Remove the Characteristic
of Corrosivity". See section 288
Appendix VI of today's rule for a list of
applicable technologies that used along
or in combination can achieve this
standard. (See also § 268.42 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.) This standard will allow the use
of the "best" treatment based on the
-------
22550 Firfeial legbter / Vol. 55. No. 106 /Friday. |ane 1. 1990 / Rolea and Regulations
chemical and physical characteristics of
the waste.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0002
Mm SUBCATEGORV 261^2(a)(1)
DeacthiaHon (DEACT) to remove the characteristic
of corrosnrity*
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0002
ALKAUNE SUBCATEGORY 261.22(a)(1)
Deacthraticn (DEACT) to remove the characteristic
Of corroSMly*
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0002
OTHER CORROSIVES 26l.22(a)(2)
DeaetwaHon (DEACT) to remove the charactertrtc
o» corroswrty*
•See section 268 appendix VI of today's rule (or a
list of applicable tachnotogtta that uaed atone or In
combination can achieve this standard See also
$268.42 Table 1 for a description of the technol-
ogies indicated by a live loiter code.
d. Reactive Characteristic Wastes
According to 40 CFR 261.23, there are
eight criteria for defining a waste as a
D003 Reactive waste. Paraphrasing
these criteria, a waste can be a D003
waste if: (1) It is unstable and readily
undergoes violent changes without
detonating; or (2) it reacts violently with
water; or (3) it forms potentially
explosive mixtures with water; or (4)
when mixed with water, it generates
toxic gases; or (S) it is a 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 (7) it is readily
capable of detonation or explosive
decomposition or reaction at standard
temperature and pressure; or (8) it is a
forbidden explosive, a Class A
explosive, or a Class B explosive.
EPA tentatively determined at
proposal that these eight criteria
translated into five subcategories for
D003 wastes (54 PR 48424). Commenten
concurred with these classifications.
The first subcategory is classified as the
Reactive Cyanides subcategory and
refers to those D003 wastes that exhibit
the properties listed in 5 261-23(a)(5) for
cyanide. The second subcategory is
classified as the Explosives subcategory
and refers to those DOC3 wastes that
exhibit the properties listed in
!§ 261.23(a)(6) through 261.23(a)(8). The
third subcategory is classified as the
Water Reactive subcategory and refers
to those D003 wastes that exhibit the
properties listed in If 281.23(a)(2)
through 261.23(a)(4). The fourth
subcategory is classified as the Reactive
Sulfides subcategory and refers to those
D003 wastes that exhibit the properties
listed in { 261.23[a)(5) for sulfide. The
fifth subcategory is classified as the
Other Reactives subcategory and refers
to those D003 wastes that exhibit the
properties listed in § 261.23(a)(l),
For all subcategories of D003 wastes
except the Reactive Cyanides, 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 D003 treatability subcategory, nor
is there a test that distinguishes the
reactive chemical from the deactivated
chemical.
The Agency solicited comments and
data on the physical and chemical
characterization of all five subcategories
of D003 wastes. The Agency also
requested comment on the applicability
of chemical deactivation, incineration,
and any other type of chemical or
physical deactivation technology to
these wastes.
(1) Reactive Cyanides. D003 wastes in
the Reactive Cyanides 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 CFR 281.23(a)(5)).
Commenters 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-846 VoL 1C Chapter 7
which defines the characteristic and
regulation of reactive wastes.
Specifically, Section 7.3.3.2 describes the
"Test Method to Determine Hydrogen
Cyanide Released from Wastes" which
outlines the correct procedure of
hydrogen cyanide gas liberation from
reactive 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 finishing industries, and include
mixed cyanide salts, cyanide solutions,
and cyanide-bearing sludges. Most of
the volume of all D003 waste* that are
generated can be identified as wastes
belonging to the Reactive Cyanides
Subcategory. Reactive cyanide wastes
are not typically placed directly in most
types of land disposal units without
treatment; however, it is possible that
some untreated wastes are placed in
surface impoundments.
Reactive cyanide wastes (like other
reactive wastes) are already subject to
special requirements prior to disposal in
landfills, surface impoundments, and
waste piles under existing regulations.
Also, as a July 8,1987 (the statutory
deadline for the California list
prohibitions), liquid hazardous wastes
having a free cyanide concentration in
excess of 1,000 mg/kg (ppm) were
prohibited from land disposal. No one
has suggested, however, that these
existing regulations and prohibitions are
sufficient to apply to the Reactive
Cyanides Subcategory. The statute did
not specifically identify the California
list cyanides as D003 wastes, and
furthermore, it did not specify a required
method of treatment, nor did it establish
the 1,000 mg/kg prohibition level as a
"treatment standard".
The Agency believes that simple
cyanides (e.g. NaCN, KCN] are more
likely to react to liberate hydrogen
cyanide gas since they are soluble and
have weaker bond energies than
complex cyanides (e.g., Fes[Fe(CN)«]z,
Ni[Fe(CN)]z. ZnsFe(CN]e). Consequently,
EPA believes that simple cyanide rather
than complex cyanide is the cyanide
form most likely to give a waste
containing cyanide the characteristic of
reactivity. Accordingly, the Agency
believed at the time of proposal that
most D003 nonwastewaters resembled
wastes containing simple cyanides (i.e..
FOIL F012 and P030) rather than wastes
containing complex cyanides (i.e, F006,
FOOT, F008, FOOT). Treatment
technologies applicable for treatment of
D003 reactive cyanide wastes include
electrolytic oxidation, alkaline
chiorination and wet air oxidation.
The Agency proposed to transfer the
treatment performance of simple
cyanide nonwastewaters (i.e., mixture of
Foil and F012) using electrolytic
oxidation followed by alkaline
chiorination developed in the Second
Third final rule (54 FR 28594, June 23,
1989), the nonwastewaters in the
Reactive Cyanides Subcategory (54 FR
48425). In other words, the Agency
believed all D003 reactive cyanide
nonwastewaters could be treated to a
total cyanide level of 110 mg/kg and an
amenable cyanide level of 9.1 mg/kg
representing treatment of wastes
containing simple cyanides (Le.» Foil
and F012) instead of a total cyanide
level of 590 mg/kg and an amenable
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541,00-14
Foderal Register / Vol. 55, No. 108 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22551
cyanide level of 30 ing/kg representing
treatment performance of wastes
containing compiexed cyanides (i.e.,
FOOO-F009), For wastewaters in the
Reactive Cyanides Subcatogory, EPA
proposed to transfer treatment
performance from treatment of FOQ6-
FGC9 wastewaters using alkaline
chlorinalion, since this is the best
treatment data available to the Agency
for wastewa'ers containing high
concentrations of cyanides.
With respect to the transfer being
valid, several commenters submitted
data indicating that D003 wastes in the
Reactive Cyanides Subcategory more
closely resemble the wastes containing
compiexed cyanides rather than the
wastes containing simple cyanides and
that the proposed treatment levels were
unachievable for some D003 wastes
because of the presence of iron cyanide
and other cyanide complexes. One
commenter claimed that, in many cases,
iron contamination in some DC03
cyanide wastes is unavoidable due to
normal process operation and that a
threshold level of only 50 to 100 rag/kg
of iron is required to result in formation
of iron cyanide complex.
Based on the high iron contents shown
to be present in some D003 cyanide
wastes, the Agency believes that some
D003 cyanide wastes may contain
compiexed cyanides ar.d thus may not
be treatable to the 110 mg/kg level. One
commenter suggested that the Agency
develop two treatability groups for
nonwastswater forms in the DOM
Reactive Gytnidss Subcategory based
on the concentration of complex cyanide
presant 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 compiexed cyanides
(i.e.. greater than 110 mg/kg complex
cyanide). EPA believes that this concept,
while desirable, may not be viable
because of the analytical interferences
caused by the complicated matrices of
untreated wastes. Furthermore, the */ast
majority of characterization data
submitted during the comment period
seem to indicate that D003
nonwastewalers more closely resemble
the FOQ8-F009 nonwastewaters instead
of the Foil and F012 nonwastewaters.
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating a
treatment standard of 590 mg/kg total
cyanide and 30 mg/kg amenable
cyanide based on the treatment of
wastes containing complex cyanides
(i.e., F008-F009 nonwastewaters) for
nonwastewaters in the D003 Reactive
Cyanide Subnategory.
For the waste waters in the DOCS
Reactive Cyanide Subcategory, EPA
proposed a treatment standard of 1.9
mg/1 total cyanide and 0.1 rag/1
amenable cyanide based on alkaline
• chlorination. Comments and data were
received from Sterling Chemicals
demonstrating that alkaline chlorination
did not achieve those limits for D003.
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 amenable cyanide
standard of 0.36 mg/1 based en the
Metal Finishing categorical wastewater
discharge standards. Data submitted by
Sterling Chemicals demonstrated
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 comraenters
and standards established for
categorical wastewater discharges. In
the interim, the amenable cyanide limit
will insure that alkaline chJorination of
equivalent BDAT technology is utilized
to comply with the land disposal
restriction for reactive cyanide D003
wastes.
The Agency has chosen a
concentration based treatment level for
wastes in the D003 Reactive Cyanide
Subcategory rather than establish
"Deactivation (DEACT) to Remove the
Characteristic of Reactivity" for the
following reasons: First, unlike the other
characteristic wastes, the Agency can
identify an indicator compound (i.e.,
cyanide) that is known to be present in
all D003 reactive cyanide wastes and
can analyze the indicator compound in
wastewater and nonwastewater
matrices with EPA-approved SW 848
analytical test methods. (See also
section iHA.6.(a) of today's preamble
for a further discussion of cyanide
treatment standards for other wastes
and a clarification of the analytical
methodology for compliance with the
promulgated standards.) Second, EPA
believes most D003 cyanide wastes are
generated from the same types of
processes that generate the F008-FQ12
and PQ30 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 precluded the Agency from
establishing the same treatment
standards for the D003 wastes that have
been established for the listed wastes
(assuming, of course, that such
standards are consistent with the
command of section 3004{n:} to reduce
toxicity or mobility so that risks to
health and the environment are
minimized). Finally, the Agency suspects
that some generators ore currently
misclassifying FOQ8-F012 and P030
wastes as D003 reactive cyanide wastes.
While this is primarily an issue for
enforcement, the Agency is concerns*
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
I 261.23(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 tha
wastes, because Congress specifically
intended that cyanides be destroyed
where possible (see statement of
Senator Chafce, 130 Cong. Rec. S 9178-9
(July 25,1984)), and because the Agency
believes the similarity of most D003
wastes and the F006-FOQ9 wastes
warrants the same treatment standards
for each in order to satisfy the section
3004(m) standard.
(2) Reactive Sulfides Subcategor/.
D003 wastes in the Reactive Sulfides
Subcategory are by definition those
sulfide-bearing wastes that generate
toxic gases (assumed to be H2S) when
exposed to a pH between 2 and 12.5, in
a sufficient qnantity to present a danger
to human health and the environment.
Currently the accepted method for
quantitatively determining reactive
sulfides is outlined in SW-848, Vol. 1C, .
I 7.322. and in Method 9030.
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 BDAT determinations,
the Agency proposed to use this number
to identify the wastes in this
subcategory (given the need for an
objective means of determining the
subcategory's applicability). The Agency
received several comments stating that
a test method should be finalized and a
rationale published prior to setting this
threshold as a numerical standard. EPA
agrees with the commenters that for
wastes in this subcategory the test
method used in determining how much
-------
22552 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
gas can oe released from a waste needs
to be standardized before establishing a
concentration based treatment standard
with the test methods. Accordingly, the
Agency's action today should 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
sulfides 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
characterization and treatment data that
could potentially be used to develop
treatment standards for these wastes.
One commenter sent data demonstrating
that treatment with chlorine dioxide is a
very effective technology for destroying
organic sulfides 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 commenter uses a thermal
process that converts aulfides to sulfates
instead of sulfur oxides.
The Agency proposed a treatment
standard of "Alkaline Chlorination,
Chemical Oxidation, or Incineration
Followed By Precipitation to Insoluble
Sulfates" for the Reactive Sulfide
subcategory. (Note; While alkaline
chlorination is a form of chemical
oxidation, the Agency did not want to
specifically preclude the use of any
particular oxidant.)
Because of the variety of treatment
processes currently used to treat
reactive sulfide wastes, the Agency is
promulgating a treatment standard of
"Deactivation (DEACT) to Remove the
Characteristic of Reactix'ity" for
non waste waters and wastewaters in the
D003 Reactive Sulfides Subcategory to
allow the treatment facility the
flexibility to use the "best" technology
for the particular wasle 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 § 268.42
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 required methods of
treatment rather than as a
concentration-based standard because
the Agency has not approved a standard
analytical method for testing either
sulfides or "reactive" sulfides in
hazardous wastes or in 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 Subcategory. 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 49 CFR 173.52,
173.53, and 173,88 respectively).
Commenters expressed concern that
many types of waste may fall into a
potentially explosive classification, and
requested a standardized procedure for
making a reactivity determination to
assist in the classification 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 1885, the
Agency issued Memorandum #7
[OSWER 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
submitted by 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-
382-4770).
Wastes classified as D003 and
belonging to 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 cyanides, 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 D003
waste by thermal or chemical
destruction of explosive constituents.
Incineration is an applicable
technology for some D003 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 D003
Explosives Subcategory. By establishing
this standard, the Agency is allowing
the regulated community to use that
treatment technology (e.g., incineration,
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.,
explosiviry) 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 Amy Technical Manual TM&-
1300-214, Military Explosives), the
Agency continues to believe that the
proposed standard is applicable for
wastes In the D003 Explosive
Subcategory and is promulgating a
treatment standard of "Deactivation
(DEACT) to Remove the Characteristic
of Reactivity" for nonwastewaters and
wastewaters in the D003 Explosive
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 ! 268.42 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,) 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.
-------
OSSER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14/
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 108 / Friday, Jane 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22553
Several comraenters have indicated
that mixing with water or organic
liquids (i.e., kerosene) may be necessary
in some cases to reduce potential for
explosion and thus, ensure safe handling
snd/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 D003 Explosives Sabcatcgory.
(4) Water Reactive and Other
Reactives Subcategories. D003 wastes in
the Water Reactive or Other Reaclives
Subcategories can be either organic or
inorganic. Water Reactive D003 waste*
as defined in 40 CFR 261.23{a)(2), (3),
and (4J 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 D003 Other
Reactives Subcategory exhibit the
property Listed in | 261.23(a)fl). Wastes
in both of these Subcategories are
generated on a sporadic basis 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 some water reaclivas are
treated try Incineration. During this
thermal oxidation process, the reactive
organic constituents 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 DC03
Water Reactives and Other Reectives
Subcategories. The Agency chose this
approach for these wastes since the
hazardous characteristic is based on
imminent hazard (i.e., potential violent
reactions with water) rather than on
other criteria such as levels of
hazardous constituents, and that
technologies exist that can completely
remove these reactive characteristics.
Because of the diversity in physical
and chemical forms of me waste in both
subcategories, it is not possible to
determine a "best" technology for all
wastes. The Agency is promulgating a
treatment standard of "Deactivation
(DEACT) to Remove the Characteristic
nf Reactivity" for wastes in the D003
Water Reactives Subcategory and D003
Other Reactives Subcategory to allow
flexibility in the selection of the "best"
technology. 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.) For wastes
in the D003 Water Reactives
Subcategory, the standard is established
only for norrwastewoters 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 kerosene) may be necessary in
Dome 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 D003
Subcategories.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0003
REACTIVE CYANIDES—261.23
-------
22554
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
these pesticides in treatment residuals.
As a second option, the Agency
proposed concentration-based treatment
standards that correspond to their
respective characteristic concentrations.
As an alternative, the Agency stated
that technology-based treatment
standards could be established that
would achieve treatment to below these
characteristic levels.
(1) Nonwastewaters, EPA proposed
concentration-based standards for the
nonwastewater forms of D012, 0013,
D014, D015, D018 and D017 that were
based on the analysis of total
composition based on data that clearly
indicated that the pesticide constituents
of concern (or pesticides with similar
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 based on incineration, are
preferable to those in the second option
(i.e., standards that correspond to their
respective characteristic
concentrations). The Agency contends
that the total constituent concentration
standards assure the public that these
chemicals are being destroyed to the
best levels that are achievable. This
comports 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 minimization of threats to
human health and the environment
The Agency has determined that it is
prudent to require that these EP Toxic
halogenated pesticide wastes be treated
with the best demonstrated technology
in view of their toxicity: they are
probable carcinogens. Since data clearly
indicate that incineration represents
BOAT, the Agency gave serious
consideration to establishing a
technology-based treatment standard of
"Incineration as a Method of Treatment"
for the nonwastewater forms of these
wastes. However, the Agency believes
that other technologies besides
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
nonwaste waters 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 achievability 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 has evaluated these additional
detection limit data, along with the data
used to propose the standards, in
promulgating the standards for D012-
D017 nonwastewaters in today's rule.
The Agency believes that these data
indicate that the promulgated standards
are achievable, and detectable.
These nonwastewater 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
none of them are 20 times higher than
the characteristic level
(2) Wastewatees, The Agency
proposed one set of concentration-based
standards for D012-D017 wastewaters
based on detection limits 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 P wastewaters using these data in
section UI.A,5.(aJ(l) to today's
preamble.) As a result, the Agency
proposed alternative concentration-
based treatment standards for various
wastewaters 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
believes that these standards could have
been promulgated, if it were not for
circumstances discussed below.
Based on the aforementioned
wastewater treatment data, the Agency
has identified specific treatment
technologies that are considered to be
demonstrated on D012-D017 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 IZLD. 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 D012-D017 wastewaters.
The Agency has identified
incineration, wet air oxidation, chemical
oxidation, carbon adsorption, and/or
biodegradation as BOAT treatment
technologies as BOAT for D012-D017
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
(F038) For which There Are
Concentration-Based Treatment
Standards, The technology-based
standards are as follows; (1)
Incineration and biodegradation have
been specified as BOAT for D012 and
D015 wastewaters; (2) incineration and
carbon adsorption for D013
wastewaters: (3) incineration and wet
air oxidation for D014 wastewaters; (4)
incineration, chemical oxidation, and
biological treatment for 0016
wastewaters; and (5) incineration or
chemical oxidation for 0017
wastewaters.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D012, D013, D014, D015, D016, AND
D017
tNonwastewaters)
Waste code
D012.
D013..
D014
pni*
pote „„ „„. ,,,
0017 „
' Regulated
constituent
Endrtn_
UfK&rw
MethoxycMor.____.
9, Ul , ... „ „ ,
2,4, 5-TP,,. „ ..
Maximum for
any single
grab sample.
total
composition
(mg/kg)
0 13
0066
0.18
1 3
10
7.9
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D012
AND D015
(Wastewaters)
Incineration (INQN) or Biodegradation (BIODG) as a
method of treatment
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1090 / Rules and Regulations
22555
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D013
(Wastewaters)
Incineration (INC1N) or Carbon Adsorption (CARBN)
as a method ol treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D014
(Wastewaters)
Incineration (INCIN) or wet air oxidation (WETOX) as
methods of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D016
(Wastewaters)
Incineration (INCIN) of chemical oxidation (CHOXD)
or biodegradation (BIODG) as a metnod of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D017
(Wastewaters)
Incineration (INCIN) or chemical oxWaUon (CHOXD)
as a method of treatment
3, Treatment Standards for Metal
Wastes
a. Introduction
Metal wastes are hazardous wastes
containing metals or metallic
compounds such as inorganic metallic
salts or organometallics. Certain F, K, U,
and P wastes were listed specifically for
the presence of metallic compounds.
Additionally, a waste can be identified
as a characteristic waste based on the
concentration of one of eight different
metals as specified in 40 CFR 261.24:
arsenic, barium cadmium, chromium,
lead, mercury, selenium, or silver (i.e.,
DQ04 through D011 respectively) at a
concentration equal to or greater than
the levels presented in 40 CFR 261.24
Table I—Maximum Concentration of
Contaminants for Characteristic of EP
Toxicity.
Treatment standards for most U and P
metallic compounds are based on a
quantitative analysis for 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, such as for metal-
cyanide salts.)
(1) Development of Treatment •
Standards for Metals, In today's rule,
the Agency Is promulgating treatment
standards for several of the U 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.
Commentsrs 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
from F and K listed wastes to these D-
coded wastes. Significant comments
were received, however, describing
potential problems associated with this
approach that EPA finds persuasive.
Commenters pointed to the fact that
characteristic wastes may be generated
in many different 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 ofconcentration-
based treatment standards from the
specified listed wastes to these
relatively non-specific characteristic
wastes. The Agency found that the data
and information submitted by the
commenters further supported that
certain matrices from particular
industries (or particular waste types]
appear to be so unlike the matrix of the
listed waste (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 are certain treatability
groups that are exceptions, the general
approach for regulating metal wastes is
as follows. The Agency is establishing
treatment standards for arsenic, 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 vitrification; 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 D010
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 D010 wastes, most of
them are recovering the selenium from
them. Treatment standards for DC09
mercury wastes with high
concentrations of mercury are set as
required methods of treatment. See also
the discussion in section III.D. of this
preamble.
(2) Treatment of Organic Debris and
Inorganic Solids Debris. Comments
were received indicating that many of
the D004 through Doll characteristic
metal wastes may be generated in
organic matrices. Rather than set up
specific organic treatability 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 285 Subpart O) 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". DQ04
through D011 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
contamination (i.e., provided the
residual "organic debris" is no longer a
characteristic waste for metals). In fact,
much of the DQQ4-D011 "organic debris"
-------
22556 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
may be treatable by washing or
extraction rather than incineration.
However, incineration may be a
preferred pretreatment when the
"organic debris" are expected to contain
organo-rnetallics or are otherwise,
impregnated with inorganic 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 slags,
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 D004 through D011 treatment
standards. The Agency agrees that these
as well as other similar wastes form a
different treatability group, and is
identifying this group of D004 through
D011 wastes as the "Inorganic solids
debris" treatability group. Wastes in this
treatability group are defined in
§ 28B.2(a}[7) of today's rule as follows:
"nonfriable inorganic solids that are
incapable of passing through a 9.5 miq
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 slags (either
dross or scoria); (2) glassified 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
261.1(c)(6). {Note: The 9.5 mm
requirement on sieve is based on a
similar requirement for pretreatment of
samples that are to be analyzed using
the TCLP, This size also approximates
the size of small pebbles that are often
incorporated into some forms of
concrete.)
While the Agency is establishing a
separate treatability group for these
"inorganic solids debris", it is
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 D004 through D011 wastes
appearing in today's rule. The Agency
has determined, however, that there is a,
national capacity shortage for treatment
of this treatability group. Therefore, the
standards for D004 through D011 wastes
do not apply to "inorganic solids debris"
until May 8,1992.
Several commenters suggested that
treatment standards should not apply at
all to these wastes; that no treatment
. technology is technically applicable to
these wastes; and that these wastes
should be allowed to land disposed as
is. Other commenters 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 standards during the two*
year national capacity variance and to
address these commentera concerns in
greater detail. In addition, the Agency
points out that many of these same
issues will be addressed in a
forthcoming proposed rule for soil and
debris.
(3) Reexamination of Proposed of Co-
disposal Prohibitions, EPA requested
comments at proposal on whether it
should establish requirements under 40
CFR parts 284 and 285 for certain
chemical species of arsenic, selenium,
and mercury. The proposed
requirements called for segregating
certain wastes containing these metals
in monofills or in separate 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
solubility of certain metal species is
likely to increase under alkaline
leaching conditions as compared to their
relative insolubility under acid
conditions (see 54 FR 46430,48441},
Several comments were received
addressing this issue, most of which
stated that specific co-disposal
requirements are not needed at this time
because operators of landfills must
monitor leachate collection systems for
the migration of metals. Other
commenters pointed out that some
operators of landfills already segregate
these particular metal-bearing wastes as
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 arsenic, 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
D004—EP toxic for arsenic
K031—By-product salts generated In the
production of MSMA and cacodylic acid.
K084—Wastewater treatment liudgei
generated during the production of
veterinary Pharmaceuticals from arsenic
or organo-arseaic compounds.
KlCH—Distillation tar residues from the
distillation of aniline-based compounds
in the production of veterinary
Pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organo-
arsenic compounds.
K102—Residue from the use of activated
carbon for decoiorization in the
production of veterinary Pharmaceuticals
from arsenic or organo-anenic
compounds,
PQI0—Arsenic acid
P011—Arsenic (V) oxide
P012—Arsenic (III) oxide
P036—Dichlorophenylarslne
P038—Diethylarsine
U136—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 state: however, it shows little
tendency to exist as solitary cationic
species in aqueous matrices. Arsenic
typically exists in aqueous conditions as
oxo-anions (e.g., arsenic appears
primarily as anionic arsenite (AsOa) or
arsenate (AsOt"*)). This behavior is
important, because selection and
performance evaluation of treatment
technologies for other metals are based
primarily on the cationic behavior of the
metals in aqueous conditions (i.e.,
wastewaters and leachates). Thus,
treatment technologies for wastewaters
and nonwastewaters containing arsenic
are often different from technologies for
wastes containing only other metal
constituents.,
(1) Nonwastewaters. To identify tne
technologies that are applicable for
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22557
treating metals in nonwastewaters, the
Agency evaluates treatment
technologies that either reduce the
leaching of the metals or recover 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
nonwastewater 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 K031 waste with an
untreated teachability of 533 mg/1
(based on analysis of an EP extract)
indicate that the teachability of arsenic
decreases somewhat for all binders. The
best results were obtained from asphalt
stabilization, which provided reductions
to 25,3 mg/1 (EP). Data on a D004 waste ^
identified as an arsenic sulfide waste
show an increase in leachability 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/1 to
1.7 mg/1 (EP). Data and information on a
smelter dust that leaches aresenic
indicate that cement binders can
increase the leachability of the arsenic,
while silicate polymers and asphalt
binders decrease the leachability.
However, these data do not contain
operating information (e.g., binder to
waste ratios) or QA/QC information.
The Agency has also tested cement,
lime/fly ash, and kiln dust stabilization
on K031 nonwastewaters that when
untreated contain more than 130,000
ppm total arsenic and leach 5,930 mg/1
(based on analysis of a TCLP extract).
Some of the TCLP data on the K031
wastes that were "stabilized" with
cement, appear to indicate an increase
in arsenic leachability 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/1 lo 4,687 mg/l 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 D004) with 73,000 ppm
total arsenic leaching 2.7 mg/1 arsenic in
the treatment residue TCLP leachate. No
binder-to-waste ratios, binder additives
or untreated TCLP concentrations were
'presented, making it difficult to assess
the viability of this treatment process for
all D004 nonwastewaters, in particular
those arsenic wastes known to contain
organics.
Data were submitted by the
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
(HWTC) showing stabilization using
proprietary reagents of a boiler stack
residue designated D004, generated from
the demolition of stacks and site closure
of an electric utility. The reagents are
added to induce cementitious, 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/1 to 2.27 mg/1. 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 D004
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
0.08 mg/l arsenic in the TCLP leachate.
The commenter did not submit TCLP
data for the untreated waste,
information concerning waste to bindsr
ratios, or analytical QA/QC data. The
Agency is also uncertain that this
technology would be applicable for
wastes containing organics 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
coprecipitatlon and subsequent
stabilization 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
coprecipltated with iron salts. (Note:
The coprecipitation process is very pH
dependent and even under optimum
conditions the amount of ferric
hydroxide generated is two to eight
times the concentration of ferric
arsenate precipitated.) The iron
precipitate containing the arsenate is
then stabilized with dolomitic lime.
Performance data submitted by
American NuKem for their chemical
oxidation wastewater treatment train
described above indicate that a D004
arsenic sulfide waste containing 750,000
ppm total arsenic can be treated to 0.75
mg/l (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
not be truly "stabilized".
Performance data were also submitted
by American NuKEM using incineration
followed by treatment of scrubber water
indicate that organo-arsenic wastes
designated as a combined P01I/D004
waste with concentrations up to 1,200
total arsenic can be effectively treated.
The treatment facility states that
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 coprecipitation
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
cementitious stabilization for arsenic
wastes, the Agency identified
vitrification as technology that is
applicable to nonwastewaters
containing arsenic (54 FR 48431-33).
Vitrification 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
-------
2558
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday,.June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
VI
ft
(1200 *C to 1500 *C) that will destroy the
organics present in the wastes.
The Agency solicited and received
comments on this stabilization
technique for arsenic wastes. Several
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 0.5 mg/1 (TCLP). However, the
commenter did not submit TCLP results
on the untreated waste or analytical
QA/QC data.
Other data available to the Agency
indicate that vitrification can
incorporate arsenic in concentrations up
to 23.5% into a glass/slag matrix with a
maximum teachability of arsenic at 1.6
mg/1 (EP). In all, these data consist of 14
separate data points, with arsenic
concentration in the untreated wastes
ranging from 0.3% to 233%. Data on the
treated (i.e., glassified) wastes ranged
from 0.007 mg/1 to 1.8 mg/1 (EP). All of
these data clearly indicate that
vitrification can consistently achieve
stabilization of arsenic to leachate
levels below the characteristic level, 5.0
mg/1 (based on EP), However, these
data did not have any analytical QA/
QC or any information about volume
increases/reductions on the treatment
residues.
Several commenters expressed
concern about air emissions associated
with the vitrification units. The Agency
believes that these concerns are
addressed because these devices will
typically have to be permitted under 40
CFR part 284 subpart X and will
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 facility's
vitrification unit Thus, the Agency
anticipates that this technology
currently under development will result
in an additional safety precaution (with
regards to potential air emissions) for
this technology to the near future.
(d) Determination of BOAT for
Nonwastewaters. For the proposed rule,
the Agency determined that vitrification
was the "best" technology for treatment
of non waste waters 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 unstabilized wastes. In the
proposed rule, the Agency requested
that facilities submit data demonstrating
treatment of arsenic nonwastewaters.
Several cornmenters 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 organics or organo
arsenicals. In addition, while the data
do indicate low levels of leachable
arsenic are obtained, in some cases the
reductions may be attributed to dilution
with the binders caused by undesirable
high binder-to-waste ratios (resulting in
considerable increases in the amount of
waste to be land disposed). While the
Agency believes that these stabilization
technologies have considerable
drawbacks, the data do appear to
indicate that they may provide adequate
treatment for some specific forms of
D004 inorganic arsenic wastes.
However, the Agency has not based
BDAT treatment standards for all D004
wastes on these stabilization
technologies. The Agency is not
precluding their use. but cautions that
their use should be determined on a
case-by-case basis. At this time, the
Agency cannot determine a separate
treatability subcategory for D004 wastes
for which these technologies could be
used to establish treatment standards.
The technology that appears to have a
broader applicability to wastes
containing organics or organo arsenicals
is the American NuKem process (i.e.. the
process where the arsenic is first
thermally or chemically oxidized,
coprecipitated with iron or aluminum
salts, and then stabilized in an insoluble
form such as ferric arsenate).
Unfortunately, this treatment may also
increase the amount of waste for land
disposal because of the large amounts of
ferric hydroxide that may be
precipitated with the ferric arsenate.
However, because of the broader
applicability of this technology, the
Agency considered this process to be an
alternative technology to vitrification for
K031, K084, KIM, K102, P038, P038, U136
and D004 wastes containing organics
and organo arsenicals.
The Agency still believes that
vitrification represents the "best"
technology because the data support
treatment of arsenic present at
percentage concentrations along with
volume reductions for land disposal. 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.
(e) Treatment Standards for
Nonwastewaters. The Agency used the
vitrification data from the study that
used EP toxitity testing to evaluate
treatment performance. These EP
leachate data were used to calculate the
treatment standard because one of the
fourteen data points represents a waste
containing 23 J percent arsenic whereas
the vitrification data that were based on
TCLP analyses represent a waste
containing only 3 percent arsenic. EPA
hence believes that the EP vitrification
data demonstrate treatment of a waste
matrix that is more difficult to treat
EPA calculated the treatment
standard for arsenic nonwastewaters
based on the highest leachate data point
of 1.8 mg/1 for the matrix containing 23.5
percent arsenic. Analytical recovery
data were transferred from the Agency's
analysis of K102 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,
and a concentration-based treatment
standard for arsenic of 5.6 mg/1 in the
leachate (measured by the EP toxicity
test) was calculated.
The Agency is transferring the
concentration-based treatment standard
of 5.6 mg/1 in the EP toxicity leachate
arsenic to K031, K084. P010, P011. P012.
P038, P038, and U138 nonwastewaters,
primarily due to similarities in total
arsenic concentrations anticipated in
these wastes when compared to the
23.5% total arsenic that was vitrified
(i.e., the basis of the S.6 mg/1 standard).
For example, waste characterization
data indicate total arsenic
concentrations of 0.1 to 18% for K031 '
and 10 to 23% for K084. with theoretical
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 10B / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
225S9
arsenic content in the U and P wastes
ranging from approximately 25% total
arsenic in P038 to a maximum of 75% in
P011. 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 raoltsn
slag/waste mixture during the
vitrification process in order to achieve
tha 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 DOQ4 nonwastewaters, EPA is
promulgating the characteristic level of
5.0 nag/1 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 D004 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 ere equivocal,
the Agency does not believe that
treatment to the characteristic level is
unachisvable. Furthermore, the Agency
believes that persons will normally try
to ensure that their waste no longer
exhibits a characteristic in order to have
less expensive subtitle D disposal, and
also because these technologies cannot
easily be "turned off at precisely the
characteristic level, so that the
characteristic level will more readily be
achieved,
Since the vitrification psrfomiance
data that EPA used to develop the
nonwastewater treatment standards for
arsenic were EP toxicity leachate data,
the Agency has based the
nonwastewaler standards on the arsenic
concentration in the EP leachate.
However, since the Agency has some
information that appears to indicate that
the TCLP test is more aggressive than
the EP test for determining arsenic
Jeachabiiity, the Agency is establishing
that if a waste does not achieve the
arsenic nonwaslewater standard based
on analysis of a TCLP extract but
achieves the standard based on analysis
, of an EP 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 D004, and
also K031, K084, K101, K102, P010, P011,
P012, P038, P038, and UI38
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 trioxide
recovared 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 of wood
preservatives. Currently smelters
located La the United States are not
accepting hazardous wastes to recover
arsenic trioxide; however, the idea is
being investigated by a smelter located
in Canada who is planning 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 and 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) Wastewaters. The Agency
identified chemical precipitation
technologies as applicable treatment
technologies for arsenic-containing
wastewaters. When evaluating
precipitation technologies to determine
BOAT for arsenic wastewaters, the
Agency considered not only the
efficiency of removal of these metals
from the wastewater, but also the
physical and chemical state of the
arsenic that ends up in the wastewater
treatment residues.
(a) Identification of BOAT.
Wastewater treatment for most metals
is typically based on precipitation with
anionic species such as hydroxide or
sulfide. Soluble arsenic species have
been removed from wastewaters 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 for 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 teachability (i.e., 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 wastewaters
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 is unique and therefore each
wastewater should be evaluated
individually to determine the
appropriate reagent for removing
arsenic. Based on the diversity of waste
characterization data for the arsenic
wastes, the Agency agrees with the
commenters 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 rag/1 arsenic for all 0004
wastewaters on performance data
demonstrating the precipitation of
arsenic from wastewaters identified as
D004 from the veterinary
pharmaceutical industry. The treatment
system consisted of precipitation using
lime followed by manganese suifale 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 B004
waatewater matrix that would be the
most difficult to treat.
Some commenters have indicated that
they cannot treat to the proposed levels
because some D004 waslewaters require
more extensive treatment trams in order
to treat other metals, and also contain
organics, which interfere with the
treatment of the arsenic. One
ccmmenter described a treatment
process that required a reduction step
for hcxavaient chromium and an
oxidation step with peroxides or
permanganates to treat the organo-
arsenicals. Reduction of the chromium is
required to precipitate chromium
-------
22560
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 108 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
hydroxide at high pH. The addition of
oxidizing agents to destroy the organo-
arsenical compounds will reoxidize the
trivalent chromium to hexavalent
chromium, and consequently the
chromium will be teachable 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/1 can be
achieved but not a level of 0,79 mg/1.
However, the commenter submitted no
data to substantiate this claim. Other
commenters also indicated difficulty
meeting the proposed level of 0.79 mg/1
arsenic when treating scrubber waters
containing arsenic and waste waters
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
mg/1 arsenic. In addition, and more
important, EPA has determined not to
impose treatment standards below
characteristic levels for characteristic
wastewaters [i.e.. is choosing to apply
the prohibition at the point of disposal)
in order to 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/1 arsenic for 0004
wastewaters. It should be mentioned
that EPA still believes precipitation to
be BOAT 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 P010, P011,
and P012 wastes are listed are all
inorganic forms of arsenic The
constituents for which P036, P038, and
U136 wastes are listed are all organic
forms of arsenic. K031 and K064 are
typically generated as process wastes
that contain mixtures of both organic
and inorganic forms of arsenic. Although
all of these wastes are typically
generated as nonwastewaters, 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 DOM performance data and
concentration-based treatment standard
of 0.79 mg/1 to K031, K084, P010, P011, '
P012, P036, P038, and U136 wastewaters.
The Agency has chosen to transfer
treatment performance from the
treatment of the D004 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 ferric precipitation.
(3) Revisions to K101 andKl02
Treatment Standards, In the First Third
Final Rule (53 FR 31170, August 17,
1989), the Agency established two
subcategories of KlQl and K102
nonwastewaters based on the
concentration of arsenic in the waste. A
low arsenic subcategory was
established for waste containing less
than 1 percent arsenic and a high
arsenic subcategory for waste
containing 1 percent or greater. In
today's rule, the Agency is changing the
nonwastewater standards for K101 and
K102 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 S.6 mg/1 (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
K101 and K102 in today's rale.
Standards for KlOl and K102
wastewaters were promulgated in the
First Third rule (53 FR 31170, August 17,
1988) and were applicable to all forms of
KlOl and K102 wastewaters (i.e., they
did not distinguish between high arsenic
or low arsenic subcategories). These
promulgated standards were based on
the same 0004 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 DOM wastewater
treatment data for today's rule,
however, EPA discovered an error in the
calculation of the promulgated KlOl and
K102 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 KlOl and K102 as
proposed. Therefore, a new treatment
standard of 0.79 mg/1 for arsenic, 0,24
mg/1 for cadmium, 0.17 mg/1 for lead,
and 0.62 mg/1 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 organics
are being presented for convenience of
the reader.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D004
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Arsenic,.
Maximum
tor any
single grab
sample, EP
leaehate >
(mg/1)
5.0
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D004
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Arsenic—...
Maximum
tor any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/1)
5.0
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K031, K084. P010, P011, P012, P036,
P038, ANDU136
[Nonwastewateml
Regulated constituent
AlWMC M I ,,,M a u. Ml 1 1 ,._,..,„,
5.S
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample, EP
laachate '
(mg/1!
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K031, K084, PQ10, PQ11, P012, P036,
P038, ANDU136
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Maximum (or
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/1)
0.73
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K101
C Nonwastewaters1]
Nitmaoiknn llmll
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/1)
14
NA
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample. EP
leacnaie '
(mg/1)
NA
5.8
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22561
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K101
[Wastewaters]
Ms»imum tor.
any single
Related eonsatem* ^^tlSP1*'
composition
Ortho-nitroaniflne _.__.
Arsenic „ . -._— .
Cadmium _
I OffH
^
-------
22562 Federal Register/ Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. }une 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
52 rng/1 has been calculated. Use of this
data for P013 is justified even though it
was not used for DOOS nonwastewaters.
As one of the "F1 listings, P013 is a
specific waste, while DOOS, a
characteristic waste, may take 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/1 DOOS 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 DOOS
wastewaters. The Agency is therefore
disinclined to establish a method of
treatment (i.e., chemical precipitation
with specified reagents) for P013
wastewaters. In the absence of any data
on treatment of 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 28614);
therefore, P013 wastewaters will not be
subject to the "hard hammer" [i.e.,
banned from land disposal on May 8,
1990).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR DOOS
(Nonwastewatan)
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P013
(Nonwastewaters)
Regulated constituent
Maximum
tor any
sample
TCLP
teachata
100
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR DOOS
(Waslewatere)
Regulated constituent
Maximum
tor any
•ingtograb
sampM
(mg/l)
Regulated constituent
Barium
Maximum
for any
sing la grab
sample
TCLP
leachate
52
100
d. Cadmium
D006—Characteristics cadmium wastes.
Today's rule promulgates wastewater
and nonwastewater treatment standards
for D006 wastes. Comments and data
were received asserting that it was not
possible to meet the proposed treatment
standards for DOOS 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 characteristic level of
1.0 mg/1 cadmium (as measured by the
TCLP) as the treatment standard for
D006 nonwastewaters and wastewaters.
EPA is also establishing an additional
treatability group for cadmium batteries
that are characteristic hazardous
wastes. The standard for cadmium
batteries is thermal recovery.
In the proposed rule, EPA proposed
regulation of cadmium in D006 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 the proposed standards were
unachievable. The data, however,
showed that D006 wastes can be treated
to meet treatment levels at or about the
characteristic level of 1.0 mg/1 for
cadmium (as measured by TCLP for
nonwastewaters) once the proper
chemical reagents and waste to binder
ratios are used. Based on these data,
EPA is not finalizing the proposed
treatment standards for D006 and
instead is promulgating treatment
standards at 1,0 mg/1 cadmium for both
wastewater and nonwastewater (as
measured by TCLP) forms of D006.
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 D006 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 characteristic
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
48436, listing several examples of
industries, manufacturing processes, or
commercial users that generate
cadmium batteries. The proposed rule
called for batteries containing teachable
cadmium above 1.0 mg/1 (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 BDAT
for DOOS wastes in the cadmium-
containing battery subcategory. Their
comments pointed out that these wastes
are routinely treated in industrial
furnaces such as smelters for the
recovery of cadmium and other valuable
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 pyrometallic
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 cadmium-containing
battery subcategory. If they continue to
exhibit the characteristic for cadmium,
however, they would still be prohibited
wastes in the DOOB treatability group
and would have to be treated to meet
the standard for that treatability group
(i.e., 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.
Commenters 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 whether such batteries exhibit the
EP characteristic when a representative
sample of the battery is tested. In
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22563
addition, many of these batteries, even
if hazardous, would be household
hazardous wastes and thus are excluded
from all subtitle C regulation (40 CFR
261.4(b)(l) and 268.1(b]).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0006
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Cadmium.,
Maximum
tor any
single grab
sample
TCLP
leachate
(mg/lj
1.0
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0006
[WastewatersJ
Regulated constituent
Cadmium..
Maximum
(or any
single grab
sample
(mg/l)
1.0
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0006
C Cadmium-Containing Batteries]
Thermal Recovery o! Metals or Inorganics (RTHRM)
as a Method of Treatment
e. Chromium
DMT—EP Tox for Chromium
U032—Chromic acid (HtCrO«, calcium salt)
EPA is promulgating a treatment
standard of 0,094 mg/l chromium (total),
as measured in the leachate generated
by use of the TCLP for nonwastewater
forms of U032. The wastewater
treatment standard for U032 is 0.32 mg/l
chromium (total). For nonwastewater
and wastewater forms of D007, EPA is
promulgating a treatment standards of
5.0 mg/l chromium (total) (as measured
by TCLP for nonwastewaters). A
technical description of U032 and D007
can be found in the listing documents for
each waste.
Several commenlers objected to the
proposal to regulate total chromium
rather than hexavalent chromium in
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
environment * * *" The Agency is not
persuaded by these arguments,
maintaining that treatment of total
chromium will provide the most
effective regulation of hexavalent forms.
These comments moreover improperly
characterize the Agency's position,
which is long-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)(6)(i) (1980). To date, EPA
is unaware of any generator submitting
a demonstration to EPA for processing.
EPA repeats that it is not reopening this
long-settled issue in this proceeding.
Detailed discussions of the
development of treatment standards for
D007 and U032 can be found in the final
BDAT Background Document for these
wastes in the RCRA docket.
(1) D007. EPA proposed concentration-
based treatment standards for D007
wastewaters and nonwastewaters
based on a transfer of treatment
standards for K062. (K062 wastes are
spent pickle liquors generated by the
iron and steel industry.) This was
because the chromium standards that
were promulgated for K062 wastes were
based on treatment of a mixture of K062
and other EP Toxicity wastewaters
(including D007 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
D007 wastes based on a transfer of
chromium standards promulgated for
F008 wastes (wastewater treatment
sludges from the treatment of
wastewaters from the electroplating
industry). Treatment data for F006
wastes were based on the performance
of conventional cementitious or
pozzolanic stabilization.
(i) Wastiwaters. Commenters
indicated that the proposed levels for
D007 wastewaters based on the transfer
from K082 wastes (i.e., 0.32 mg/l) could
not be achieved for the majority of their
D007 wastes. In support of their position,
they submitted ten specific sets of data
on the treatment of various D007 wastes.
However, these data primarily included
treatment information with an emphasis
on the nonwastewater residues and did
not include very much data on the
wastewater residuals. Data from one
commenter supported their claim, but
Indicated that the characteristic level for
chromium (i.e., 5.0 mg/l could generally
be achieved. While these wastewater
data were mostly above the proposed
0.32 mg/l 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 1II.D.
of today's preamble, the Agency is not
promulgating the proposed treatment
standard of 0.32 mg/l and, instead, is
establishing the characteristic level (i.e..
5.0 mg/l) as the treatment standard for
D007 wastewaters.
(ii) Nonwastewaters. Except for D007
refractory bricks (see discussion below),
the majority of the commenters believed
that the 0.094 mg/l TCLP standard based
on a transfer from K062 wastes could
not be achieved. However, tha
alternative standards proposed for D007
nonwastewaters (i.e., 5.2 mg/l TCLP
based on the transfer from F006 and
capping the standard at the 5.0 mg/l
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 D007
wastes. The Agency examined the
quality and completeness of these data
for the nonwastewater residues.
The Agency determined that eight of
the ten data sets could not support the
development treatment standards due to
a significant lack of information 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 similar
treatment trains used to establish the
chromium standards for K062 and F006.
The Agency emphasizes that none of
these ten data sets are as complete as
the data for either F006 or K062.
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
0.86 mg/l and another data set (using
only 10 of the more complete data points
from the HWTC) would have resulted in
a standard of 0.74 mg/l. (Note: Both are
based on TCLP analysis.)
However, the HWTC data contained
an additional 32 incomplete treatment
data points (no untreated TCLP
analyses), many of which could not
meet the 0.88 mg/l or the 0.74 mg/l
treatment standards. Assuming that
these previously rejected 32 data points
represent valid treatment, the Agency
decided that both the 0.86 mg/l and the
0.74 mg/l standards calculated on just 20
-------
22564
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
data points were not achievable on a
routine basis. The Agency found that it
was difficult to ascertain (per treatment
facility) the mixing ratios of waste
volumes that were received from each of
the different industries. While 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 Cyanokein 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 K062 wastes, in that the
wastewater treatment process employed
for treating the combined K082/D007
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/1
proposed standard for D007 wastes.)
While Cyanokem's data clearly
indicated that the proposed 0.094 mg/1
could not be achieved and thus implying
that their combined D007 wastes were
more difficult to treat, their data did not
represent wastes similar to those
represented by the HWTC 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 Cyanokem
and the HWTC (i.e., using all 52 data
points, except for one from the HWTC
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 cross-section of
industries. Despite all of this, the
Agency took a conservative approach
and assumed that proper and effective
treatment had occurred for all of the
data.
The resultant standard using these
combined data was 4.3 mg/1 based on
TCLP. While the combined data are
technically "weak" due to various
deficiencies in BOAT information, the -
combined two data sets do reflect the
treatment of a greater variety of wastes.
The Agency comtemplated promulgating
the 4.3 mg/1 standard as an alternative
to the 5.2 mg/1 from F006; however, this
level is so close to the 5.0 mg/1
characteristic level that the Agency does
not believe the significant regulatory
disruptions and uncertainties inherent in
applying direct part 268 regulation to
subtitle D facilities is warranted.
The Agency notes that the 5.2 mg/1
F006 standard was also generated by the
commercial treatment industry and that
further combination of the F006 data
with the commenters1 data would
probably result in a standard even
closer to the characteristic level of 5.0
mg/1. As it is, a measurement of 4.3 mg/1
by the TCLP test is approximately 88%
of the 5.0 mg/1 characteristic level and
within the analytical error that may be
expected for such an analysis.
As a result of these comments and
data, EPA is withdrawing both of the
proposed treatment standards for D007
wastes (i.e., the transfer from F006 and
from K062J. While the Agency
contemplated promulgating the 5.2 mg/1
F006 standard, it is even closer to the
characteristic level than the 4.3 mg/1
calculated using the commenters' data.
The treatment standard promulgated
today, therefore, is set at 5.0 mg/1
chromium (total) (as measured by
TCLP). While the majority of
commenters supported this approach
from a policy standpoint the Agency is
convinced that the available data
submitted by them clearly indicate the
validity of the achievability of this
standard.
(iii) D007 Refractory Bricks. Some
D007 nonwastewaters are generated in
the form of refractory bricks containing
percent levels of hexavaient chromium.
The Agency has identified one facility
that is recovering chromium using a high
temperature thermal recovery process.
The bricks are crushed and recycled as
feedstock along with other raw
materials in the manufacture of
refractory bricks or metal alloys. This
recovery technology is currently 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
phosphorus present in the bricks that
would lower the quality of the product
EPA has determined that this thermal
recovery process is an alternative
treatment for some forms of these D007
refractory bricks. However, the Agency
is currently uncertain to what extent this
thermal recovery technology is
demonstrated for all of the various types
of refractory bricks currently being land
disposed. Thus, the Agency is not
establishing high temperature thermal
recovery as a treatment standard for
these D007 wastes, but is not precluded
from doing so in the future. At the same
time, facilities 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
HI.A.2.(e)(lj above. These data consist
of analysis on two TCLP extracts of
crashed 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/1. The other
technology was a glassification process
that achieved a treated TCLP level for
chromium of 110 mg/1. 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 by a
hexavaient chromium reduction step.
Congress in fact contemplated that
hexavaient chromium would be reduced
to the maximum extent possible before
prohibited wastes are land disposed.
Statement of Senator Chaffee. 130 Cong.
Rec. S 9178 (July 25,1984). EPA thus
does not view these data as representing
BOAT, nor as minimizing threats to
human health and the environment.
See also preceding section
III.A.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) U032. The treatment standards
promulgated today for U032 are
transferred from the treatment of K062
waste waters and nonwastewaters. EPA
believes that K062 wastes are more
difficult to treat than 11032 wastes, in
that U032 wastes should contain lower
concentrations of potentially interfering
metals than K062 wastes and should
primarily contain only one specific
chromium compound (i.e., the calcium
salt of chromic acid). Because of this,
EPA sees no technical bar to
transferring data to establish treatment
standards for U032 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22365
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D007
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated coos'jtusnl
Chromium fTotal)
Maximum
for any
single grab
sampia,
TCLP (mg/l)
5.0
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D007
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total)..
'Maximum
lor any
single grab
sampie,
total
composition
(mg/l)
5.0
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR U032
[ Nonwastewatsrs]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total),,
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0.094
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR U032
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total)._. .
Maximum
lor any
singla grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.32
f. Lead
D008—EP toxic for lead.
P110—Telraethyl lead.
U144—Lead acetate,
U145—Lead phosphate.
U148—Lead subacetate.
K069—Emission control dust/sludge from
secondary lead smelting,
K100—Waste leaching solution from acid
leaching of emission control dust/sludge
from secondary lead smelting.
(1) DOOe Wastes. The Agency, as one
alternative, proposed treatment
standards below the characteristic
levels for nonwastewaters and
wastewaters as 0.51 mg/l TCLP and 0.04
mg/l, 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 levels of 0.51 mg/l
TCLP and 0.04 mg/l were unachievable
for many D008 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 D008
nonwastewaters. In addition, EPA is
establishing the treatment standard for
wastewaters at the characterise level
for the reasons stated in section ni.D of
the preamble.
(a) Nonwastewaters. The Agency
proposed a cut-off concentration of 2.55
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 treatabiliry
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 DOOO nonwastewaters. Many .
commenters requested that the Agency
not promulgate the cutoff level. In fact,
many commenters suggested that it is
not economically feasible to recycle
lead from wastes with less than 25%
lead. Many commenters (inlcruding those
from secondary lead industry itself) also
stated that lead concentrations are not
the sole measure of recyclability. The
commenters presented data that
indicates that D008 nonwastewaters
with greater than 2.5% total lead cam
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 for D008
nonwastewaters and instead to
promulgate genetically applicable '
treatment standards.
In addition, the Agency proposed and
solicited comments on three options for
the development of treatment standards
for D008 nonwastewaters. The first
option was to develop a numerical
treatment standard for those D008
nonwastewaters that can be stabilized.
Consequently, the Agency proposed a
numerical treatment standard of 0.51
mg/l for teachable lead based on a
transfer of the performance of
stabilization for F006 wastes. The
second option was to specify Thermal
Recovery as a method of treatment as
the treatment standard for D008
nonwastewaters where the lead could
be recovered. The third option was to
limit the treatment standard for D008
nonwastewaters to the characteristic
level.
During tha comment period, the
Agancy received D008 nonwastewater
data from various sources. Most of the
data came from stabilizing specific D008
nonwastewaters. Some of the data were
from the foundry industry, secondary
lead smelters, the glass industry, and
commercial treaters of D008
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 88 mg/l leachable using the EP
toxicity test. An analysts 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/l. Although these data showed that
the leachable concentration of lead was
below the characteristic level, the
leachable level for cadmium was higher
than the characteristic level. These data
clearly show 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 5.0 mg/l
measured by the EP test.
Ciby-Geigy submitted treatment data
for waste produced in the manufacture
of glass enamels. These wastes %vere
produced from equipment and container
washing during the manufacturing
-------
22568
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
•
it.
I i
process. These washing were treated by
a wastewater treatment system that
generated a sludge that exhibited the
characteristic of toxicity for lead. The
commenter submitted two sets of 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 to a
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 mg/1 measured
by the EP test. For this data set, there
was no untreated leachable
concentrations of lead, therefore the
Agency cannot determine whether the
waste was hazardous before treatment.
The second data set contained lead
oxide concentration 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 0.2-40 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 sets from
glass manufacturers clearly show the
diversity of the waste and a difference
in treatable levels. In some cases
stabilization can reduce teachability of
lead at or somewhat below, the
characteristic level
The Agency received data from the
Secondary Lead Smelters Association
(SLS A) 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 submitted
approximately 110 data points from two
different plants. The binder to waste
ratios ranged from 1 to 2, to 1 to 15. In
the data submission, there waa no QA/
QC data and no corresponding influent
leacha"ble lead concentration. One data
set was based on use of Portland cement
as a stabilizing agent with a binder to
waste ratio ranging from 1 to 5, to 1 to
10. The Agency calculated a treatment
standard of 2,47 mg/1 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 to 5, to 4 to 10. There
were approximately 94 data points, and
o^ 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/1 as measured by
the TCLP.
The Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council (HWTC) submitted eight data
sets for the treatment of D008
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 TCLP.
This stabilized waste represented a
volume increase ratio ranging from 1.8 to
2.5.
The data set with the next highest
total lead concentration was generated
from an incinerator fly ash from the
aerospace industry that contained 810
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 leachable 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 .27 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 S61 ppm total lead.
This waste contained total lead
concentration of 29 ppm, and had a
corresponding untreated leachable level
of 6.01 ppm as measured by the TCLP,
which is above the characteristic level.
These soils resulted in the best
treatment, with levels ranging from .066
to 0.257 ppm as measured by the TCLP.
This represented a volume increase
ranging from 1.6 to 3.4.
The HWTC provided three other data
sets representing waste generated as
water filtrate and sludge from the
manufacture of conduit as ammonium
hydroxide sludge from electroplating,
and as sump sludge from the
reconditioning of metal drums. These
wastes had total lead concentrations
ranging from 234 to 460 ppm. There was
no untreated TCLP data corresponding
to the total lead levels. The stabilized
wastes ranged in concentration from .06
to .10 ppra as measured by the TCLP.
The binder to waste ratio ranged from
1.6 to 3.5.
Of these data, the waste with the
highest total lead concentration shows
treatment levels barely above the
characteristic level of S 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 discussed 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/1, or at least
achieving levels below the characteristic
level. The HWTC 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 below the
characteristic level. The data provided
by SLSA clearly show that two treated
data points of 87 were above the
characteristic level. The Agency used
the data to calculate a treatment-
standard of 4,82 mg/1, very close to the
5.0 mg/1 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 IlIA.l.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
nonwastewaters. Also, these data do not
support the assumption that
characteristic lead nonwastewaters can
typically be treated to levels
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
concentrations. In addition, the
commenters do not address how
treatability of other metals could be
affected by optimized lead treatment
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22567
nor has EPA had the time to address this
issue. With the treatment of the Vision
Ease waste to 5.0 mg/l as measured by
the EP and the SLSA data demonstrating
treatment to 4.82 mg/l 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
DOOS wastes, the treatment standard
equal to 5,0 mg/l as measured by the EP
procedure. The Agency is adopting this
approach to address the range of
variability Inherent in the D008 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 lo measure
compliance with this standard. EPA is
not basing the standard for D008 on the
TCLP, however, because that protocol is
more aggressive for lead than the EP.
The Agency is not sure that levels of 5.0
mg/l 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/l for lead as
measured by the TCLP, then the facility
has complied with the standard. If the
waste leaches above S.O mg/l 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, it
must still be managed in a Subtitle C
facility even if it is not prohibited from
land disposal).
(b) Wastewaters. In the November 22,
1989, proposed rale, the Agency
proposed a treatment standard for D008
wastewaters of 0.04 mg/l based on a
transfer of the performance of
precipitation with lime and sulfide,
filtration, and settling for K062
wastewaters. In addition, the Agency
solicited comments on the approach of
specifying a precipitant as a method of
treatment for DOOS wastewaters.
Comments were solicited on whether
the Agency should develop treatment
standards based on data provided from
the primary and secondary lead
smelters industries as part of the
Agency's effluent limitation guidelines
program,
Many commenters questioned the
Agency's technical capabilities of the
transfer of the performance of the
treatment system for K062 wastes as
compared to D008 wastewaters. In
particular, the commenters pointed out
that the untreated K062 wastewaters
had low concentration of lead compared
to the DOOS wastes as actually
generated. However, commenters
submitted additional data indicating
thnt although the 0.04 mg/l 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 DOOS wastewaters
from three sources. One set of data
submitted to the Agency was from the
Battery Council. Inc (BCIJ. These data
represented a small portion of the data
that was collected in the effluent
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 DOOS
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 precipitation, settling, and
filtration. This data showed influent
concentration levels ranging up to 300
ppm. The data showed a substantial
reduction of lead and other metals from
the treatment system. BCI submitted
corresponding quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) information for the
data. If the Agency uses the data from
the treatment system, the calculated
treatment standard would be roughly 0.6
mg/l, an order of magnitude lower than
the characteristic level.
In addition, the Agency received D0Q8
wastewater data from Tricil
Environmental Services, a treater of
D008 and other characteristically
hazardous wastewaters. However, this
waste was commingled with other waste
before treatment thereby blending
down such that the concentration of
lead would be lower than what .was •
actually reported. Data was submitted
on the treatment of lead by precipitation
with phosphate, followed 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 treatment data in order to
calculate a treatment standard, the
performance of the treatment system
indicates that a calculated treatment
standard is 0.2 mg/l. which is more than
an order of magnitude lower than the
characteristic level. The Agency would
hesitate to use the data in developing
treatment standards for DOOS
wastewaters due to the lack of QA/QC
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 variability associated with
the characteristic wastes.
Also, the Agency received treatment
data from a foundry facility treating
D008 wastewater. This data represents
treated wastewaters by precipitation
with high magnesium lime and nitration.
The lead concentration in the untreated
wastewater ranged up to 278 mg/l. If the
Agency used all of the treatment data,
the calculated treatment standard is 0.4
mg/l, 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 aU 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
manufacturing), the Agency concludes
that well designed and well operated
treatment systems can achieve total
concentrations of lead lower than the
characteristic level As explained in
Section III.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 NPDES/pretreatment
and UIC programs.
In addition, many commenters
suggested that the Agency not specify a
precipitant as a method of treatment for
D008 wastewaters. Many commenters
suggest that particular precipitants may
perform better depending on the
characteristics of the waste. For
example, Tricil 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 la promulgating the
treatment standard at the characteristic
. level, thereby treaters and generators of
D008 wastewaters may select any
precipitant in order to meet the
characteristic level.
(c) Lead Acid Batteries. For lead acid
batteries, the Agency is promulgating a
standard of "Thermal recovery of lead
in secondary lead smelters (RELEAD)".
(See 1288.42 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
-------
22588 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
the treat era of lead acid batteries are
using a recovery process.
Incidentally, the Agency notes 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
264.3l4(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 G of part 266.
Other commenters 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
treatabiity group (i.e. 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
III.A.3.a of today's rule.
(2) P110. U144. U145, and U146
Wastes. The Agency proposed
wastewater treatment standards for
lead for PllO, U144, U145, U148 based on
a transfer of the performance of
precipitation with lime and sulfide,
filtration, and settling for K062
wastewaters. While these U and P codes
represent primarily 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 PllO, U144, U145, U148
wastewaters of 0.04 mg/1 as proposed.
The Agency has determined that some
nonwastewater forms of lead wastes
including PllO, U144, U146, and some
D003 wastes, would need to be
incinerated prior to stabilization due to
the presence of high concentrations of
organics in order to achieve a treatment
standard based on stabilization. This is
primarily because the organics typically
interfere with conventional stabilization
processes (particularly at concentrations
exceeding 1% TOG). The Agency has
data on the incineration on organic
wastes containing up to 1.000 mg/kg
lead (such as K087 wastes) followed by
stabilization of the ash. These data
indicate that the proposed standard (i.e.
0.51 mg/1 teachable lead) can be
achieved for wastes that also contain
significant concentrations of organics,
provided the organics are destroyed by
pretreatment. Lead -acetate (UI44) and
lead subacetate (U148) 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/1 standard for organo-lead
compounds, PllO, U144, and U146.
Additionally, the Agency received no
comments on the feasibility of the
transfer of lead in K062 wastewaters to
lead phosphate U145. Therefore, the
Agency will promulgate as proposed.
(3) K069, In today's rule, the Agency is
promulgating treatment standards for
K069 nonwastewaters in the Calcium
Sulfate Subcategory, and for wastewater
forms of KQS9. In addition, the Agency is
revoking the no land disposal based on
recycling as a treatment standard for the
Non Calcium Sulfate Subcategory for
K069 nonwastewaters and is
promulgating "Thermal Recovery of
Lead in Secondary Lead Smelters
(RLEAD)". 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.
For K069 wastewaters, 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
D008 wastewaters. This treatment data
was submitted as part of the public
comment period. The Agency believes
that these wastewaters better represent
a K069 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 Subcalegory 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 K061 to K069
nonwastewaters. This is a technically
feasible transfer because the K061 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) KlOO. In today's rule, the Agency is
promulgating treatment standards for
wastewaters and nonwastewater forms
of KlOO wastes as proposed. For
cadmium and total chromium in KlOO
wastewaters, treatment standards are
based on a transfer of the performance
of chromium reduction followed by lime
and sulfide precipitation, and
dewatering for K062 wastes. For lead in
KlOO 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 the
regulated constituents due to the fact
that both precipitating agents are
hydroxides. For KlOO nonwastewaters
treatment standards are based on the
transfer of the performance of... . -
stabilization for F006 wastes.
Treatment standards for KlOO wastes
were originally scheduled to be
promulgated as part of the Third Third
rulemaking. However, a treatment
standard of "No Land Disposal Based un
No Generation" for KlOO
nonwastewaters was promulgated on
August 8,1988 and subsequently revised
on May 2,1988 (54 FR18836) 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
treatment standards for KlOO wastes:
therefore, the Agency is promulgating as
proposed.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOB D008
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample. EP
(mg/IJ
Lead
5.0
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22569
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D008
[WasIewatersJ
Regulated constituent
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
5.0
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR DOOB
dead Acid Batteries] •
Thermal recovery (RLEADS of lead In secondary lead
imelters
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P110,
U144.U145, ANDU146
{Waslewaters]
Regulated constituent
lead.—
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
0.040
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P110,
U144, U145, AND U146
INonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Lead .
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
TCIP (mg/l)
0.51
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K069
[Wastewalers]
Regulated constituent
Cadmium..
Lead...
Manrnum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
1.6
0.51
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K069
CALCIUM SULFATE SUBCATEGORY
CNonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Lead . ~
Maximum
for arty
single grab
sample.
TCLP (mg/l)
0.14
. 0.24
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K069
NON-CALCIUM SULFATE SUBCATEGORY
CNonwastewatars; Revised From No Land Disposal]
Thermal recovery of lead in secondary lead smelters
(RLEAD)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K100
[Wastewatera; Revised From No Land Disposal]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total) ~, ..
Lead
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
1 6
032
051
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K100
[Nonwastewaters; Revised From No Land Disposal!
Regulated constituent
Cadmium
Chromium (Total),
Lead.........
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0.066
5.2
O.S1
• See § 268.42 Table 1 In today's rule for a de-
tailed description of tn* technology standard referrad
to by the five letter technology code in parentfiesej.
g. Mercury
DOQ9—IP toxic for mercury.
K071—Brine purification muds from the
mercury cell process in chlorine
production, where separately prepurified
brine ii not used.
K106—Wastewater treatment sludges from
the mercury cell process in chlorine
production.
P065—Mercury fulminate.
P092—Phenylmercnry acetate.
U151—Mercury.
EPA is today promulgating treatment
standards for D009. K108, POTS, P092,
and U151. EPA has revised the proposed
regulatory approach for some of these
wastes in response to comment EPA is
also withdrawing the proposed revisions
for K071 nonwastewaters. These wastes
are described fully in the respective
Listing Background Documents.
(1) Review of BOA Tfor
Nonwastewaters. EPA identified
thermal recovery processes, acid
leaching, stabilization, and incineration
as BDAT for mercury wastes.
Commenters questioned whether
thermal processing of mercury should be
the basis (or the exclusive basis) for the
treatment standard. Use of thermal
processing raises issues of cross-media
transfer of mercury, as well as the
environmental benefit of thermal
processing over stabilization or land
disposal. Other comments questioned
the amenability of mercury 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
II!.A.3.a.
Multimedia issues raised by thermal
processing of mercury materials involve
the potential transfer of mercury and
sulfur dioxide from the retorting/
roasting chambers to downstream air
pollution control devices (APCD) and
potentially to environmental media (e.g.,
air to water). Specifically, eommtnters
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' concerns,
which the Agency shares. The Agency
discussed the issue of air controls for
mercury retorting at 54 FR 48501. 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 mercury 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 (NESHAPs) for Mercury"
(EPA 450/J-84-014,1984) in the
proposed administrative record. In this
1984 document, EPA provided
quantitative 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
information 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 information, performance
data from the thermal processing of
cinnabar ores, and performance data
from the retorting/roasting of mercury
wastes, EPA determined that retorting/
roasting represent BDAT for mercury
wastes. EPA reaffirms this
determination in today's rule. In order to
assure that air emissions from mercury
-------
22S70 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 /Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
are controlled adequately, the Agency is
specifying as part of BDAT that the
retorting unit either (a) be subject to the
mercury NESHAP; (b) be subject to a
BACT or LAER standard for 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 minimizes threats to
human health and the environment and
so satisfies the requirements of section
3G04(m). (Pending amendments to the
Clean Air Act may also result 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
standards are enforceable under RCRA
pursuant to the authority in section
3008(a).) In addition, as discussed 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 K106 wastes
that are generated as mercury sulfides.
According to the commenters, these
K106 wastes contain mercury in one of
its less soluble forms. As a result, the
commenters argued that sulfide
stabilization—including the sulfide
precipitation treatment that generates
the K106—should be considered a mode
of treatment under RCRA section
3004(m). The commenters 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 these comments
carefully but determined that treatment
standards for those mercury wastes
amenable to recovery should be based
on recovery technologies. There is a
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 minimization and resource
recovery (e.g., RCRA section lC03(a)(6}}.
The Agency further concludes that
compliance with the mercury NESHAP,
PSD BACT/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
emissions 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 teachable form of mercury than at
least the mercury sulfide wastes (such
as K106) 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 K071
and K106 wastes, that mercury retorting
can recover 9&-89% of mercury
contained in the feed material. The
overall potential of disposed mercury to
be released to the environment will thus
be significantly reduced. Retorting/
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
retorting/roasting 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 Cat-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
subcategories 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/
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 chloride/
mercury sulfide wastes (mixture of KOfl
and K106). The other data set represents
the thermal processing of cinnabar ores
which the Agency believes can simulate
the retorting/roasting of mercury sulfide
sludges (i.e., K106 wastes) because
wastewater 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 K071/
K106 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 16
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 18 mg/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/roasting of
mercury wastes. The Chlorine Institute's
performance data consists of bench- and
pilot-scale test studies for the roasting of
K106 having mercury sulfide species.
OxyChem performance data consist of
full-scale retorting tests of K106 and
0009 wastes. None of QxyChem's K100
and D009 wastes had mercury sulfide
species.
The Chlorine Institute's data show
that mercury sulfide sludges (K106
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 K106 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, in
the order of 160 mg/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
ing/kg-
Another commenter pointed out more
fundamentally that EPA should base the
cut-off level for "Mercury
Subcategories" not on treated residuals
from the retorting/roasting operations
but rather on mercury concentrations in
the waste before retorting. In other
words, the determination of what is
recoverable should not be determined
* J,
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register /Vol. 55, No._106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations '
22571
solely by levels reflecting mercury
treatment The conunenter also believes
that basing the cut-off level of "High
Mercury Subcategory" on untreated
mercury concentrations will better
reflect similar BDAT determinations
EPA had made for other recoverable
wastes such as K081. 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 K106 and
K071 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
260 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 treatability groups and the
variability inherent to mercury aulfide
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
nonwastewaters with mercury
concentrations equal to or above 260mg/
kg mercury belong to the High Mercury
Subcategory. Mercury nonwastewater
with mercury concentrations below the
260 aig/kg mercury belong to the Low
Mercury Subcategory,
(3) Standards for All Wastewaters.
EPA is promulgating a treatment
standard of 0.030 mg/1 mercury for K10B,
P065, and P092. This treatment standard
is based on the precipitation of mercury
from wastewaters identified as K071
from the chlor-alkali industry using
aulfide as the precipitant
EPA acknowledges that there may be
certain wastewaters that may 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 BDAT for
mercury wastewaters.
Some commenters objected to EPA's
rationale to transfer the K071
performance data to K106, P065, P092,
UlSl, and D009 wastewaters. Among
these commenters, one believes the
proposed treatment standards are based
on performance data that may not take
into account other forma 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
K071 wastewater than the one tested by
EPA. These alternative performance
data result hi a treatment standard, of
0.11 mg/1 mercury.
The multi-source leachate treatment
performance data represent the
treatment provided by sulfide chemical
precipitation to different characteristic
wastewaters that may include K071
wastewaters. EPA believes that the data
developed from treating the specific
mercury wastes is preferable to a
transfer of performance data. Moreover,
the commenters advocating the transfer
submitted no data and so failed to
demonstrate unachievability 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
K106, P065, P092. and UlSl as proposed.
For D009 wastewaters, EPA proposed
two regulatory options. One "option was
to transfer K07l's performance
treatment data and require a level of
treatment below the D009 characteristic
level. The other option was to set a
treatment level at the characteristic
level. For reasons discussed in preamble
section IILD., EPA is promulgating
treatment standards at the characteristic
level of 0.20 mg/1 mercury for D009
wastewaters as measured by TCLP.
(4) Standards for K108 and UlSl
Nonwastewaters. 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 K106 and
UlSl 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/1, as
measured by the TCLP (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 mg/1) are required to comply
with the appropriate standards for K106
or UlSl 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
260 mg/kg.
For K108 and UlSl nonwastewaters in
the "Low Mercury Subcategory" (i.e.,
less than 280 mg/kg) the Agency is
promulgating a treatment standard of
0.025 mg/1 mercury as measured by the
TCLP leachate. This level is transferred
from acid leaching data for K071
nonwastewaters. Residues from this
acid leaching process must be evaluated
for mercury content to determine
whether they should undergo roasting/
retorting. K108 and U151 • •
nonwastewaters that contain less than
260 mg/kg and that also leach less than
0.025 mg/1 mercury (as measured in the
TCLP extract) are considered to have
met the BDAT and can be land
disposed.
(5) Withdrawal of Proposed Revisions
to K071 Nonwastewaters. EPA proposed
that certain K071 nonwastewaters be
retorted or roasted (54 FR 48442). The
Chlorine Institute and generators of
K071 submitted comments to EPA
emphasizing that existing treatment
standards should not be revised. These
commenters pointed out that their K071
wastes currently being land disposed
already have low concentrations of
mercury (10 to 120 mg/kg mercury,
average) which EPA had deemed to
meet the requirement of 3004(m) of
HSWA. 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 K071 wastes
since the available data to EPA for the
retorting/roasting of K071 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 K071 wastes
because their recyclability is
-------
22572
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 31168. August 17,1988 and § 26841
(treatment standard for K071
nonwastewaters)). However, today's
decision does not preclude the Agency
from revising the K071 treatment
standards if new data become available.
(8) Standards for P065 and P092
Nonwastewaters. EPA is promulgating
incineration as the treatment standard
for FOBS 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-mercury wastes
are not directly amenable for recovery,
but must be pretreated to destroy
carbon-metal bonds (34 FR 48442}.)
Incineration nonwastewater residues
from these wastes that are above or
equal to 260 mg/kg are considered to
belong to the High Mercury Subcategory
and thus must be recovered by retorting
or roasting, incineration wastewater
residues must meet the treatment level
of 0.030 mg/1 mercury as a prerequisite
for land disposal. Nonwastewater
residues from retorting/roasting
operations are not prohibited from land
disposal unless they leach mercury
above 0-2 mg/1, as measured by the
TCLP. Retorting/roasting residues
unacceptable for disposal (Le» above 0-2
mg/1) 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 are not
prohibited from land disposal unless
they leach mercury above 0-025 mg/1 (as
measured in the TCLP extract). See
section (4) above for a discussion of this
mercury leach level
(7) Standards for DOOff
Nonwastewaters. The treatment
standards for DC09 nonwastewaters in
the High Mercury Subcategory are
promulgated as "Roasting or Retorting
as a Method of Treatment, or
Incineration followed by Roasting or
Retorting of Incinerator nonwastewater
residues (e.g., calcinates, soot, ash, or
wastewater treatment sludges from the
treatment of incineration scrubber
waters) provided such residues exceed
260 mg/kg total mercury. Residues from
retorting/roasting operations are not
prohibited from land disposal unless
they leach mercury above O2Q mg/L as
measured by the TCLP. Retorting/
roasting residues unacceptable for
disposal (Lfr. above 0.20 mg/1) are
required to comply with the appropriate
standards for the High or Low Mercury
Subcategory. The applicable standards
for wastes in the 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 semivolatile organics
up to 30 percent are currently being
retorted outside the United States. The
facility described its waste as a mercury
spent catalyst contaminated with an
intermediate chemical used in die
manufacture of polymers. The facility
sends this D009 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 BOOS wastes which they believe
meet EPA's criteria of contaminated
soils and debris. The commenters
believe this list of D009 debris are not
amenable to retorting/roasting.
However, they have proposed
alternative treatment standards based
on the use of a chemical
decontamination 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 decontaminated wastes: and
(3) (sulfide) chemical precipitation of
mercury from contaminated solutions
and water washes. The chemically
decontaminated and triple water rinsed
debris would not be prohibited from
land disposal
EPA has been unable to determine
whether the alternative chemical
decontamination technology specifically
represents BOAT for these wastes. EPA
currently lacks performance data from
the use of this technology on 0008
debris wastes. If performance data
become available, the Agency may be
publishing revisions to today's
standards as it continues the general
effort to develop separate standards for
soil and debris wastes. See also section
m.A.3.(a){2} for a further discussion of
treatment for inorganic solids debris.
Another reason that the Agency is not
adopting these procedures 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 die 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 DQ09 debris.
For D009 wastes in the Low Mercury
Subcategory, EPA is promulgating a
treatment standard of 0.20 mg/L as
measured by the TCLP. Achievability of
these standards are supported by K071
treatment data and other stabilization
data submitted to the Agency. The Final
BOAT Background Document for
Mercury contains 8 detailed technical
discussion for the development of ail the
treatment standards promulgated today.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K106
ANOU1S1
CAD nonwesiewatem in the Higti Mercury SuOcatego-
ry (i.e.. great* than or equal to 260 m^/kg total
nwieufyjl
Roasting or Retorting ffJMERC]
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K106
ANDU151
tNonwastowaiere mat ara nnktuas from RMERC
and are in the Lot* Mercury SuGcaiegory it*, less
than 260 mg/kg tola) mercury)]
Regulated conatituent
Mm-nxy IT ,-,— ,--,•-,-,- ,,-,',
0.20
tor any
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K106
AND U151
(Nonwastewaiam that are not rmduas trom RMEBC
and an in trie Low Mercury Subcategory (Is.. Msa
than 260 mg/kg total mercury)}
Regulated cocsttuent
tor any
sinqte gralj
samoie.
0.025
BOAT TREATMfNT STANDARDS FOR K10S
AND U151
tWastewataml
ReguMad constituent
Mercury.
Maximum
lor any
SHtgagrab
samo»e.
total
composition
0.030
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22573
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D009
CAB nonwastewaters that contain mercury and or-
ganics (and are not incinerator residues) and are
also in me High Mercury Subeategory (i.e., greater
than or equal to 260 mg/kg lolal mercury)]
Irtcineration of wastes with organics and marcury
(IMERC) or roasting/retorting (RMERC)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D009
[NofiwastewalBra that are inorganics (including in-
cinerator residues and residues from RMERC) and
art in the Hign Mercury Subcategoiy fi.e,, greater
than or equal to 280 mg/kg iota) mercury))
Roasting or retorting (RMERC)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR DOQ9
[All nonwastewatera In the Low Mercury Subcategc-
ry (i.e., less tnan 260 mg/kg total mercury)]
Regulated constituent
Mercury—
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
TCLP (mg.'l)
0.20
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D009
tWastewalers)
Regulated constituent
Mercury..
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.20
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P085
IA» nonwastewaters thai are not Incinerator rnsi-
dues and are not residues from RMERC; regard-
lass of Mercury Content]
Incineration ol wastes with organic* and mercury
(IMERQ
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P092
[All nonwastewaters that are not incinerator resi-
dues and are not residues from RMERC; regard-
less of Mercury Content)
Incineration of wastes with organtes and mercury
(IMERC) or roasting/retorting (RMEHQ
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P065
AND P092
(Nonwaatewaters that are either incinerator residues
or residues from RMERC, and ar« in the High
Mercury Subcategory (i.e., greater than or equal to
260 mg/kg total mercury)]
Roasting or retorting (HMEHQ
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P065
AND P092
tNonwaslewaters that are Incinerator residues (and
are not residues from RMEHC) Biai are also in th«
Low Mercury Subcategory (i.e., less than 260 mg/
kg total rnercuryjl
Regulated constituent
Mercury ...._..„..„.... ,„.. „.....,
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
TCUP (mg/l)
0.025
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P065
AND P09?
[Nonwastewaters that are residues from RMEHC
and are in the Low Mercury Subcategory (i.e.. less
than 260 mg/kg total mercury)!
Regulated constituent
Mercury..
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0.20
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P065
AND P092
tWastewatersl
Regulated constituent .
Mercury
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.030
h. Selenium
D010—EP toxic for selenium
P103—Selenouiea
Pll*—Thallium seienite
U204—Selenioua acid
U205—Selenium disulfide
For the proposed rule the Agency had
no specific treatment data on HCRA
hazardous wastewaters or
nonwastewaters containing significant
quantities of selenium (54 FR 48433),
However, based on the similarities 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
Nonwastewaters. 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 D010
waste containing selenium
concentrations of 5 ppm total selenium
and 2.97 mg/l in the TCLP extract
reduced to concentrations of 0.282 mg/l
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 D010
waste because of the high selenium
concentrations in the TCLP leachate.
The waste contains up to TOO ppm total
selenium and 3.74 mg/l selenium in the
TCLP leachate. The treated residuals
leach between 1.80 and 0.184 mg/l
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
HWTC for the stabilization of wastes
containing selenium dioxide (U204) an
selenium sulfide (U20S). Data for
stabilization of the discarded pure
product show values of 30 and 6.05 mg/l
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/l in
the unstabilized TCLP leachate and 2.80
mg/l in the stabilized TCLP leachate.
Data for stabilization of spiked soil
samples containing 1000 ppm of the
U205 compounds show values of 0.207
mg/l in the unstabilized TCLP leachate
and 0.154 mg/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
-------
22574
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Roles and Regulations
and extrapolated the performance data
for vitrification of arsenic to DOIO
nonwastewaters and proposed the same
concentration-based standard, 5.6 mg/1
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 5,8 mg/1
selenium to P103, P114, U204, and U205
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 investigating 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 $10.90/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 selenium
content. Consequently, the Agency is
not using any performance data for
treatment of these wastes, bat is using
the performance data for the DOIO waste
containing up to 700 ppm selenium 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 af 85 percent to
calculate a corrected average
concentration of 0.80 mg/1. Next
multiplying the corrected value by a
variability factor of 7.15 (calculated from
the same selenium testability data)
gives a treatment standard of 5.7 mg/1
selenium in the TCLP leachate. The
Agency is transferring the stabilization
performance from DOIO to F103, P114,
U204, and U205 because EPA believes
this waste to be most representative of
wastes requiring stabilization and not
recovery.
Because this treatment standard (5.7
mg/1) is above the level of leachable
selenium that defines the waste as 0010
(1.0 mg/11, DOIO wastes that are
generated at a level between S.7 mg/1
and 1.0 mg/1 meet the treatment
standard but are still considered to be
hazardous wastes (assuming the TCLP
value exceeds 1.0 mg/1) and, therefore,
must be land disposed in a subtitle C
facility.
(2) Standards far Selenium-Containing
Wasle'.valers. Based on the lime,
manganese sulfate, and ferric
precipitation wastewater treatment data
used to calculate the proposed
standards for the arsenic wastewaters,
the Agency proposed a treatment
standard of 0.79 mg/1 selenium for the
selenium in DOIO, P103, P114, U204, and
U205 wastewaters (54 FR 48431), The
Agency also proposed a second opiion
of limiting the treatment standard for
DOIO wastewaters to the characteristic
level of 1.0 mg/1.
The Agency solicited comments
regarding the transfer of the arsenic
performance data to selenium
wastewaters and specifically solicited "
additional treatment data for
wastewaters containing treatable levels
of selenium that would classify the
wastewaters as DOIO 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 cationic 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
suJfide at ph" 6.5 could not achieve the
level of 0.79 mg/1 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 pH of
less than 2.0 is required.
The Agency received information
about the treatment performance of
selenium removal using suifide
treatment. This information indicates
that selenium can be reduced in
wastewaters to the characteristic level
(i.e., 1.0 mg/1 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/1 selenium for the selenium in DC10,
P103, P114, U204, and U205 wastewaters.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 103,
P114. U204,andU205
CNonwastewatersl
Regulated constituent
Salenium...
Maximum tor
any smgte
grao samp'e,
TCLP
teachata
(mg/!)
5.7
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D010, P103, P114, U204. and U205
Wastawatars]
Regu'atad consftuer.l
Snlnnkiiiv -,--,,,„
Maximum for
any si^qia
grao sample.
tool
comcosition
(rag/IJ
1.0
i. Silver
0011—Characteristic for Silver
PQ99—Potassium silver cyanide
Pi04—Silver cyanide
(l) Don, 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/
1 measured by TCLP and 0.29 mg/!).
Commenters 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 DCli 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 DOll
wastes.
(a) Wastewaters. In the proposed rule,
the Agency proposed a treatment
standard for DOll wastewaters of 0.23
mg/1 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 waste waters containing
silver. Commenters opposed specifying
-------
2576
OS^ER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P113, P115, U214, U215, U216, AND
U217
{Nomwsttwiiitere)
Thermal wcovwy (RTHBM) or stabilization (STA8L)
as a method of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P113,
P115, U214, U215, U216, AND U217
(Wastewaters)
Regulated constituent
Thallium ..«.«.,.. .-™«««—«««™«...«.™.......
Maximum lor
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
<«pg/D
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 epont catnlycto that typically
contain about 5S 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 Pi20 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 agrees that
pretreatment practices such as
dissolution, chemical precipitation,
cation exchange, or resin adsorption
that are performed in tanks or
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., it is
uncertain that the thermal recovery
process for vanadium matches the
description for thermal recovery listed
under the five letter technology code
identified as RTHERM), the Agency is
promulgating a standard for Pi 19 and
P120 that only specifies stabilization as
a method of treatment.
A treatment standard was proposed
for vanadium wastewaters of 0,042 rag/1
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
reexarnination 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
mg/1.
The proposed rule included a
statement that P119 and P120
nonwastewaters can be generated as
spent catalysis from chemical
production or as fly ash from the iron
and steel industry. Commenters pointed
to this statement as a mistake, and
requested clarification on the definition
of P11S 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 do 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 for P119 and P120
nonwastewaters because containers or
container liners from the shipment of
ammonium 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
(Nonwastewaters)
Stabilization (STABL) as a method of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P119ANDP120
(Wastewaters)
Regulated constituent
Vanadium.......™.. .„.....„„„ , ....
24 hour
composite
sample,
total
composition
28
4. Treatment Standards for Remaining F
and K Wastes
a. F002 and F005
F002—The following spent halogenated
solvents: Tetrachloroethyiene, melhylene
chloride, trichloroelhylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1,1.2-
trich!oro-lA2-trifluoroethane, ortho-
dichlorobenzene, trichloro-
fluoromethane, and 1,1,2-trichloroethane:
all spent solvent mixtures/blends
containing, before use, a total of ten
percent or more (by volume) of one or
more of the above halogenated solvents
or those listed in F001, F004. or FOOS; and
•till bottoms from the recovery of these
spent solvents and spent solvent
mixtures.
FOOS—The following spent non-halogenated
solvents: Toluene, methyl ethyl ketone,
carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine,
benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, and 2-
nitropropane; all spent solvent mixtures/
blends containing, before use, a total of
ten percent or more (by volume) of one or
more of the above non-halogenated
solvents or those solvents listed in F001,
FOOZ, or F004: and still bottoms from the
recovery of these spent solvents and
spent solvent mixtures.
EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for 1,1,2-trichIoroethane,
benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, and 2-
nitropropane. 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
FOOS spent solvents in 1986 (see 51 FR
6737, February 25,1886). Today's
treatment standards only apply to these
four new solvents. Treatment standards
for other solvents in F002 and FOOS
remain as promulgated hi 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 F002
and FOOS, as amended in 1986, and in 40
CFR 261.31.
-------
Federal Register / Vol.,55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22575
precipitating reagents stating that most
wastewater streams contain more than
one metal and the use of a required
precipitating agent for one metal could
interfere with the precipitation 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 D011 wastewaters at the '
characteristic level of S.O mg/1 as
measured by the EP toxicity,
(b) Nonwastewaters. The Agency
proposed three options for treatment
standards for DOI1 nonwastewaters.
One option was based on the inherent
economic value of silver and the general
lack of treatment data for wast«s
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 F006 wastes to silver
non-wastewater (i.e. a numerical
treatment standard of 0.072 mg/1 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/l as
measured by the EP toxicity. The
Agency solicited 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 silver in many
D011 nonwastewaters can not be •
recovered because these wastes contain
silver sulfate complexes. IB addition,
many commenters stated that the
treatment standard of 0.072 mg/1 is not
achievable due to the diversity of the
DOll wastes. The Agency agrees with
the commenters that some of the DOll
wastes can not be recovered or be
treated to the treatment level. The
commenters did not provide any
treatment data for DOll
nonwastewaters but did provide
substantial technical arguments (based
on the chemical nature of wastes
classified as DOll nonwastewaters) that
recovery ianot an applicable technology
for all DOll nonwastewaters and that
the performance of stabilization for
DOll nonwastewaters may not achieve
similar treated concentrations of silver.
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating
the treatment standards for DOll
nonwastewaters at the characteristic
level of 5.0 mg/1 measured by the EP
toxicity.
(2) P099 and P104. The Agency Is
promulgating the wastewater treatment
standard for silver as proposed. The
Agency received no comments disputing
the technical feasibility of the transfer of
the Effluent Guidelines data to P099 and
P104 wastewaters. As a point of
clarification, the Agency is promulgating
a numerical treatment standard as
opposed to a method of treatment for
silver. Treatment standards for cyanides
contained in P099 and PI04
wastewaters, and cyanides as well as
silver in P099 and P104 nonwastewaters,
were promulgated in the Second Third
final rule on June 23,1989 (54 FE 28614).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D011
CWastewaters]
Regulated constituent
StK*)r ,, ,,,„ , ,.,. „„ ,„ ,,_.,
5.0
Maximum tor
any single
grab saniple
total
composition
'
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR DOt 1
[Nonwastewatarsl
RegJated constituent
Maximum for
any sing!*
grab sample
total
leachateby
TCLP (mg/I)
5.0
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS POO P099
AND P104
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Silver, .
0.29
Maximum for
any 24 hour
composite
sample total
(mg/1)
See also the promulgated standards
for cyanides in the Second Third Final
Rule.
j. Thallium
P113—Thallic oxide
PM4—Thallium (I) setenite
P115—Thallium (I) »ulfate
U21*—Thallium (I) acetate
U21S—Thallium (I) carbonate
U21&—Thallium (!) chloride
U217—Thallium (1) nitrate
In today's rule, the Agency is
promulgating nonwastewater and
wastewater treatment standards for
P113, P115, U214, U215, U216, 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 forPll4. thallium selenite,
expressed as recovery or stabilization
as a required method of treatment. A
thallium wastewater treatment standard
was also proposed, 0.14 mg/1. 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
HI.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 thallium nonwastewaters are
characterized as inorganic salts used as
research chemicals, or off-specification
or C'j! d^fd m*tBri
-------
OSWER D1R. NO.
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22577
The Agency received comments
addressing various issues related to
these wastes. One commenter pointed
out that there were discrepancies
between the proposed treatment
standards for 1,1,2-trichloroethane in
both waste water and nonwastewater
forms of F002. The discrepancies
occurred in the concentration-based
standards presented in the preamble,
and the regulation (see 54 ER 48461,
November 22,1989). A similar
discrepancy occurred in the wastewater
treatment standard for 2-nitropropane in
FOOS. EPA thanks the commenter for
pointing out these typographical errors.
The proposed BOAT Background
Document Amendment for F002 and
FOOS confirms that the concentration-
based standard for 2-nitropropane in
wastewater forms of F005 in the
preamble discussion was in error. The
concentration-based standards printed
in the regulatory tables for 1,1,2-
trichloroethane wastewaters and
non waste waters likewise were in error.
The preamble and the proposed
Background Document Amendment
presented the correct treatment
standards. The correct treatment
standards are being finalized in today's
rule,
(1) Revisions to (he Proposed Rule for
Wastewaters. Other commenters urged
the Agency to develop treatment
standards for wastewater forms of F002
and FOOS based on residues from
wastewater treatment technologies
rather than incineration scrubber
waters. Commenters felt that EPA has
several performance data from
wastewater treatment technologies
treating wastewaters containing the
same or similar constituents to F002 and
POOS, which EPA can use in order to
develop treatment standards.
Commentera emphasize that these
performance data better represent the
treatment of organic-containing
wastewaters rather than incineration
scrubber waters alone.
As stated in the Final Rule for Land
Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 26629) 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.
Conuaentere to the proposed First
Third, Second Third and Third Third
rules almost 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 apees with these comments,
and is promulgating concentration-
based treatment standards for 1,1,2-
trichloroethane 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 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
F002 and FOOS.
(2) Treatment Standards for 1,1,2-
Trichioraethane (F002) and Benzene
(FOOS). The treatment standards
promulgated today for organics in
wastewater forms of F002 and FOOS are
based on performance data 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 III.A.B.(3) of today's preamble
for a discussion of these performance
data.) Those treatment standards are
expressed as concentration levels for
1,1,2-trichloroethane (F002) and benzene
(FOOS).
The treatment standards promulgated
for organics in nonwastewater forms of
F002 and F005- are based on incineration.
These treatment standards are
expressed as concentration based
standards for 1,1,2-trichloroethane
(FOQ2) and benzene (FOOS).
Each treatment standard is based on
the treatment of another waste
containing the same or similar
constituents to the one of concern. EPA
believes that none of the constituents in
F002 and FOOS are likely to interfere with
the treatment of organics in F002 and
FOOS. As a result, EPA is transferring the
available performance data to these two
wastes.
(3) Treatment Standards Expressed as
Methods of Treatment for 2*
ethoxyethanol and 2-nltropropane.
Comments were received indicating
drastic detection iimits discrepancies in
nonwastewater forms that contain 2-
nitropropane. The proposed treatment
standards relied on pilot scale data from
the stripping of synthetic wastewaters
along with incineration performance
data for a waste containing a
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 thus, a concentration-
based treatment standard is not be a
viable regulatory option at this time.
(See section IIIJLS.b)
•Anotherproblematic constituent is 2-
ethoxyethanol. As with 2-nitropropane,
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 spiked 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 non wastewaters. EPA has
determined that the available
information is insufficient to promulgate
concentration-based treatment
standards for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of FOOS at this
time. As a result, EPA is withdrawing
the proposed concentration based
treatment standards for FOOS wastes
that contain 2-nitropropane and 2-
ethoxyethanol respectively (i.e.. F005
wastes that are listed due to the
presence of these constituents). EPA is
instead promulgating required methods
as the treatment standard.
EPA proposed incineration or steam
stripping followed by carbon adsorption
as methods of treatment for FOOS
wastewaters containing 2-nitropropane.
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-
nitropropane is likely to form an
azeotrope with water. Therefore, any
technology-based treatment standard
that specifies steam stripping for these
wastes must also specify (or at least
emphasize) operating conditions
capable of treating this type of
azeotrope (or prevent its generation). At
this time, EPA lacks sufficient
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
chemical oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption as well as wet air oxidation
followed by carbon adsorption represent
BOAT for FOOS wastes listed for 2-
nitropropane. This determination is
based on available performance data for
wastewaters containing organic
constituents that are as difficult to treat
as 2-nitropropane. EPA does not expect
any of the other constituents in FOOS
wastewaters to interfere with the
-------
22578 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. IQfl / Friday, June 1, 1990 /Rules and Regulations
treatment of 2-nitropropane when
treated by these technologies. As a
result, EPA is promulgating these two
treatment trains along with incineration
as technology-based treatment
standards for F005 wastewaters listed
for 2-nitropropane.
Based on the revisions to the
proposed treatment standards for F005
wastewaters containing 2-nitropropane,
EPA is also withdrawing its proposed
criteria for defining wastewaters in this
category of F005 wastewaters (i.e., less
than 4% TOG and less than 1% TSS.) The
definition of wastewaters and
nonwastewaters is thus consistent with
those established for all hazardous
wastes (i.e., as defined in section
268.2(a)(§) of today's rale but not
including the wastewater definitions
excluded in I 268.2{aJ(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 BOAT 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 FC05
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 254
subpart O or part 265 subpart O.
Residues from incineration are not
precluded from land disposal. However,
nonwastewater forms of FOGS resulting
from the required wastewater treatment
processes must comply with the
incineration treatment standards as a
pre-requisite for land disposal.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F002,
LISTED FOR 1,1,2-TRlCHLOROiTHANE
[Nonwastewatefs]
Regulated constituent
1,1,2-Trichloroethane..
Maximum
tor any
samola,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
7.8
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F002,
LISTED FOR I.I^-TRICHLQROETHANE
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
l,t,2-Trichloro«tham.__
Maximum for
any
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/Q
0.030
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F005,
LISTED FOR BENZENE
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene...
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample, '
total
eomoosition
(mg/kg)
3.7
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F005,
LISTED FOR BENZENE
[Wastewaters}
Regulated constituent
Maximum
for any
comoosita
sample,
total
composition
(irg/l)
0.070
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F005,
LISTED FOR S-NITROPROPANE OR 2-
ETHOXYETHANOL
[Nonwastewaters]
Incineration (INCIN) as a method of treatment *
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F005,
LISTED FOR Z-ETHOXYETHANOI.
CWastewatera]
Incineration (INCIN); or biodegradation (BiODQ) as
methods ot treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR FQOS,
LISTED FOR 2-NrraopROPANE
tWastewaters]
Incineration (INCIN); chemical oxidation (CHOXD)
followed by camon adsorption (CARBN); or wet air
oxidation (WETOX) followed by carbon adsorption
(CARBN) as methods of treatment
b. F006 and F019
In today's final rule, the Agency is
promulgating an amendment to Method
9012, used for analyzing wastes 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 23,1989 Second 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
26610-26615). 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.
Commenters suggested that the
Agency not amend the analytical
method and that the Agency conduct a
study that investigates improvements for
the analytical method for cyanides and
treatment of FOOB 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 F008, F007, F008,
and F009 nonwastewaters were 10
grams and one hour and fifteen minutes,
respectively (see RCEA Docket LDlO-
L0032, letter dated May 1,1989).
By promulgating these specifications
on sample size and distillation time, the
Agency believes that compliance with
the BOAT 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
rulemaking, a potential loophole in the
cyanide analytic method was brought to
EPA's attention. The Agency solicited
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22579
information from generators and treaters
as to the sample size and distillation
time used as standard operating
procedures. These facilities indicated
thai 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
achievabUity of the cyanide treatment
standard reflects the analytic procedure
being promulgated today.
(1) FOOS Wastewaters. Today's rule
promulgates wastewater treatment
standards for amenable and total
cyanides and metal constituents for FOOD
wastewaters as proposed.
(Nonwastewater standards for F008
metal constituents were promulgated in
the First Third final rule, and
nonwastewater standards for F006
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 cyanides, and
chromium reduction followed by
chemical precipitation using lime and
Bulfldes and sludge dewatering for the
^ metals. Detailed information on F006
* 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 Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for F008.
In addition, commenters believe that
the transfer of the treatment for K062
wastewaters to F006 wastewaters is
inappropriate. The Agency disagrees
with the conunenters and believes that
the transfer is technically feasible
because of the high concentration of
metals in K062 as compared to FOOO
wastewaters, making these wastes more
difficult to treat. Furthermore, in
determining today's promulgated
standards, the Agency also evaluated
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 FOOO
wastewaters and may result in
wastewater treatment standards that •
would be unachievable for actual F006
wastewaters. Thus, the Agency is not
promulgating F006 wastewater
treatment standards based on these
data.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR FOOS
tWastawston]
Regulated constituent
Cy3/iid95 fTofaf). . „ „.,...
Cyanides (Amenable)
Cadmium......... . ,„. ..,„.,„
Chromium. «, ...................
Lead -
Nickel ...„_.„ _„
Maximum lor
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/IJ
1.2
.86
1.6
.32
040
.44
(2) F019, Today's rule promulgates
treatment standards for amenable and
total cyanides and total chromium in
F019 wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
The treatment standards for the
amenable and total cyanides in the F019
wastewater and nonwastewaters are
based on the performance of alkaline
chlorination. The treatment standard for
the chromium in the F019 wastewater is
based on chromium reduction followed
by precipitation with lime and sulfide
and sludge dewatering. Treatment
standard for the chromium in the F019
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
FOO&-F009 {electroplating wastes) to
F019 wastes (that is the 590 mg/kg and
the 30 mg/kg for total and amenable
cyanides, respectively).
Based on a review of the comments,
the majority of the commenters
suggested that the Agency promulgate a *
standard based on the 590 mg/kg limit.
The commenters suggest that the
electroplating wastes are similar to the
F019 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 F006 through F009 indicate that
the influent iron concentrations, in some
cases, are similar to the F019 wastes
based on available waste
characterization data. Second, at the
time of the proposed 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 F019
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 of wet air
oxidation or any other technology used
to develop treatment standards for 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 F019
wastes.
In addition, the Agency is
promulgating a treatment standard for
amenable cyanides in F019
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
K062 wastewaters. The Agency believes
that this is a technically feasible
transfer due to the influent total
chromium concentration of 7000 ppm for
-------
22580 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1» 199O / Rules and Regulations
K062 is similar to the concentration of
chromium in F01.9 wastewaters.
The Agency is also pronmlgating
treatment standards for total chromium
in F019 nonwastewaters baaed on a
transfer of performance data from the
stabilization of FOOft wastes. The
Agescy believes that the transfer of tbe
performance- oi stabilization data from
F006 to F019 is technically feasible due
to tbe higher concentration of metals
within F006 wastes (i.e. up to 3000 ppm).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F019
CWastawttwsJ
R«goWerf corartoert
Maximum (or
anysmgla
Mat
Cyanides (total).——
Cyanides (amenafifel _
Chromum (total)—_
0.8ft
0,32
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOB F019
Regulated constituent
Chromiunt (total)-
Maximum
Mr any
•ing* grab
total
590
30
Msaimum
(Or any
snqlsqiab
sample.
C.F024
ro24—Process wastes. mcludinjj but net
limited to, distillation reaidiMt. heavy
ends, tars, and reactor dean-out wastes,
from the production of certain
chlorinated atiphabc hydrocarbons by
free radical catalyzed processes. These
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbon* an
those having carbon chain lengths
ranging from one to and including five.
with varying amount* aad positions of
chlorine substitution. (T^i» listing doe*
not include wastewaters, wastewater
treatment sludges, spent catalysts, and
wastes listed in 281.31 or 261.32.)
Wastes identified aa F024 are
generated primarily by facilities in the
organic chemicals manufacturing .
industry, specifically those engaged in
the production of chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons. Detailed technical
descriptions of the production processes
generating these wastes can be found in
the listing background document
prepared by EPA for this waste code
Today's rule amends the treatment
standards promulgated on June 23,
for F024 {54 FR 26815} by revising the
treatment standards to take account of
the presence of chlorinated
dibenzodioxins and rurans in some
nonwastewater and wastewaier forms
of FQ24, and still allow for proper
treatment of these wastes. Today's- rate
also promulgates the treatment
standards, proposed on November 22,
1909, for metal constituents in
nonwastewater forms of F024. BOAT
treatment standards for nonwastewater
metals are based on stabilization of
F024 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 is
promulgating treatment standards for
three, metal constituents, chromium,
lead, and nickel, in nonwastewater
forms of F024. The complete h'st 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
semitrolatile organic constituents in F024
nonwastewaters and volatile and
semrvolarile organic and metal
constituents in F02€ wastewaters were
promulgated on June 23,1989 (54 FR
26615) and are not being amended by
this rolemakuig unless specifically
stated.
Several commenters confirmed EPA's
inquiry in the Third Thirds proposed
rule (54 FR 48450) that some treatment
facilities that previously treated F024
are now refusing to do so because the
treatment standards for F024 include
standards for various chlorinate
dibenzo-dioxins and furans.
Commenters agreed that this is 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 commenters agreed that the
existence of a dioxin standard is the
basis for the refusal to treat. This has
resulted in a capacity shortage for
treatment of F024 wastes. Commenters
further stated that if the treatment
standards for, other organic constituents
in F024 were met they believed that the
treatment standards for the chlorinated
dibenzo-dioxins and furana would also
be met Two commenters suggested
specific constituents that may be used
as surrogates for the chlorinated
dibenzo-dioxins' and furans' treatment
standards.
The Agency may eiect not to regulate
every BOAT List constituent that to
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 In
selecting constituents for regulation, the
Agency considers, among other factors.
the relative difficulty involved in
treating each constituent by the
treatment technology identified as
BOAT. 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 characteristics 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
include a constituent's boiling point for
nonwaatewatet residuals and a
constituent's bond dissociation (BTJE)
for wastewater residuals. Constituent*
with higher boiling points and BDEs are
considered to be more difficult to treat
than those with lower boiling points ami
BDEs for nonwastewater aad
wastewater residuals, respectrvefy.
The Agency did not fee! the
surrogates suggested for the chlorinated
dibenzo-dioxins and fnrans in FDZ4
wastes by the two commenters were
appropriate because they were not more
difficult to treat than these constituents
(with boiling points ranging from 400 to
500 degrees Celsius and BDEs ranging
from 96O to 2,490 kcal/mote), and
therefore would net ensure adequate
treatment of the chlorinated dibenzo-
dioxins and furans. Also, the Agency
attempted on its own to develop
surrogates, but was unable to identify
an appropriate surrogate that was
present at treatable levels in all cf the
wastes containing die chlorinated
dibenzo-dioxin and furan 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 were promulgated for the
chlorinated dibenao-dioxins and furans
in FD24 (54 FR 26615) 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 dioxins and furans. Also, as
noted, the Agency is unable to select aa
-------
. iNU.
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 100 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22581
appropriate particular surrogate which
would ensure adequate treatment 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 lest 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 dJoxins 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 dioxins and 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 stated that the
proposed treatment standards for metal
constituents may preclude 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
nonwastewater 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 al1
concentration-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 26615). 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 28615) were set below
practical quantitation 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
wastewaters from the production of
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F024
[Nonwastewaters]
Incineration (INCIN) is « m«thod and me«t the
following standards
Regulated constituent
2-Chloro-t ,3-butadione ,
1 1 -DichtQfoethsns „,«. .... . .
1 2-Dichlofoethsfifl ..... ... .
1 .2-Dichloropropane
cis-l,3.0icbloropfepene,, ....... .....
lrifis-l ,3-0>chl0r0pf0pene
Bi$(2-ethylhexyl)phthali!«>
Hexachloroethane ~
Maximum (of
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(rng/kg)
028
0 ?8
0014
0014
0014
0014
0014
1 8
1 8
Regulated constituent
Chromium {total)
Lead
Nickel ,___ .. __
Maximum for
any single
grab sample
TCIP (mg/l)
0073
0021
0.088
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F024
twastwwtefsl
Regulated constituent
2-Chloro-i.3-butadieoa <
3-Chloropfopene __. _.„
1 , 1 -OtehloroeBiarw .
1 .2"0tehloroath«n* .„_., ..
1 ,2-OichloropfOpans
as- 1 ,3-Oichloropf opens „.
if ans-1 ,3-DJcnloropfopene ,.„.. .„.. ..
B«(2-«thyftW!(yl)pMhalat«
Hexactiiofoetharw .—.«._ —™......
Chromium (total) ~~~.«~— .«-™.™.._..
Nickel _. ,_
Maximum (or
any single
grab sample
tout
composition
(mg/Ng)
0.28
0.28
0,014
0014
0.014
0.014
0014
0.036
0.036
0.35
04?
d. F025 Waste
FOZS—Condensed light ends, spent filters and
Filter aids and spent deaiccant wastes
from the production of certain
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons by
free radical catalyzed processes. These
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons are
those having carbon chain lengths
ranging from one to and including Five
with varying amounts and positions of
chlorine substitution.
On December 11,1989, (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
-------
22582
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
chain lengths ranging from one to five
(EPA Hazardous Waste No, F025). The
listing of EPA Hazardous Waste No,
F025 becomefl effective on Jane 11,1890,
In anticipation of this listing, the Agency
proposed concentration-based treatment
standards for F025 wastes in the
November 22,1989 land disposal
restrictions proposal (54 FR 48450) for
third third wastes. The Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1384
(HSWA) require the Agsncy 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 inlo 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 ail wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of FC35 are
promulgatsd today based on the transfer
of performance data used in the
development of treatment standards for
specific U and P wastes thai are
constituents in the various F025
subcategories. (See sections IO.A.2,c.
and HI.A.2.d. for additional information).
Because no comments ware received on
the proposed regulation for any of the
specific constituents of F325
wnstewaters or nonwastewaters. Ihs
Agency assumes that generators and
trealers 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 F025 Wastes in the RCRA docket.
BDA.T TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F025
[Norrwastewaters]
[Uoht Ends SubcategoryJ
Regulated constituent
Chloroform . ...„«««.. „,.„_...._....
1 ,2-Diehtoroethane ._„ — ___»„_„,
1,1*Dichloroethylene V----,,T^V - . 1V,,V.-.T
Methyiefie ehiflririn - n T . , . . T: r- .
Carbon I9lrachlorida..__ _. — „ —
t,1 ,2-TricMloroc thane „__„__.___
Trichloroethylane ~*~— ..— — _,.._,.._
Vinyl r-hlftririft -_1r , r]. — „„_„
Maximum tor
any tingle
grab samplo,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
6.2
6.2
6-2
31
6.2
6.2
5,6
33
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F025
(Wastewaters]
[Light Ends Subcategory]
Maximum far
Regulated constituent
Chloroform— ..„«..».._... _.,
1,2-Diehloroethsna ,
1,1-DiehlOfoethylen*
Memytene chloride ,
1 ,1 ^-TrichtoTOtfianellZIZZZI!
Triehloroethytene — _— _
Vinyl chloride ,„....
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/D
0.04S
0.21
0.025
0.089
0.057
0.054
0.054
0.27
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F025
[Nonwastowstafsl
[Spent Filters/Aids and Desiccants Subcatogory]
Regulated consSluent
Methylane chloride ____ ,.._ ______ „.._
C*rbon tatrachlofide -------------- , —
1 .1 ,2-Trichlotoetrwne — , --------
TricWoroathytene ----------- ..... _
Vinyl eWorld* --------------------------
Hejcicfilorobenzene .__„.......„. .......
Haxsefiloroelhant
Maximum for
any sinoja
grab sampla,
total
composition
(mg'kg)
6.2
31
6.2
6-2
£.6
33
37
28
30
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR FQ25
Wsstewaiers]
(Spam FH;ors/AJds and Oesiccanis Sutcategory]
Regulated consliUjent
Reproducod from
b»« available eopt
Chloroform _ „ _ _.
Methytsne chloride
Carbon tetrashlQrfd6._
Maximum for
toy 24-hour
composite
sample, total
composition
(nvg/1)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
F025—Continued
CWsstowaters}
[Spent FJters/^jdx and Desiccants SubcatGgory]
Regulated constituent
1 .1 ,2-TitehIoroathane
Trichtor oattylerw
Vinyl chloride...... .._
HexacNorobutadierw
Hexach!oroelhan0 .._»..«. ,«,. .........
Maximum lor
any 2*-hour
eomposrl*
sample, total
composraofl
0.054
0.054
0.27
0055
0,055
0055
OCM6
0.089
O.OS7
e. K001 and U051
KOOl—Bottom sediment sludge from the
treatment of wastewaters from WOOL
preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol.
U051—Creosote
As noted in the November 22,1389
proposal (54 FR 40410], U051 wastes
differ from other U wastes in that the
waste is not defined by one chemical or
constituent, but by a group of chemicals
defined by the generic term of
"creosote". Creosote ia a derivative of
coal that contains a wide range of
constituents including cresols, phenols,
naphthalene, benz(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene, chrysene,
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene and
acenaphthalene. Today's rule
promulgates final treatment standards
for U051 (creosote) wastewaters and
nonwastewaters as proposed. The
regulated constituents are naphthalene,
pentachlorophenol, phenanthrene,
pyrene, toluene, xylenes and lead. The
treatment standards for the organic
constituents were established based on
the performance of incineration of KOOl
waste. Treatment standards for lead
were based on the transfer of
performance standards from the
stabilization of lead in KOOl
nonwastewaters and chemical
precipitation of lead in KOOl
wastewaters. Treatment standards for
KOOl waslewaters and aonwastewaters
were promulgated in the First Third final
rule on August C, 1988. Because no
comments were received on the
proposed regulation for any of the
specific constituents of U051, EPA
assumes that generators and treatcrs of
this waste agree with EPA's assessment
of the treatment of U051 wastes.
The Agency is also promulgating, as
proposed, revisions to the
concentration-based treatment
standards for KOOl organic* due to a
mathematical error that was mede in the
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22503
calculation of the original standards.
These revisions have been reflected in
the U051 standards. Additional
information on the revised standards
can be found in the Addendum to the
K001 and U051 Background Document.
As EPA noted in the November 22,
1939 proposal (54 FR 48410), if 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 contaminants as K001 wastes.
On the odier hand, when U051 is spilled
at a wood preserving site, then it could
contain the same contaminants, in
particular pentachiorophenol and lead,
as K001 wastes due to the high potential
for cross-contamination due to prior use
of pentachlorophencl at the site. Since
the Agency anticipates that most of the
U051 wastes come from spill residues at
v/ood preserving sites, 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 pentachiorophenol or where
the U051 is only anticipated to be
generated as an off-spec product (and
pentachiorophenol 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.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR KOQ1
AND U051
[Nonwastewatersl
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K001
AND U051
{Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Naphthalene - ..
Pentaehlonoprwnol — __ ___. —
Ph«nanthr«ns „ „_, — ,_,__.
Pyrafifl.— ....,.....-....~......~«~~~.~..~-.™...-..
Xyt«n«(s)..._. .
Lead
Maximum (or
any lingte
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
1.5
7.4
1.5
1.5
28
33
Maximum lor
«rry single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
051
Regulated constituent
Pyrene.... « ... ,
Xylene(s) -
Lead _ _
Maximum for
any singlo
grab sample,
total
composition
(mo/i)
0031
0.18
0031
0,028
0.026
0.032
0.037
f. K002, K003, K004, K005, K008, K007,
K008
K002—Wastewaier treatment sludge from the
production of chrome yellow and orange
pigments.
K003—Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of molybdate orange
pigments.
K004—Wastewater treatment sludge from Ihe
production of zinc yellow pigments.
KOOS—Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of chrome green pigments.
K008—Waatewater treatment sludge from the
production of chrome oxide green
pigments (anhydrous and hydra ted).
K007—Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of iron blue pigments.
K008—Oven residue from the production of
chrome oxide green pigments.
In today's rule, the Agency is
promulgating nonwsstewater and
wastewater treatment standards for
waste codes K002 through K008. BDAT
for metal constituents in K002, K003,
K004, KOOS, K006 (anhydrous), K007, and
KOC8 nor.wastewaters are based on the
performance of chemical precipitation,
sludge dewatering, and filtration. BDAT
for chromium in K006 (hydra ted) is
based on the performance of
stabilization for F006 wastes. BDAT for
cyanides in KOOS and KG07 wastewaters
is based on the performance of alkaline
chlorination. BDAT for metal
constituents in K002, KOOS, K004. KOOS,
K006, KG07, and KOOS are based on
chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation, and sludge dewatering.
For KOOS and K007 nonwastewaters, the
Agency is reserving the treatment
standard for amenable and total
cyanides. The Agency believes that
these wastes contain treatable
concentrations of cyanides. Because the
Agency did not propose treatment
standard for cyanides in these wastes.
in this rule the Agency is providing
notice that standards will be proposed
for restrictions in a future rulemaking.
Detailed technical descriptions of the
specific production processes generating
these wastes can be found in the
Background Document for Inorganic
Pigment Wastes.
(1) Nanwastcwaters. In the Second
Third Final Eule (53 FR 26594, June 23,
1989), EPA promulgated treatment
standards of "No Land Disposal Based
on No Generation" for KOOS and K007
wastes. In today's final rale, 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 First Third Final Rule, EPA also
promulgated a standard of "No Land
Disposal Based on No Generation" for
K004 and KOOS. EPA modified this
standard to apply only to certain newly
generated waste as part of the May 2,
1389, 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 received
information that the recycling operation
under consideration for these 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 KOOS, As a result,
EPA revoked the "No Land Disposal
Based on No Generation" standard in
the Second Third Final Rule (54 FR
26617) and is promulgating numerical
treatment standards for these wastes in
today's rule.
For the K002, KOOS, K004, KOOS, KOQ6
(anhydrous), K007, and KOOS
nonwastewaters, EPA is transferring the
performance of the treatment of
precipitation, sludge dewatering, and
filtration for K062 nonwastewaters to
these wasfos. The Agency believes that
these wastes are similar to K062
because the wastewaters from which
K062 sludge are derived are similar in
nature to the inorganic pigment
wastewaters (i.e., consisting of inorganic
constituents).
In the case of hydra ted KOC6
nonwastewaters, EPA is 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 FOOB than K006. The
Agency received supportive comments
on the transfer feasibility of F006 to
K006,
(2) Wastewaters. EPA is promulgating
treatment standards based on the
chrome pigment effluent guidelines for
-------
22584 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June'l. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
dischargss from this industrial category
regulated under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
(40 CFR 415.340). The final standards are
taken directly from the concentrations
as stated in the "Development
Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines. New Source Performance
Standards, and Prctreatment Standards
for the Inorganic Chemicals
Manufacturing Point Source Category,
June, 1982. These standards are based
on chromium conversion and lime
precipitation to remove metals.
For K005 end KOC7 wastes, the
Agency is promulgating treatment
standards for total cyanides. These
treatment standards are based on the
performance of alkaline chlorination for
pigment wastes. The Agency received
no comments disputing the technical
feasibility of the transfer from Effluent
Limitations Guidelines data to pigment
wastewaters. Although the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards
contain both 30 day and one day
numbers, the RCRA treatment standard
specifies only the one day standards.
Land disposal restrictions and
corresponding implementation and
enforcement procedures have been
based on either a grab or a composite
standard. Consistent with other BOAT
treatment standards, the Agency is
therefore promulgating only the one day
standards which were proposed. These
standards will provide appropriate
control of the waste prior to land
disposal without the need for a 30 day
monitoring.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K002, K003, K004, K005, K006 (ANHY-
DROUS), K007 AND K008
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
G vomium (ToUi'J - «
Lead _
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0.094
037
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K005
AND K007
[Nonwastewsters]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total) "
Lead
Cyanides (Total) -.
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
0094
037
Reserved
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K006
(KYDRATED)
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total)
Maximum tor
any single
grab sample.
TCLP (mg/l)
5.2
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K002, K003, K004. K006 (ANHYDROUS
AND HYDRATED), AND K008
[Wastswaters]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total) _ _..
Lead
29
3.4
Maximum lor
any
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K005, ANDK007
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (Total)...—.-.. ...........
Lead ,— ,,-,.,..,.,......,.i.ii...-n......
Cyanides (Total). .._..„„„__ _
Maximum lor
any
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
2.9
3.4
0.74
g. K011. K013 and K014
KOll—Bottom stream from the wastewater
stripper in the production of acrylonitrile.
K013—Bottom stream from acetonitrile
column in the production of acrylonitrile.
K014—Bottoms from the acetonitrile
purification column in the production of
acrylonitrile.
In the Second Third Final Rule, the
Agency promulgated treatment
standards for the KOll, K013. and K014
nonwastewaters (54 FR 20614, June 23,
1989). Treatment standards for the
nomvastewaters were based on the
performance of incineration. In addition,
the Agency proposed treatment
standards'for KOll, K013, and K014
wastewaters in the Second Third
proposed rule on January 11,1989 (54 FR
1056). Commenters on the proposed
wastewater standards indicated that
they were in the process of developing
wet air oxidation date for these
wastewaters.
Since the Agency concurred that wet
air oxidation was an applicable
technology for these wastes and since
the other data available to the Agency
for treatment of these wastewaters were
relatively incomplete, the Agency chose
not to promulgate the proposed
wastewater treatment standards at that
time. After the close of the comment
period, commenters submitted their
performance data for treatment of KOll,
K013, and K014 wastewaters using wet
air oxidation, which demonstrated
substantial reduction of waste toxicity
and mobility. As a result, the Agency is
promulgating treatment standards for
organics and total cyanides in KOll,
K013, and K014 wastewaters. Treatment
standards are based on the performance
of wet air oxidation for the organics and
cyanides.
Many commenters had questions on
the TOG cutoff level for KOll, KOI 3, and
K014 wastewaters. These commenters
suggested that because the TOC levels
in wastewaters fluctuate, the Agency
should develop a higher cutoff level. The
Agency agrees that the TOC levels in
wastewaters may fluctuate above the
level proposed and is accordingly
redefining the cutoff level for
wastewaters. Therefore, the Agency is
defining KOll, K013, and K014
wastewaters (as generated) as
containing less than 5 percent (%) Total
Organic Content (TOC) and less than 1%
Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The
Agency believes that the 5% cutoff level
is applicable based on the available
waste characterization data for KOll,
K013, and K014 wastes. As generated,
all of these wastes are liquid and .
contain primarily water, yet they
sporadically contain over 1% TOC (but
not more than 5%) and would have been
classified as nonwastewaters based on
the Agency's standard cut-off of 1%
TOC.
In addition, the technology of choice
for KOll, K013. and K014 liquids with
less than 5% TOC is wet air oxidation.
Since wet air oxidation is typically
designed to handle slightly higher than
5% TOC levels (10% TOC is cited in
guidance as a typical maximum level for
wet air oxidation, but wet air oxidation
systems are usually designed for lower
levels) the Agency determined that it is
an appropriate technology for these
wastes and that the TOC cut-off level
for KOll, K013, and K014 wasteweters
should be adjusted accordingly.
In addition, the Agency has received
comments indicating that the standard
for acrylonitrile is too low for these
wastes. Commenters requested that the
Agency reevaluate the calculation of the
treatment standard (i.e., the variability
factor) for this constituent. The Agency
does not agree with the commenters that
the acrylonitrile standard is
unachieveable. Based on the analysis of
the data, the concentration of
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22583
acrylonitrile in the treated waste was
below the detection limit. The BOAT
methodology states that when all of the
treated data for one constituent are at
the level of detection, then the Agency
believes that the data are normally
distributed. Therefore, the variability
factor is 2.8. The Agency calculates a
treatment standard by multiplying the
variability factor times the mean of the
treated wastes. Therefore, this analysis
Is within the BOAT methodology.
Furthermore, the Agency received no
additional treatment data during the
comment period for the proposed rule,
demonstrating that the standard for
acrylonitrile (based on actual treatment
performance data for these wastes) is
too low.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K011, K013, K014
[Wastewaters <5% TOC and <1% TSSJ
Regulated ccnsli!u«r,t
AcRton*tn!e , . .,.,
AcrySoniWIfl... ...,„......„ .......
Benzene .,™_., , ,._ ™..,™
Cyanides (Ictef)..... ..- _-...
MsxifTOMi tor
any sing le
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
38
19
006
0.02
21.
h. K015
KOIS—Still bottoms from the distillation of
benzyl chloride.
The Agency is today promulgating
final treatment standards for
noiiwaslewsler forms of JC015 as
proposed. The Agency is promulgating
treatment standards for five organic and
two metal constituents. Treatment
standards for the organic constituents
are based on a transfer of performance
data from the incineration of KQ19 and
K087 wastes.
The Agency is also promulgating
concentration-based treatment
standards for the metal constituents
nickel and chromium based on the
transfer of performance data from K048-
K052 waste. The Agency received
several comments regarding the nickel
standard for KQ15, The commenters
stated that the numerical standard for
nickel was extremely low and urged the
Agency to reconsider the proposed
standard. The treatment standard for
nickel was proposed based on a transfer
from K048-K052 wastes which were also
proposed as part of the November 22,
1989 notice. The Agency received as
part of the K048-K052 proposal,
additional data and information from
commenters that altered the proposed
treatment standard for nickel. See
section III.A.4.0. of today's preamble for
a complete discussion of the comments,
As a result of the change made to the
K048-KOS2 treatment standard for
nickel, the Agency has determined that
a modification to ths nickel treatment
standard for K015 is appropriate and is
therefore revising and promulgating the
modified standard in today's rule.
Further information on the developraent
of treatment standards can bo found fa
the Addendum to the Background
Document for K015 Wastes in the RCRA
docket.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K015
(Nonwastwaters]
(Revised From No Land Disposal!
Regulated constituent
Anthracene
Ber.zal cWofida _
Benzo (b/k) (luofanthena
Phananlhrena . ....„_.
Toluene „._.
Maximum lor
any single
erao sample,
total
composition
Snig/'sg)
3.4
6.2
3.4
3.4
6,0
Chromium (Total)..
Nickel
Maximum for
any single
Wfh sample,
7CLP (mg/l)
1.7
0.2
i. K017 and K073
KQ17—Heavy ends (still bottoms) from the
purification column in the production of
epichlorohydrin.
K073—Chlorinated hydrocarbon wnste from
the purification step of the diaphragm
cell process using graphite anodes in
chlorine production.
Today's rule promulgates final
treatment standards for K017 and K073
wastewatcrs end nonwastewafers. The
Agency noted in the November 22,1989
proposal (54 FR 48393) that treatment
standards for K017 and K073 wastes
were originally scheduled to be
promulgated as part of the First Third
nilemaking (i.e., they were to be
promulgated by August 8,1988). The
Agency did not however promulgate
standards for K017 or K073 by August 8,
1988, and as a result, land disposal of
these wastes were subject to the "soft
hammer" provisions of 40 CFR 288-fl,
until May 8.1990.
Concentration-based treatment
standards for nonwastewater forms of
K017 are being promulgated based on
the transfer of performance data from
incineration of nonwastewater forms of
F024 (wastes from the production of
chlorinated aliphatics such as
distillation residues, heavy ends, tars,
and reactor clean-out wastes) waste.
Concentration-based treatment
standards are also being promulgated
today for nonwastewater forms of K073
based on the transfer of performance
data from incineration of
nonwastewatsr forms of K019 (heavy
ends from the distillation of elhylene
dichloride in ethylene dichloride
production) waste. No comments were
specifically received on the proposed
regulation for K017 and K073 wastes,
however, the Agency did receive one
comment on the difficulties of analyzing
for specific BOAT list constituents in
incinerator ash. The reader is referred to
section IiI.A.5.(a.)(5.)(b.) of today's
preamble for a complete discussion of
this comment. As a result of this
comment, the Agency is revising the
nonwastewater standards for the
regulated constituents in K017 to reflect
these analytical concerns.
In the November 22,1989 notice, the
Agency proposed concentration-based
treatment standards for waste water
forms of K017 and K073 based on
incinerator scrubber water (F024 and
K019 scrubber water respectively). At
this time, the Agency also proposed two
sets of 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
scrubber water while the alternate set of
standards was based on a transfer of
treatment performance data for
wastewaters containing these
constituents from various data sources.
The reader is referred to the discussion
in section HI.A.S.(a.)(l.) of today's
preamble for additional information.
Commenters to the proposed rule for
First Third, Second Third and Third
Third wastes however, almost
unanimously supported the option of
promulgating wastewater treatment
standards based on the performance of
specific waslewater treatment rather
than incinerator scrubber water
constituent levels. Upon review of ull
available data and comments, the
Agency agrees with this comment 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 and K wastewaters.
-------
22588
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
the Agency believes that this is a logical
outgrowth of the notice and comment
process. As such, the Agency is today
modifying and promulgating the
wastewater standards for both KOI7 and
K073 wastewatsrs based on the
performance of wastewater treatment
Information on the technical
development of the constituent specific
treatment standards for these wastes
can be found in the K017 and K073
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
Technology (BDATj Background
Document for U and P Wastes and
Multi-Source Leachate (F039) Volume A:
Wasiewater Forms of Organic U and P
Wastes and Multi-Source Leachates
(F039) For Which There Are
Concentration-Based Treatment
Standards.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K017
CNonwastewmters]
Regulated constituent
1,2-Dichloropropane __
1 ,2.3-Trr.rrtoroproiMine
Bistt-cnkxoathyt) other
Maximum for
any single
grab sample.
total
composition
(mg/kg)
18
28
7.2
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K017
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Maxifnufn fof
any 24-hour
composite
sampie. total
composrtion
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,2.3-Trichloropropane
8is(2-chlofoethy!) ether !
0.85
0.85
0.033
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOB K073
[NonwastewatersJ
Regulated conatrtuent
Maximum tor
any single
grao sample.
total
composition
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22537
wastewater treatment standards by
constituent can bs found in the
background document entitled. Final
Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) Background
Document For U and P Wastes and
Multi-Source Leachates (F039) Volume
A: Wasiewatsr Forms of Organic U ar.d
P Wastes and Mulli-Dowce Leuchates
(F039) For Which Then Are
Concentration-Based Treatment
Standards.
PDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K021
CNonwastpwa'ars]
r>o land cfcpcsal]
Maximum for
any single
nrao s.vr.pla,
toal
composition
(mg/kg)
Carbon letrachlcride
Chloroform
8.2
6.2
M/urimum for
any single
grab sample.
TCLP (mg/l)
023
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K021
[Wastawaters]
Regulated constituent
Cnforoform..
Carbon telrachlorido «
Antjrnony H M« ...
Maximum for
any 24-hour
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
0.046
0057
0.60
k. K022, K025. K028, K035, and K083
KOZ2—Distillation bottom tars from the
production of phenol/acetone from
ciunenc.
KQ25—Distillation bottoms from the
production of nitrobenzene by the
nitration of benzene.
K02fi—Stripping still tails from the production
of methyl ethyl pyridinei.
K035—Wastewater treatment sludges
generated In the production of creosote.
k'083—Distillation bottoms from aniline
production.
EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for K022 (wastewatera only),
and all forme of K025, K028, K035, and
K083. Treatment standards promulgated
today for KC25 and K083, 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 13836 (Mny
2,1939].) A technical description of
these five wastes can be found in the
Listing Background Documents for each
waste.
(1) Revisions to the Standards for
\Vastewaters. EPA developed (he
proposed treatment standards based on
the transfer ofperformar.ee data from
wastes believed to be as difficult to
treat as K022, K025, K028, K035. and .
K0:)3. The proposed treatment standards
for boto wastewatcr and nonwastewatar
forms of these five wastes, if applicable,
were based on residues from
incineraiion. Several commc:iters urged
EFA to develop treatment standards for
the orgar.ics regelated in wastewaters
based on performance data resulting
from wastewater treatment
technologies. Specifically, ccmmenters
urged EPA to adopt the same
performance data used by EPA in
developing treatment standards for
multi-source leachate. Other
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 26629) 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 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
incinerator scrubber water constituent
levels. Upon review of all available data
and comments, the Agency agrees with
the commentera 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
wastewater treatment data as
alternatives for F and K wastewalers,
the Agency believes that this is a logical
outgrowth of the notice end comment
process. As such, the Agency is today
modifying the concentration-based
treatment standards for K022, K035, and
K083 wastewaters. However, EPA is
withdrawing the proposed
concentration-based treatment
standards for the K025 and K026
wastewaters, EPA is instead
promulgating technology-based
treatment standards.
(2) Treatment Standards for K022
Wastewaters. The concentration-bcscd
treatment standards promulgated today
for K022 are based en performance data
generated from one, or a combination of
two cr more of the following BDAT
technologies: biological treatment,
steam stripping, carbon adsorption,
liquid extraction, and others. (Sea
Soction III.A.6.(3) of today's preamble
for s discussion of these performance
data for multi-source leachate.)
Treatment standards promulgated for
metals (chromium and nickel) in
waste-.vaier forms of K022 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 K022 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 contains organics.
According to the commenter, this is
because K022 wastewaters are likely to
contain organics 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 K022 wastewaters. The
Agency stands by its rationale for
transferring performance data of metal
bearing wastewaters to K022
wastewaters.
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
organics 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
or^anics standards and then treated for
metals. All three of these technologies
have been demonstrated to treat similar
wastes containing both metals and
organics.
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
22588 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(3) Treatment standards for K035 and
K083. The concentration-based
treatment standards promulgated today
for K035 and KC83 wastewaters are
based on performance data 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 m.A.6.(3) of today's preamble
for a discussion of these performance
data for multi-source leachate.) The
treatment standard promulgated for
nickel in wastewater forms of K083 is
based on chemical precipitation
followed by vaccum filtration.
EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for organics in
nonwastewater forms of K035 and K083,
primarily as proposed. The treatment
standards are based on the incineration
of wastes believed to be as difficult to
treat as K035 and K083. In addition, EPA
does not believe that the constituents in
K035 and K033 are likely to interfere
with treatment to the extent of making
the promulgated treatment standards
unachieveable. The treatment standard
promulgated for nickel in
nonwastewater forms of K083 is based
on the stabilization of incineration 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 K083 waste. EPA has
identified other constituents for
regulation in K083 wastes that are as
difficult to treat At this time, EPA is
withdrawing cyclohexanone from the
list of regulated constituents in K083
nonwastewater. However, EPA is still
promulgating treatment standards for
cyclohexanone in K083 wastewaters.
Available performance data does not
indicate any difficulties La analyzing for
cyclohexanone in K083 wastewaters.
(4) Treatment Methods for K025 and
K026. For K025 and K026, EPA pointed
out its preference for promulgating a
method of treatment over a
concentration based standard for these
two wastes. This is because there is a
lack of characterization data for these
wastes which raises the uncertainty as
to whether regulation of a very few
known BOAT list constituents in these
two wastes will provide regulation of '
other BOAT list constituents that could
be in K025 and K026. The performance
data from the treatment of wastes
believed to be as difficult to treat as
K025 and K026 support that wastewater
and nonwastewater forms of these two
wastes can be treated to meet the
promulgated BOAT requirements.
As a result, EPA is promulgating
incineration for nonwastewater forms of
K025 and K026, and as an alternative for
the corresponding wastewater forms. In
addition, EPA is also promulgating
liquid-liquid extraction followed by
steam stripping followed by carbon
adsorption as the treatment standard for
K025 wastewaters.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K022
[Wastewaters]
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K026
[Wastewaters and Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Acetophenone »»««.__.....»«... «..._«.
PtlOOQl ,„„-,„.„..„-,„.-,-„„„„,„„,„-„,„-,-„„
Chromium (Total)..- «. ......
Nirknl. ,.'.„„.„„ ,..„.,„„..,„„
Regulated constituent
Tnlifarui
niphanyhuninji
Diprtenylnitrosamin0 .,
Maximum for
any single
grab safnpte,
total
composition
(mg/1)
0.010
0.039
0.35
0.47
Maximum for
any
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/1)
0.080
0.52
0.40
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K025
[Wastewaters]
Incineration
(INCIN); or
liquid-liquid
(LLEXT)
followed by
steam
(SSTRP)
foHowedby
carbon
adsorption
(CAHBN) as
methods of
treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR K025
[Nonwastewaters]
Incineration
(INCIN) as «
method of
treatment
Incineration
(INCIN) as a
method of
treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K035
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benz (a) anthracene
Chrysene _.._.....«..« ..
Fluoranthene »««....«....».
W^phttialoru. , ,
Phenanthrene... „_.„_„
Pyrene _.._.... _
c-Cresol... _. _.
Maximum (or
any
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/0
0.059
0.059
0.068
0.059
O.OS9
0.067
0.11
0.77
Regulated constituent
Phenol..
Maximum tor
any single
grab sample.
total
CQfnpo&rtiOfl
(mg/l)
0.039
The treatment standard for m,p-Cresols is ex-
pressed at the sum of the meta- and para-cresol
aomara because of the difficulties in distinguishing
the individual corners analytically.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOR K035
[Nonwastewaters]
negulated constituent
AranapMtutna
AnthrarMHi ,..
Ranr (a) anthrarana
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Plimrona
Indeno (1, 2, 3-cd) pyrene
Naphthalana
Purano
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
8.2
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22533
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K083
[Nonwaslewaters]
[Hevis9d Irom no land disposal]
Regulated constituent
Benzen*
Apiline „.„..,....„.......,..... ....................
Diphsnylamine/diphenytnrfrosamfne
Nitrobenzene «
Fheooi
Cyclohexanone.,
Nicks)..
Maximum
for any
singla
grab
sampis,
total
compos!-
lion (mg/
kg)
6.E
14
14
14
5.S
30
Maximum lof
any singla
grab sample.
TCLP (mg/l)
0.088
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K083
tWastewalers]
Maximum lor
any singla
Hegulalad constituent grab sample,
composition
(mg/I)
Phenol . . .
Cyctohexanone ..„ -.,_...
Ntcksl _
081
0039
0.38
047
Regulated constituent
Maximum tor
any
composite
sample, tola)
composition
(mg/l)
Benzene
Diphenyiamina
Diphenylnitrosamine
Nitrobenzene
0.14
0.52
0.40
0.068
1. X028, K029, K095 and K036 Wastes
K028—Spent catalyst From the
hydrochlorinstor reactor in the
production of 1,1,1 -trichloroelhane.
K029—Waste from the product steam stripper
In the production of l.l.t-trichloroethane.
KQ95—Distillation bottoms Irom the
production of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
K096—Heavy ends from the heavy ends
column from the production of 1,1,1-
trichloroe thane.
The Agency is promulgating final '
treatment standards for organics in
K029, K09S and K096 wastewaters based
on the transfer of treatment performance
data from wastewaters containing the
constituents of concern for K029, K095
and K096 wastes from various data
sources including: (1) The Office of
Water's Industrial Technology Division
(JTD) and National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) data
(including the Organic Chemicals,
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)
data base); (2) the Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory
(KWERL) database; (3) the Office of
Solid Wastes' BDAT 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 22,1S89 notice, the
Agency proposed treatment standards
for organica in K029, K095, and KC98
wastewaters based on the transfer of
performance data from rotary kiln
incineration of K019 (heavy ends from
the distillation of ethylene dichJoride in
ethylene dichloride production)
nonwastewaters. 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 22,1909 notice, the
Agency 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
scrubber waters while the alternate set
of standards was based on a transfer of
treatment performance data for
wastewatsrs containing these
constituents from the above mentioned
data sources. The reader is further
referred to the discussion in section
IILA,5.(a.)(l.) of today's preamble for
additional information.
As staled in the Final Rule for Land
Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 26629) 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
incinerator scrubber water
concentrations to develop wastewater
treatment standards.
Commenters to the proposed rale 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 thai 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 ar.a
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
K029, KC95, and K096 wastes.
The Agency is also revoking the
'reserved' status for metals in K029,
KC95 and K098 wastewaters. Existing
waste characterization data for
nonwastewaters indicates that these
three wastes are essentially all organic
and would not be expected to contain
any BDAT list metal constituents. No
comments were received disputing the
Agency's conclusion.
The Agency is also promulgating
treatment standards for metal
constituents in K028 nonwastewatars
based on the transfer of TCLP data from
stabilization of FQ24 (wastes from the
production of chlorinated aliphatics
such as distillation residues, heavy
ends, tars, and reactor clean-out)
wastes. As was stated in the November
22,1989 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 III.A.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.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K023
[Nonwas)8waten]
Regulated constituent
Chromium (to*^1) ,,-,.»,»
Land
Nickel
Maximum (Of
any single
grab sampls,
TCLP (mg/l)
0073
0021
0088
These standards do not replace the
standards for the organics in K028
nonwastewaters that were promulgated
with the Second Third wastes.
-------
22590 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K029
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Chloroform,..., _.. „..,_,—....
1,2-Oichloroethane .„„.„—....—~.—
1.1 -Dichloroethylene —,._.,.„„
1.1,1 -Ttieriiofostrtane
Vinyl chlonde................
Maximum for
any smote
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.046
0.21
0.025
0.054
0.27
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K095
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
1,1,1 ,2-TetrtcNoroethane — »
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetraehlofoethane _._„„___.
TetracMoroetwne —.-.. —
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloro8thane
TrichIoroetnene.~™_-_—.~ ____ ._
Hsxachtoroethane ._____....
Pentachloroethane .. ™«™«««««— «.
Maximum tor
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.057
0.057
0.056
0.054
0.054
0.055
0.055
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K096
[Wastewaters]
R&gulaisd constHuont
1,1,1.2-TetrecWoroeBwn* — .
1 .1 .2.2-Tetracf*xoe thane
Tetrachloroemene
1 ,1 .S-Trichloraeihane — „._
Trichloroethsne — ,m~,~,~~~.~~mn~.I.-.
1 ,3-DicRlofoo0n28fle ........................ .......
Pentachlaroetriane _.___„_._„ „_
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene™ . _._...
Maximum for
a ay single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.05?
0.057
0.056
0.054
0.054
0.036
0.055
0.055
m. K032, K033. K034. K041. K097, and
K098 Wastes.
KD32—Vvartewatar treatment sludge from the
production of chlordane.
KQ33—Wastewaler and scrub water from the
chlorination of cyclopentadicne in the
production of chlordane.
KQ34—Filter solids from filtration of
hexaehlorocyclopentadiene in the
production of chlordane.
KMi—Westewater treatment sludge from the
production of toxaphene.
KOS7—Vacuam stripper dtscfasrge from the
chlordane chlorinatcr in the production
of Chlordane.
KOSO—Untreated process wastewater from
the producUon of toxaphens.
The Agency is today promulgating
final treatment standards for
wastewater and nonwastewater forms
of K032, K033, K034, K041, K097 and
K098 wastes. The nonwastewater
treatment standards are based on
performance data from an EPA
incineration test bum that was
conducted in June 1939. (The reader is
referred to the November 22,1989
proposed rule for additional information
on the test bum (54 FR 483901).) No
comments were received on the
proposed standards for any of the
specific constituents of K032, K033,
K034, K041, K097 or K098
nonwastewaters. Therefore, EPA
assumes that generators of these wastes
agree with the Agency's assessment of
the tree lability of these wastes and their
individual constituents. Details on the
selection of regulated constituents and
the transfer of performance data for
these K wastes are provided in the
background document for these
halogenated pesticide wastes which can
be found in the RCRA docket.
In section Ill.A.l.(h.)(8.) of the
proposed rule for Third Third wastes (54
FR 48390 (November 22,1909)), the
Agency specifically proposed two
alternative sets of concentration-based
standards for the majority of the U and
P wastewatere 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
wastewatere from various data sources.
These alternative standards were
presented in section III.A.7, of the
proposed Third Third rule (54 FR 48487)
as treatment standards for wastewater
forms of multi-source leachate, but were
specifically identified as alternative
standards for U and P wastewaters.
As stated in the Final Rule for Land
Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
Wastes (34 FR 26629) and reiterated in
the proposed rule for Third Third
Wastes (54 FR 48380! when the Agency
has appropriate was'?:water 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. Commenters to the proposed
rules for, the First Third, Second Third
and Third Third Wastes almost
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 K032, K033, K034, K041, K097
and K098 wastewaters. While the '
Agency did not specifically identify the
standards based on wasiewater
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
wastewaters can be found in the
background document entitled, BDAT
Background Document for Wastewaters
containing BDAT list Constituents.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K032
INonwastewalers]
'
Regulated constituent
Hexaehkxocydopentadiene ........
Chlordaiw. _,„ ,. ™
HeptacMoe™.. _,,„ „„_„„ J
Heptachlor epoxide „.«„,«.«.„.«.»..«„«,..
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
tout
composition
(mfl/kg»
2.4
0.26
0.066
0.066
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K032
CWastewaters]
, Regulated constituent
Hexactihmcyciopefltaotefle _,
Chtordane.._. „„ _.___..___™
Hep tacttl or ...-«...«««,„„«,«,„... ..........
Heciaehlor epoxida .
Maximum tor
any 24-hour
eompostW
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
0.057
0.0033
0.0012
0.0 i 6
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K033
[ Nonwastewaters J
Regulated constituent
Hexachlorocyctopentadiene •
Maximum
tor any
single grab
sample,
total
(mg/kg)
2.4
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations '
22591
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K033
(Wastewatare]
Regulated constituent
Maximum
lor any 24-
hour
comoosjts
sample.
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.057
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K034
[Nonwastewatsrs]
Regulated cons&fudnt
HfjxachlorQcyclopentadtene ,
Ua/.imum
lor any
siff \". grab
iampW,
total
composition
(reg/kg!
2.4
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR KC34
IWastewatetsJ
Regulated constituent
Hsxachtorocyclopentadiene _
Maximum
lor any 24-
hour
composite
sample.
total
composition
0.057
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K041
(Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Toxapheiw '
lor any
singie grab
sample.
total
composition
(rng/kg)
2.6
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K041
[WaslawatefsJ
Regulated constituent
To»aph«n«
Maxfcmm for
any 24-hour
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/l)
0.0095
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K097
INonwzstewalersl .
Regulated constituent
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
toial
composition
(mg/kg)
2 4 -
0,26
0066
0066
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K097
[Wastewatefs]
Regufatad consliluant
Hexaehlofacyclopentadisnt
HaptscNor - »—
Heptcchior epoxid0 ..-. .......
Maximum for
anv 24-hour
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/lj
0.057
00033
0.0012
0.016
BOAT TREATM£f4T STANDARDS FOR K098
(NonwastawatersJ
Regulated constituent
Toxaphene..
Maximum
for sny
Single grab
sampw,
toial
comoosition
2.6
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K098
(Wastewaters)
Regulated eonsKuent
Toxapheno „,.. .......
Maximum
hx any 24-
hour
comoosrte
sa mole,
total
composition
jmg/l)
0.0095
n. K036 and K037
K036—Still bottoms from toluene reclamation
distillation in the production of
disulfoton
K037—Wastewatsr treatment sludges from
the production of disulfoton
Today's rule promulgates treatment
standards for the wastewater forma of
K037 and the nonwastewater forms of
K038 as proposed. Detailed technical
descriptions of the specific production
processes generating these wastes can
be found in the background document
for the listing of these wastes.
The Agency promulgated a treatment
standard of "No Land Disposal Based on
No Generation" for K036
nonwastewaters in the First Third final
rule on August 8.1938 (53 FR 31174,
August 17,1983). EPA amended this
standard on May 2,1989, to apply to
wastes generated from the process
described in the listing description and
disposed after August 17,1988 (54 FR
18836). In the November 22,1988
proposed rale for Third Third wastes,
the Agency proposed a transfer of
concentration-based standards from
K037 nonwastewaters (based on the
performance of incineration in the First
Third final rule) to other forms of K038
nonwastewsters, such as K036 spill
residues. The basis of this transfer is the
similarity of these two wastes, and the
fact that Disulfoton, the regulated
constituent in K03S, is a regulated
constituent in K037 as well.
The Agency promulgated
concentration-based treatment
standards for K037 wastewaters based
on incinerator scrubber water
concentration levels in the First Third
final rule. In the November 22,1989
proposed rale for Third Third wastes,
the Agency proposed to revise this
standard to be consistent with the other
organophosphoras pesticide
wastewaters, for which concentration-
based standards based on biological
treatment were promulgated in the
Second Third final rale on June 23,1989,
The Agency stated that the
performance achievable by incineration
and the performance of biological
treatment represent BOAT for
nonwastewater and wastewater forms,
respectively, of the organophosphorus
pesticides. Because the Agency received
no comments on this proposal, the
Agency is today promulgating
concentration-based treatment
standards for K036 nonwastewaters and
concentration-based treatment
standards for K037 wastewaters as
proposed. Therefore, the Agency is able
to promulgate concentration-based
treatment standards for: Disulfoton in
K038 nonwastewaters, and Disulfoton
and toluene in X037 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
-------
22592
Federal Register /Vol. 55. No. 106 /Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
standards, other treatment technologies
that can achieve these concentration-
based treatment standards are not
precluded 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 TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K036
tNonwaslewEters]
[Revised from no land disposal]
Regulated constituent
DisuffotoR.™,....™. ™™,.. „„
Maximum
tor any
single grab
sample.
total
composition
(mg/kg)
O.t
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K037
tWastswaters]
[Revised based on btotfBatmenl data)
Regulated constituent
Disulloton _ _
Toluant _.._., „ „_,.
Maximum
for any
single
composite
sample.
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.025
0.080
o, K042, K085, and K105 Wastes.
K042—Heavy ends or distillation residues
from the distillation of
tetrachlorobenzene in the production of
2,4,5-T.
K08S—Distillation of fractionation column
bottoms from the production of
chlorobenzenes.
Ki05—Separated aqueous stream from the
reactor product washing step in the
production of chlorobenzenes,
Tha Agency is today promulgating
final treatment standards for the
wastewater and nonwastewater forms
of KQ42, K08S and K105. The treatment
standards for nonwastewaters are
based on performance data from an EPA
incineration test bum 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.
In section III.A.l.(h)(8) 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 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
wastewaters from various data sources.
These alternative standards were
presented in section IILA.7. of the
proposed Third Third rule (54 FR 48467}
as treatment standards for wastewater
forms' of multi-source leachate, but were
specifically identified as alternative
standards for U and P wastewaters.
As stated in the Final Rule for Land
Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 26629) 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. Commenters to the proposed
rules for the First Third, Second Third
and Third Third Wastes almost
unanimously agreed 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 KG42, K085 and K105
wastewaters. More detailed information
on the technical development of the
constituent specific treatment standards
for wastewaters can be found In the
background document entitled, BDAT
Background Document for Wastewaters
containing BDAT list Constituents.
The Agency received several
comments on the proposed standards for
the PCB constituents in K085 waste.
These standards were listed for seven of
the common mixtures of PCBs known
originally by the trade name of Aroclor
(i.e., the proposed standards were listed
for Aroclor 1016.1221,1232.1242,1248,
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 TSGA 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 minimize threats to human health
and the environment. See S. Rept. No.
284,98th Cong, 1st Seas, 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
6640. Feb. 26,1990 explaining that
current uncertainties as to waste
toxicity and mobility warrant retention
of the BDAT approach.}
EPA noted in the November 22.1969
proposal (54 FR 48398), that untreated
K085 wastes contain a wide range of
PCB concentrations, however if KOB5
wastes exceed 50 ppm PCBs, they must
be incinerated in a TSCA permitted
facility (several of the commercial
facilities that are permitted for RCRA
wastes are also permitted for PCB-
contaminated 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 commenter stated that the
proposed PCB concentration-based
standard for K085 was inappropriately
low because the presence of
hexachlorobenzene or
pentachlorobenzene st their K085
treatment standard concentration levels
interferes with proper performance of
SW-S46 Method 8080'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 FR 48398) that
incineration virtually destroys
hexachlorobenzene and
pentachlorobenzene, as well as PCBs, so
their 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:
Consequently numerical treatment
standards for incineration based
numbers represent the lowest numbers
an analytical instrumentation system
can reliably report -ather than the
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22593
concentration of the constituent actually
present in the ash. EPA reiterates that
treatability variances are 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 IlLA.l.g).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K042
[Ncnwastewaturs]
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K085 K047—Pink/red water TNT operators.
Regulated constituent
1,2,4,5-TelracMorotenzene._ „
o-Dtefilorobenzen« _
p-Dchlorobenzerw <„...
Pentachlorobeniene
1,2,4-TrJchlorobenzene _
Maximum
lor any
Single grab
sarnpla,
total
composition
4.4
4.4
4,4
4.4
4.4
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K042
CWastewatersI
Regulated constituent
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzsne..
c-Oichlorobenzene
Penlachlorobenzene......
1,2,4-Trichtorobenzen8..
Maximum
lor any
tingle grab
sample,
lota)
composition
0.055
0.088
0.090
0.055
0.055
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K085
[Nonwaslewatersl
Regulated constituent
Chtorobenzene _
Q.DicMofObenzene ..... , . ,
rn-Dichlorobenzene .._„
p-QJchlofObenzene ,.......,„.,. „,„,..„. ,
1 2 4*TfiCnlofOfo6n2sne «....«
PentachJorcbenztnfl . —
Aroclor 1016 .
AroclOf 1 221
AroclOf 1232 -
Aroclor 1242..
Aroclor 1248 _
Aroclor 1254 .. .
/''Oclor 12SO ™ . —
Maximum
lor any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/ng}
' 44
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
44
4.4
4.4
0.92
0.92
0-92
0.92
0.92
1.8
1.8
CWastewatarsl
Regulated constituent
Benzene .... ...«
Chlorobanzene
o-D'Cfclorobcnzene .....„.„..,„.....„,
m-Oicfilorobenzene » .„„
Penlacnlofobenzene „.;. .........
Hexsciito'obenzene .......
Procter 1C1S _
Afoetor 122' „
Aroc'or 1232
Aroclor 1 242
AroclOf 1 248 . _
Aroclor 1 254 _.
Maximum
lor any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.14
O.OS7
0.088
0.036
0090
0055
0055
0.055
O.OE5
0.013
0014
0.013
0.01?
0013
0.014
0014
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K105
[NonwastewalefSl
Regulated constituent
Bonzene .. .
CMorObanzena „, ...
0-Dictitorob«nzen0 — _„ — „. „
p-D*chlorobenzenfl «.......™.
2,4,5-TBlrachlorophenol ™ — „
2,4.6-TQtracWc*Opft6noi .,..._..-...,„ ....
2-Cnlorophenol ... „.....,
Phenol _„ . .
Miudmum
(of any
single grab
samplt.
total
composition
(mg/kg)
• 44
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
: 4.4
4.4
4.4
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K105
[Wastewalers]
Regulated constituent
Bsitzene.,.., . „. .,.„,...
Chlorobeniene..... .........
o-Dichlorobenzene ..
p-Dichtofobenzsne .„ „ .
2,4,5-TricMofOphenol
2.4,6-Trichtorophanol .
2-Chtofoptienot ,.„ „ .. _,_„
Phenol , „,. „
Maximum lor
any singla
grab sample,
total
composition
. (mg/l)
0.14
0.057
0.088
0090
0.13
0.035
0.044
0039
p. K04-1, K045, K048, and K047
K044—Wastewatir treatment iludges from
the manufacturing and processing of
explosive].
K045—Spent carbon from the treatment of
waslewater containing explosives.
K046—Wastewater treatment sludges from
• the manufacturing, formulation and
loading of lead-based initiating
compounds.
Today's rule revokes the "No Land
Disposal Based on Reactivity" treatment
standard for K044, K045, and KSM7
wastes and promulgates as proposed a
treatment standard of "Deactivation".
The Agency is also promulgating a
nonwaotewater treatment standard for
lead in the K046 Reactive Subcatcgory
as proposed {also see 54 FR 26007-000.
June 23,1989), based on the transfer of
performance data from the stabilization
of K046 nonreactive wastes. This
treatment standard is based on the
performance of deactivation for the
reactive wastewalers followed by
alkaline precipitation, settling, and
filtration to form a nonreactive K043
nonwastewaler that is then stabilized
for lead.
The Agency received several
comments indicating that the BOAT for
the K046 Reactive Subcategory should
be deactivation followed by
stabilization as opposed to just
stabilization. The Agency agrees with
the commenters and is therefore revising
BOAT as deactivation followed by
stabilization. In addition, many
commenters had questions on the
definition of deactivation. To clarify this
point, the Agency is defining
deactivitation for K044, K045, K048 and
K047 wastes to be the process of
removing the characteristic of reactivity,
by tachnologles 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 K046 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 K0d2 wastes. The
K062 wastewaters are just as difficult to
treat as the K048 wastewaters, based on
the concentration of lead in K062 (up to
212 ppra) which is the same or higher
than that which has been found in K046
wastewaters (up to 200 ppm).
BOAT TREATMENT FOR K044, K045, K047
(Nonwastewaten and WasiewaOrs)
[Revised from no land disposal]
Deactivation (Oeact) as a method Ol treatment*
•See CFR 268.42 Table I lor a description ol this
method ol treatment.
-------
22594 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K046
REACTIVE AND NONREACTIVE SUBCATE-
GOBIES
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Lead .......,......_._..-.._.-._...........„ __...
Maximum
lor any
single
composite
sample,
total
composition
(mg/1)
0.037
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K046
REACTIVE SUBCATEQORY
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated eonstttueni
Lead „...._.-_.. __ _.. ..
Maximum
tor any
single
composite
sample.
TCtP (mg/l)
0.18
q. K048, K049, K050, K051, and K052
K(H8—Dissolved tir floatation (TJAF) float
from the petroleum refining industry.
K049—Slop oil emulsion solids from the
petroleum refining industry.
K05Q—Heal Exchanger bundle cleaning
sludge from the petroleum refining
industry.
KOSi—API separator sludge from the
petroleum refining industry.
K052—Tank bottoms (leaded) from the
petroleum refining industry.
Wastes identified as K048, K049. K050,
KOSI, and K052 are generated by
facilities in 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 is promulgating
revised treatment standards for the
organic and metal constituents in K04B-
K052 nonwastewaters and for cyanide in
K048-KQ52 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
wastnwaiers and cyanide in K04&-K052
nonwastewaters were promulgated on
August 8,1988 (53 FR 31159) and are not
amended by this rulemakir.g.
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
"EPAf's] * * * continuing authority to
reschedule wastes from one third of the
schedule to another." Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA, 869 F. 2d 1526 n.2
(D.C. Cir. 1989) [noting rescheduling of
the prohibition for multisouree 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 claims 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 whether
treatment standards could be achieved
using solvent extraction technology one
type of BDAT 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 Agenry has also determined that
there is inadequate treatment capacity
for generated K048-K052 wastes. (See
section III.B. below where the Agency is
granting a national capacity variance for
K048-K052 wastes). The revised
standards for organic and metal
constituents in KD4B-K052
nonwastewaters and for cyanide in
K048-K052 wastewaters and the
previously promulgated standards for
organic and metal constituents in K048-
K052 wastewaters and cyanide in K04S-
K052 nonwastewaters will become
effective on November 8.1990 at the
completion of a six month national
capacity variance being issued for K04B-
K052 as part of the Third Third role.
The treatment standard for cyanide in
wastewater forms of K048-K052 is
promulgated as proposed. Treatment
standards for organic and metal
constituents in K048-K052
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 KQ48-
K052 nonwastewaters. Treatment
performance data were received from
four commenters, BP America, Exxon,
Amoco, and API, for stabilization of
metal constituents in K048-K052
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
treatment performance data for CF
Systems' solvent extraction system from
four commenters: CF Systems, Exxon,
Shell, and API. These data were
obtained from solvent extraction
treatment tests of organic constituents in
K048-K052 nonwastcwaters 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 K04S-KQ52
nonwastewaters from three refineries.
Treatment performance data for
multicycle solvent extraction were
submitted by one commenter for
treatment of organic constituents in
K04B-K052 nonwastewaters from three
refineries. Also, treatment performance
data for BP America's filtration/solvent
extraction/stabilization process were
submitted by one commenter for
treatment of organic constituents in
K048-K052 nonwastewaters from one
refinery. The Agency also has limited
data submitted by Thermal Dynamics,
Inc. for treatment of organic constituents
in K048-KQ52 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 KQ4&-K052
rulemaking (53 FR 31159) lo delete the
treatment standards for arsenic and
selenium in nonwastewater forms of
K048-K052. Today's rule also revises the
treatment standard for nickel in
nonwastewater forms of K048-K052.
The majority of the stabilization data
submitted by industry could not be
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22595
considered in developing this
promulgated rulemaking for the
following reasons: (1) Data were not
provided for a majority of the regulated
constituents; (2) untreated waste data
were not provided, and, therefore, no
determination of substantial treatment
could be made; (3J 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-K052
nonwastewaters 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 higher
levels of nickel in 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 K048-K052
nonwastewaters. The Agency
acknowledges the error made in the
treatment standard calculation for
nickel, and agrees with the commenters
that marginal evidence of stabilization
treatment is shown in the EPA
generated data regarding arsenic and
selenium. In addition, none of the
industry data submitted show
substantial treatment for these two
constituents. Therefore, the Agency is
deleting treatment standards for arsenic
and selenium in K048-K052
nan waste waters. Further, to ensure that
the Agency is accounting for the
maximum variability in metals
concentrations in K048-K052 wastes, the
Agency is using the data sets submitted
by Exxon and BP America to revise the
treatment standard for nickeL Finally,
the treatment standard for chromium
remains as promulgated in the First
Third Rulemaking because "the data
submitted by Exxon and BP America, as
well as by Amoco, indicate that the
treatment standard is achievable for the
complete range of K048-KQ52 wastes
tested using stabilization treatment
(2) BDAT Treatment Standards for
Constituents. Today's rule
revises the treatment standards for all
sixteen regulated organic constituents in
K048-K052 nonwastewaters. In revising
these standards, the Agency considered
the treatment performance data
submitted by industry for the following
technologies: CF Systems' three-pass
solvent extraction, BP America's
multicycle solvent extraction, RCC's
solvent extraction, and TDI's 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, (6} adequate QA/
QC data were not provided.
The remaining data sets met the
Agency's screening criteria and were
used with Agency-generated data from
Amoco's fluidized bed incineration and
CF Systems' five-pass solvent extraction
treatment tests to calculate promulgated
treatment standards for organic
constituents in KO48-K052
nonwastewaters. These treatment
performance data are discussed in detail
in the amendment to the BDAT
background document for these wastes
located in the RCRA docket
Several commenters stated that the
data used by EPA to develop the
treatment standards do not reflect the
wide variability in refinery wastes, and
suggested that the Agency use data
submitted by the petroleum refining
industry to develop a larger database.for
calculation of treatment standards.
However, one commenter stated that the
Agency's current use of a variability
factor in treatment standard
calculations is sufficient, and additional
factors to account for waste feed
variability would bias the data.
The Agency has addressed the
commenters' concerns regarding waste
variability in calculating the revised
treatment standards for K046-K052
promulgated in today's rule. The data
sets that met the Agency's 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
concentration was then multiplied by a
variability factor of 2.8 {this variability
factor is used by Ihe Agency when
attempting to account for variability
with only one data point (see the BDAT
Methodology Background Document
located in the RCRA docket)) to
determine the treatment standard for
each constituent 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 commenters 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
K048-K052 nonwastewaters cannot be
considered BDAT because it is a pilot-
scale unit and, therefore, is not
"demonstrated."
The Agency reminds the commenters
that BDAT is technology-specific, not
process-specific. BDAT for K048-K052
nonwastewater organics is solvent
extraction and incineration, both of
which are demonstrated treatment
technologies for K048-K052 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 calculated 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(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate. (High treated
waste concentrations reported by RCC
for bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate were
apparently a result of laboratory
contamination.) However, the RCC data
were bench-scale and could not be
considered further since pilot- and full-
scale data were available to the Agency.
BP America's solvent extraction data,
which were used to promulgate
treatment standards for K048-KQ52
nonwastewater organics in the first third
rule, indicate that this technology can
meet all but four of the revised
treatment standards, those for
ethylbenxene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, as well as the new standards
-------
22596 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 /Rules and Regulations
for xylenes and naphthalene. Also,
limited data available from TDI's high
temperature thermal distillation unit
show that it can meet all of the BDAT
treatment standards and should be
considered an equivalent BDAT
tachnology to incineration and solvent
extraction.
Several commenters stated that BDAT
for refinery 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.
l"jih technologies can meet the revised
promulgated standards. Although the
r..iivent extraction data showed
somewhat higher treated waste
concentrations than the incineration
data, the organic constituent removal
efficiency for solvent extraction (98% on
average) is clos-j to that for available
incineration data (99.7% on average).
Additionally, solvent extraction
provides the benefit of recovering as
r'.uch as 385,000 barrels of oil per year
f.-rcvided all of the K048-K052 waste
generated per year is treated using
solvent extraction technologies versus
incineration technologies). This recovery
benefit can also be realized using high
temperature thermal distillation
technologies.
The Agency notes, however, that in
choosing to base treatment standards on
solvent extraction as weil as on
incineration, it has chosen a technology
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«, H.R. Rep. No. 198,98th Cong.
1st Sess. 31. In addition, solvent
extraction does perform substantial
treatment on these wastes. Thus, the
Agency believes its choice to be
consistent with the language of section
3G04(m) and also overall statutory goals
of encouraging material reuse and waste
minimization. See, e.g. RCRA section
10Q3(8J.
Several commenters stated that the
treatment standards for xylenes and
naphtalene in K048-K052
nonwastewatera, 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 to K04f*-K052
nonwastewaters should not be
promulgated because they are below the
practical quantitation limits (PQLs) for
these constituents. Another commenter
stated that none of the BDAT treatment
standards should be set below PQLs,
Ths Agency points out that none of
the K043-K052 nonwastewater organic
treatment standards are being
promulgated at levels below the PQLs
fur their respective constituents as listed
in SW-046 for low level soil, the most
similar matrix to incinerator ash and
solvent extraction residues of ths four
matrices for which PQLa are given. In
addition, the commenters should keep in
mind that the PQLs in SW-646 were
established to provide guidance for the
analysis of waste samples by
establishing minimum performance
criteria for analytical laboratories. The
PQLs listed in SW-648 do not
necessarily represent the lowest limits
of analytical performance achievable for
any given waste. The PQLs the
commenter refers to were obtained from
analyzing a non-KQ48-K052 incinerator
ash. The treatment standards for all
regulated organic constituents in K048-
K052 nonwastewaters are based on data
submitted by industry, and the Agency
believes that both solvent extraction
and incineration technologies can
reliably meet these standards on a
routine basis.
The Agency wishes to clarify that it
believes that combined treatment of the
K043-K052 wastes is appropriate and
does not constitute impermissible
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 K051 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 impermissible
dilution of the KOS1 wastes. In public
comments to the proposed treatment
standards for these wastes in the First
Third rulemaking, which comments were
referenced in comments to the proposal
in this proceeding, the petroleum
refining industry urged EPA to "consider
the biological treatment and metal
fixation that occurs hi a land treatment
facility, in tandem with other viable
treatment methods as means of meeting
the section 3004(m) treatment
requirements." Comments of American
Petroleum Institute (API), May 23,1988,
p. 44. Although land treatment is a type
of land disposal (see section 3004(k)),
the argument apparently is that in
assessing the level of pre-disposal
treatment to impose pursuant to section
3004(m), the postdiaposal treatment that .
occurs to 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-S p. 1621
(August 1988). EPA continues to believe
that the statute is unambiguous on this
point: All treatment necessary to meet
the section S004{m) standards must
occur before the waste is land disposed.
Put another way, ths 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" section
3004(m), or in no-migration units); see
a/so RCRA section 3004(m)(2)
(hazardous waste may be disposed of "if
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 discretion to interpret
these provisions (see Chevron l/.S^\,
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'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)(l)(A),
(e)(l)(A) and (g)(5)) before land disposal
occurs. Hazardous wastes also are to be
"manag(ed) * * * to an appropriate
manner in the first instance". Sections
3004 (d)(l)(B) (e)(l)(B), and (g) (5). The
most 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 reiving on the "long-
term uncertainties associated with land
disposal" to achieve the object of
section 3004(m): Substantial reductions
in waste toxicity and mobility so that
-------
USWJiR DiK. NO.
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22597
threats to human health and the
environment are minimized. This is not
a reasonable way to construe the land
disposal restriction provisions.
In addition, the reading urged by API
would amount, as a practical 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 ia 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 Ef"A to be the
very result that Congress legislated
against.2
The approach API urges is also at
odds with the DDAT 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 if those levels
were ever below de minimi's
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 6640 (Feb. 26,1990). The Agency thus
believes it far mere reasonable to go
forward with its existing interpretation
which does not undermine its approach
to establishing treatment standards,
(This approach was recently upheld as
consistent with the statute in Hazardous
Waste Treatment Council v. EPA. 886 F.
2d 355 [D.C. Cir. 1989).)
In short, EPA believes that it is
reasonable to read the statute to require
that ail pretreatment of prohibited
wastes occur before they are land
disposed. Further, the Agency has
determined tn today's rule the extent of
* In fact, the scheme being advocated appears to
resemble the original House version of (he Innd
disposal restriction provisions, which anlhorized the
Agency to evaluate different forms of land disposal
under different standards in determining which
wastes wen prohibited, and did not contain a im-
migration test or a mandatory prettestmenl
provision. See tecKon Sic) of H.R. 2H87. at reported
nt H.R. Rep. No. 198.98th Cong, lit SUM. 4-5 (1963).
This tcheme was not enacted, but rather was
replaced by the present statute.
EPA also finds API's position lo he unreHSonnblc
because it Ignores notion 3005(j)(ll1 which
specifically authorizes -land disposal in surface
impoundments of wastes not meeting the section
3004(m) prctrea'.menl standards provided that
certain conditions are met. EPA believes that this • •
provision indicates the! when Congress intended to
allow the land disposal of wastes not yet satisfying
the section 30O4(m) standards into land disposal
units not meeting the nomigration test, it said so
explicitly. There i* no iych prevision applicable to
dinnosal in 4end treatment units.
treatment thai satisfies the section
>3004(m) standard for the K048-052
wastes. Thus, this level of treatment is
required before the wastes can be land
disposed (unless disposal is into a no-
migration unit).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K043, K049, K050, K051 AND K052
IWastewatsrsI
,
Regulated constituent
Cyanides (total) ,. .
Maximum
lor any
single grab
sample,
total
composition
0028
REVISED BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR K048
INonwastewatersJ
Regulated constituent
Benzene.
Bis(2.ethylhexyl!phthaiate.,.,,
Crirysene, .... . „ ,
Di-n-butylphthalate
Ethylbenzene...... ,
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene. ..............
Phtmnl
Pyrena . ..„__
Xylerses (tots!) .... ._,.,..
Regulated constituent
Chromium (total) „ .....
Nickel _ _
Maximum tor
any single
grab samphi.
total
composition
(mg/kg)
14
12
7.3
15
3.6
14
42
34
36
36
14
22
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
1.7
0.20
REVISED BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR K049
CNonwastewatersl
Regulated constituent
Anthracene*. . ........ „ „.
8enzo(a)pyr*ie _
Bis(2-ethy!rtexyl)phthalale ... ...
Chrysens.... ^....«._..... .,.„
Ethylbenzene. . _. ....
Naphthalene . .—... ........
Phenanthrene— i ,„ t
Phenol . ,
Pyrena -,_.„„„.„_,„ „„„..„.„
Toluene.. ..... „
Xylerws (total) „.„
Maximum lor
any single
frao sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
28
14
12
•7,3
15
14
42
34
3.6
36
14
22
Regulated constituent
Chromium (total) _ „
Nickel „
1 7
020
Maximum fof
any single
?"aC sample,
CLP (mg/1)
REVISED BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR KQ50
[Nonwastewaters 3
Regulated constituent
Benzo
-------
22538 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
REVISED 3DAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR KC52
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene „ - .. .. —
Benzoiajpyrene
o~Cresol t -..
Naphthalene . * .
Phenol ^...i....
Xylenss (total) -. ,,,,1±,,.,,,
Regulated constituent
Chfomiu"! (total) .„......>.. ,
Nickel
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
14
12
6.2
6.2
14
42
34
3.6
14
22
Maximum tor
any single
grab sample,
TCLP (mg/l)
1.7
020
r. K060
K060—Ammonia still lime sludge from coking
operations.
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 K087
wastes, which are generated from the
same industry as K060 wastes (coking
industry) and have similar or higher
concentrations of K060.
In the November 22,1989, proposed
rule, the Agancy transferred the
performance of alkaline chlorination for
FOC7 through F009 wastewaters to the
cyanide constituent of K060
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
cyanides. Since that time, the Agency
has Devaluated the performance of
biological treatment for KC60
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 K060
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 performance of the technologies
for these wastes. Therefore, the Agency
is promulgating concentration-based
treatment standards for this waste as
proposed.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K060
[Revised from no land disposal]
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benzene ._._..»._»......
Benzo(a) pyrene ....._„..._. . „.„..„.
Narnthalefie. .......... ........-._ .___..
Phenol
Cyanides (Total) .. . ....... .-
Maximum tor
any 24-hour
composite
sample, total
composition
(mg/S)
0.17
0.035
0.028
0042
1.9
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K060
[Revised from no land disposal]
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Benrena ,„,,,-,.,,„„.„,,.,,.„„
Bl -
Cyflnirta* (Total)
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mq/KoJ
0.071
3.6
3.4
3.4
1.2
S.K061
K061—Emission co.-.trol dust/sludge from the
primary production si steel in electric
furnaces. .
In today's rule, the Agency is
promulgating wastewater treatment
standards for cadmium, chromium, and
nickel in K061 wastes as proposed. The
treatment standards are based on the
performance of chemical reduction.
followed by precipitation with sulfides
and lime, and sludge dewatering as was
set for K062 wastes. For lead, the
Agency is 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 K061
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 wastes, i.e.,
pH of wastewaters, influent lead
concentrations, and settling differences
between hydroxides (K062) and oxides
(X061). The Agency disagrees with the
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 K061 wastewaters.
These data indicated that K061
wastewaters contained higher
concentration of lead than are typically
found in K062 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 to develop a
numerical treatment standard for lead.
The calculation of the treatment
standard can be found in the Final
Addendum Background document for
K061 wastewaters.
EPA promulgated treatment standards
for nonwastewater forms of K061 as part
of the First Third final regulation on
August 8.1988. Two subcategories for
nonwastewater forms of K061 were
defined: the low zinc subcategory (less
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22599
than 15%) and the high zinc subcalegory
(greater than 15%). The treatment
standard for the low zinc subcalegory
was based on the performance of
stabilization. For the high zinc
subcategory, the final standard was "No
Land Disposal Based on High"
Temperature Metals Recovery as a
Method of Treatment" technology (53 FR
31221}. Due to a shortage in high
temperature metals recovery capacity,
the effective date of this treatment
standard was delayed until August,
1990. An interim numerical standard
based on performance of stabilization
technology is in force until that time.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
requested comments on the extension of
the existing, interim treatment standard
for another year. The Agency received
comments indicating that industry is in
the process of building recovery
processes, thus alleviating the Agency's
concern at proposal that an additional
extension of the interim stabilization
standard would reward dilatory conduct
in developing optimal treatment. The
Agency believes it appropriate to extend
the interim standard as an alternative to
high temperature recovery for one
additional year.
The Agency also proposed to amend
the existing treatment standard for high
zinc K061 wastes to be resmelting in a
high temperature metal recovery
furnace. EPA has decided not to amend -
the existing standard. The standard
itself is presently under review by a
panel'of the District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals [API v. EPA, No. 83-
1806) and the Agency is concerned that
the .change in the treatment standard it
proposed could confuse the matters at
issue in that case without resolving
them. The Agency therefore has decided
not to change the description of the
existing treatment standards for these
wastes. .
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR KOB1
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Cadmium „ ...'. ...„„
Lead _. - - -
Niexot ' „ „! ,. .
Maximum
for any
single grab
samole.
total
composition
(mg/1
1.61
0.32
0.51
0.44
t. KOB6 i ' ,.
KOB6—Solvent washes and sludges, caustic
washes and sludges, or water washes
and sludges from the cleaning of tubs
and equipment used in the formulation of
; ink from pigments, driers, soaps, and
stabilizers containing chromium and
lead.
Today's rule revokes most of the
treatment standards promulgated in the
First Third final rule (S3 FR 31168,
August 17,1986) for K086 (solvents-wash
subcategory). Today's rale, however,
keeps the previously promulgated
treatment standards for metals
regulated in K086.
In the proposed Third Third ruie, EPA
explained its determination not to
subcategorize K036 (beyond
subcategorization for wastewaters and
nonwastewaters). This determination
was based on the available
characterization data of K086 and on the
available treatment performance data
for wastes believed as difficult to treat
as K086. Commenters concurred and
supported EPA's determination for
regulating two forms of K088. The
Agency is thus adopting this proposed
approach in the final rule of K086
wastes.
The Agency proposed to revise most
of the existing treatment standards for '
organic constituents regulated in the
K088 solvent wash subcategory waste.
(The existing treatment standards were
promulgated in the First Third final rule
(see 53 FR 31220, August 17,1988)). Also,
the Agency proposed to expand the list
of regulated constituents in KQ86 to
include acetohenont, di-n-
butylphthalate, butylbenzylphthalate,
diethylphthalate, dimethylphthalate, di-
n-octylphthalate, and cyanide (total).
This list of additional organics is
adopted in today's rule. A3 noted in the
Third Third proposed rule and the
proposed BOAT Background Document
Addendum for K086, the proposed
revisions to the K086 treatment '
standards are consistent with the U and
P treatment standards development
protocol unless otherwise noticed. All
the proposed treatment standards for
K088 wastes were based on
incineration.
Commenters fully supported the
proposed revisions to the treatment
standards for K086. They point out that
the proposed standards for most of the
constituents are more representative of
K088 wastes. However, commenters also
urged the Agency to develop the
treatment standards for organics in K086
wastewaters based on performance data
from wastewater treatment technologies
rather-than on incineration scrubber
waters.
As stated in the Final Rule for Land
Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 26629) 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.
Commenters on the proposed First
Third, Second Third, and Third Third
rules almost 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 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 did not
specifically identify the standards 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 wastewater treatment
standards for K088,
The treatment standards promulgated
today for organics in wastewater forms
of K086, are based on performance data
generated from a combination of two or
more of the following BOAT
technologies: biological treatment,
steam stripping, carbon adsorption,
liquid extraction, and other. (See section
III.A.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
excluded 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 III.A.5.6.)
Cyclohexanone and methanol are two
of several organic constituents that were
proposed for regulation in KOS6 wastes.
Due to complications in analysis for
these two constituents in
nonwastewater treatment residues, EPA
is withdrawing cyclohexanone and
-------
22600 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, fane 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
methar.ol from the list of regulated
constituents for K088 nonwastewaters.
EPA identified other organic
constituents in K086 that are as difficult
to treat as cyclohexanone and methancl
and thus believe that by regulating these
other organic constituents,
cyclohexanone and methancl should
also be treated. However. EPA is still
promulgating revised treatment
standards for cyclohexanone and
methanol in wastewater forms of K086.
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 determined it is not
necessary to specify a method of
treatment or an indicator or surrogate
constituent for these two constituents in
nonwastewater forms of K086.
EPA is reaffirming the treatment
standards for chromium (total) and lead
for all forms of K086 wastes, as
explained below. Today's rule abolishes
KOB8 waste subcategories (beyond
waste waters 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 K08B, These standards are based on
the wastewater treatment residues
resulting from the hexavalent chromium
reduction to trivalent chromium
followed by chemical precipitation and
filtration of a wastewater believed
similar to K086 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 for all these
regulated constituents can be found in
the Final Addendum BOAT Background
Documents For K088.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K086
[Wastawatere]
Regulated constituent
Acflton*.u,...i.....,.....i i -.-.
AC£*QpfWflQTHI......,.™,,.» 1 - r mr »TT rT!T- n »
n-Butyf afcoNjf ...^w^...".......™- —
Cydohexanon* ___™ — __
1 J-DfCHfoffirjflfwwifl «.« TI
Mflthyt isobutyl hfltoo«,..,,™™,...,.-
Methyl efhyi ^e^fMi.. »..-.»« .....
Cyanides ^'s'alj »».i...«.........™... —
Maximum for
anysingie
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/l)
0-26
0.010
5.6
036
0.088
0.14
&2B
1.9
iDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K086—Continued
[Wastewstarsl
Maximum for
any single
Regulated constituent ^oST'"8'
composition
fih™*,™ fr«=,,
M»w1
Regulated constituent
Bis<2-eth>t)
0.32
0.03?
Masdmumlor
any
composte
samda, total
cornoositton
(mg/i)
0.28
0.017
0^0
0.047
O.OS7
0.017
0.34
0.057
*5.S
O.OS9
0.059
0.068
0.080
0.054
C.OS4
0.32
'Standard tor methanot is based on analysis of a
composite sample using SW-846 Method 8000.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K0«6
[Nonwastewatera]
Consmuent
n-Butyl alcohol..
1,2-OcWorobenzene—
DNvoutyl ptithalaw
Di-fvoctyl ptithaiata
Elhyi acetate.______
1 ethyl Ketone_
MethyMne cMorioe—
Naphtfialena
NKrobenzena___
1,1,1 -Trfchloroetharw .
Trichioroetriylene
Xytems (Total)..
Reguteled consntuent
Oirommm.
Lead __,
Majumumlor
any s;ng)e
gran sampto,
tout
composition
(mg/kg)
160
9.7
28
2.8
73
8.2
28
28
28
28
33
6.0
33
36
33
3.1
14
28
5.6
5.6
28
1.5
Manmumfor
any singte
grabsampto,
TCLP (mg/l)
0,094
0.37
5. Development of Treatment Standards
for UandP Wastewaters and
Nonwastewaters Excluding Metal Sa/ts
and Organometallics
Today's rule promulgates treatment
standards for wastewater and
nonwastewater forma of U and ? wastes
[as defined in 40 CFR 281.33{e) and (!}}
that are identical to treatment standards
for multi-source leachate identified as
F039 (see section IILA.1. for additional
discussion of treatment standards for
multi-source leechate). 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-
metallics are discussed in previous
sections of today's rule. (Note:
Treatment standards for additional U
and P wastes have already been
promulgated in 53 FR 31174 (August 17,
1988) and 54 FR 2B594 {June 23,1969)).
This section of the preamble also
includes a discussion of the promulgated
treatment standards for U and P wastes
that have been identified as potentially
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 solubility, when
developing these treatability groups. The
use of 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
-------
QSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22601
development of specific treatment
standards for these wastes can be found
in the background document for U and P
wastes. While the background
documents for these wastes in the
proposed rule were presented according
to trealability groups, only one
background document {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 Organics
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 {f]). 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 found in the proposed background
documents. The regulated constituents
for these wastes and the promulgated
treatment standards are presented in the
tables at the end of each section. See
also treatment standards for F039 in
section III.A.8. of today's rule.
{1} Wastewaters. As explained in
preamble section IU.A.1, the Agency is
adopting in this notice the definition of
wastewaters that was used to
promulgate treatment standards in the
Firat and Second Third final rules—that
is. wastewaters are those wastes
containing less than 1%TOC and less
than 1% TSS. See also the general
discussion of the waste water definition
in section III.A.l. of today's rule. More
detailed information on the wastes
covered by this section can be found in
the Final BDAT 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.
In the November 22, li89 proposed
rule for Third Third wastes, the Agency
proposed two alternative sets of
concentration-based standards for most
of these wastewaters. 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 alternate standards would be
available in time for proposal. The
alternate set of standards was based on
a transfer of performance data from
various sources including: (1) The Office
of Water's Industrial Technology
Division (ITD) and National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
data (specifically from the Organic
Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) database); (2} the
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory fHWERL) database; (3) the
Office of Solid Waste's BDAT data
(from previous land disposal restrictions
rules); and (4) additional wastewater
treatment data from literature articles
on wet air oxidation (WAO) and PACT.
These alternative wastewater treatment
standards were presented in section
III.A.7. of the proposed Third Third rule
as treatment standards for waste water
forms of multi-source leachate. When
the Agency has appropriate wastewater
treatment data from well-designed and
well-operated wastewater treatment
unils, it prefers to use these data rather
than scrubber water concentrations to
develop wastewater treatment
standards. (This does not, however,
preclude the Agency from establishing
treatment standards for other wastes
based on constituent concentrations in
incinerator scrubber waters.) Also,
commenters unanimously requested that
the U or P wastewater standards be
based on the performance of biological
treatment rather than incinerator
scrubber water constituent levels. For
these reasons, the Agency has chosen to
finalize 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 November 22,1989
proposed rule, the Agency also
conducted wastewater treatment tests
for selected U and P chemicals using
wet air oxidation, powdered activated
carbon treatment (PACT), and carbon
adsorption. In addition to these data, the
Agency received performance data on
the treatment of multi-source leachate
wastewaters just prior to proposal. The
results of these tests were not available
in time to analyze for the proposal, but
were placed in the administrative
docket to the proposed rule and noticed
for comment.
Most of the aforementioned data •
supported the achievability of EPA's
preferred proposed treatment standards
(the alternate set of standards). The
Agency reviewed all of these data
during the comment 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 constituent, whether the
treated stream was representative of
that U and P wastewater, and how
achievable the detection limit is in
similar or 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.
Commenters 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 treatera
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 oxidation/PACT study and (3) 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 wastewaters. Where proposed
standards were inconsistently large
because of poor data availability, the
Agency reviewed alternate sources of
data to develop standards that are more
consistent with similar constituents 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 IH.A.7. of the Third
Third proposed rule as treatment
standards for wastewater forms of
multi-source leachate are listed in a
table at the end of this section. This
table includes multi-source leachate
organic constituents 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, in the table at the end of
this section. For the majority of
constituents, the multi-source leachate
data supported the achievability of the
proposed standards. Some of the multi-
source leachate data were not used,
however, because they did not show
substantial treatment. Where multi-
source leachate data showed a proposed
standard could not be met, and
demonstrated substantial treatment
using a technology that could be
considered BDAT, those data were used
-------
22602 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
. Also, where a constituent had
an exceedingly large standard because
of lack of good data, multi-source
leachate data were used to develop a
more appropriate standard whenever
possible.
Constituents for which WAD/PACT
data were used to develop standards are
given the reference code (2), Revisions
Eased on WAO/PACT Data, in the table
at the end of this section. More
information on these data can be found
in the Onsite Engineering Report of Wet
Air Oxidation and PACT System
Treatability Study at Zimpre/Passavant,
March 19M, The Agency found that
WAO followed by PACT performed
better than WAO aione. 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
those data snowed substantial
treatment, they were used to develop
standards for constituents for which the
Agency does not have good biological
treatment data or multi-source leachate
data demonstrating substantial
treatment.
Constituents for which the Agency
reexamined the data that were used for
proposal are given the reference code
(3), Revisions Based on Review of
Existing Data, in the table at the end of
this section. The data sources and
transfer choices used 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 category 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
trea lability group, were revised based
on a transfer of treatment data from
ethyl ether. The standards for
methacrylonitrile and propanenitrile
(ethyl cyanide}, which were
inconsistently larger than other
constituents in their treatability group,
were revised based on a transfer of
treatment data for acrylonitrile. The
standard for 14,2-Trichloro-l,2£-
trifluoroethane was revised based on a
transfer of treatment data from
hexachloroethane. 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 scrubber water. However, it
should be noted that when the Agency
promulgates concentration-based
standards, the regulatad community may
use any method of treatment to achieve
these standards, so long as it does not
constitute land disposal or
impermissible 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 treatmsnt
standards based on an analysis of
composite samples rather than grab
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 ULA.1.
The Chemical Manufacturing
Association (CMA) calculated
wastewater treatment standards for
many constituents based on data
contained in the OCPSF database using
a modified BDAT Methodology, and
submitted these suggested limits to the
Agency for review. EPA did not use the
CMA standards, but did consider the
OCPSF data base, the analyses
conducted by EPA's Industrial
Technology Division, and the BDAT
methodology. EPA's analysis differs
from CMA'a 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 K009 and K010
wastewaters. In developing the BDAT
standards, the Agency examined data
beyond that contained in the OCPSF
data base. Thus, our selection of BDAT
sometimes involved the analysis of data
beyond that included in CMA's
suggested limits.
Finally, EPA is promulgating
treatment methods as standards for
several wastewater 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 nonwastewaters
applied to wastewaters as well. Section
HLAJ.a.(2), immediately following,
discusses these problems at length.
Consequently EPA is promulgating „
treatment methods as standards for
wastewater forms of the following U
and P wastes; P082, N-
nitrcsodimethylamine; U017, benzal
chloride; U073, 3,3'-dichloTobenzidine;
U074, cis-l,4-dichloro-2-butene; U091
3,3'-dimethoxybenziduie.
CONCENTRATION-BASED BDAT TREAT-
MENT STANDARDS FOB U AND P
WASTEWATERS
Waste
eoc»
UC02-.,
U003
UC04™,
U005™
U009...
U012...
U018...
U019_
U022~_.
U024.
U025.
U027.,
U029
U030..
U031-.
U036
U037,
U038.
U039
U043.
U044.
U04S.
U047.
U048.
UOSO.
UOS1
U052_.
U052
UOS7_
U060.
U061-
U061..
UQ61.
U066-
U06?_
U068_
U070_
U071__
U072™
U075._
U076
U077—
U078™
U079_
U080._.
U081«
U082._
U083._
U084-.
U084-,
Reau!ated orqarac
constituents
Acetone...__™__ _____
Acatoprtenone „.,
2-Acetylamir.ofiuar3ne.-~,
Acryionitrite .
AnHtr^ »___ . ™._«^
Benz!a)anthrac8rta
Senzena ____________
bo-i2-ChloRsetlx»iy}
methane.
bis-(2-CMoroethyq ether.,
b»-<2-Chloroe.
U-DibnxncXJ-
Dibiamometharw.
oOicMorabaiaana
m-Dicrilorobertzone
p-0tch(orobenzen«
DicMorodHluorometharw.,
1,1-Oich(oroethana.
tWM-ij-OicMoraethena.
MethytefHj ehkxxje.
1^-Dtchloropropane — ...
o»-U-OicWoropfopen« .
Ira n»- 1.3-
DictHoropropwi*.
•Total
mDosi'J
(KM/ 1)
0.28
0.17
0.013
0.053
0.31
O.C59
0.14
0.061
0.036
0.033
0.055
0.11
O.CSS
5.6
0.0(733
0.057
0.10
0.018
0.0i3
0.19
0.055
0.044
0.359
0.089
0.059
0.067
0.11
0.77
0.36
0.023
0.023
0.031
O.C31
0.0039
0,0033
0.05S
0.11
0.029
0.11
0.083
0.036
0.090
0.23
0.059
0.21
0.025
0.054
0.069
0.044
0,044
O.S5
0.03S
0.036
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22603
CONCENTRATION-BASED BOAT TREAT-
MENT STANDARDS FOR U AND
WASTEWATERS—Continued
Wast*
code
U093......
UtOI
U105
U106
UI08
U111 -
U112
U115
UI17._
U118
U120™.
U121
U127
U128
U129
U129
U129
U129
U130
U131
U13?
U138,
U140,
U141
U142 ,.
U152
U155..,,
U157
U150
U1S9..,.
U161
U162
UteS,__.,.
U168.
U169
U170
U172
U174
U179
U180
U181
U183
U185
U1B7
U188__
U1S2
U196
U203
U207
U208
U209
U21Q
U21I ....
U220
U22S
U228
U227
U228
U239
U240
U243
U247
P004
P020
PQ22
Regulated organic
constituents
P-
OimatfiylaminoazoMn.
zene.
2,4-D*methy1 phenol
2,4-DWtrotoluerw
2.6-DinttfOtoluene — '
1 ,4-Dioxane —
Di-n-propylnitrosoamine
Ethyl acetate
Elhylene oxide ...
Elhyt ethar , .,
Ettiyt methacrylar.0
Fiuoranlfifine .. «...
Trichlorornonofluorometn-
aoe.
Haxachloroboraene ..
Hexachtorobutadiene
aIpha-8HC
bata-BHC .
Oella-BHC
gamma-BHC .
Hexaehlorocyctopenta.
diene.
Hexacftloroethane.—..—...
IndsnoCI ,2 A-cjflpyrene —
lodometfiana
Isobutyf alcohol .
Isosafroto .... _..
Kepone ,
MethacrytoniWe __
Mathapyril Ana .... .
3-Methylchioanttvene
4,4-Mefr>ytene-bis-(2-
chloroaniline).
Methyl ethyl ketone ._
Malhyl isobutyt ketona —
Methyl methacrylate..._
Naphthalene™.. .._.„.,.,
2-Napnthylamine ___.„.
Nitrobenzene
4.Nitmp»m™)l
N'NUroso-dMi-butytamine ..
N-NHrosodiethytamtne .„„„
N-Nrtrosopiperidine
N-NitrosopyrroBdine .___
S-Nltro-o-totuidine
P»ntaehlorobenzen«__..
Pentacfiloronitrabenzene ...
Phenacettn . _
Phaml , .
^nrmmtfto l: .,.,.. . ,
Pyid'rw „,..,,„.._,,.,„,._,„„
Safrole „__»„___ _ . _
1.2,4,5-
Tetrachlorobsnzene.
1.1.1.2'TfttacMotMthww..
1 , 1 .Zi-Tetrachloroethane ..
Tetrachloroethene — _ —
Carbon tetrachloridt
Toluen* j . .L::: , i LJ i
Tribromomethane
(bfomoiorm).
1.1,1-Trichtoroethane
1,1,2-Trichtoroetharw
Trichforoatheoe — .
Xyleneoem«n«,
Tetrachiorodibenzo-p-dioxlns .„.„_..„„
1,1.1 .2-Tetracnloroe
-------
22604 Fedoral Register / Vol. 65, No. 10B / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
rtafarences tor !he basis of the revised standards
C'B as follows:
1—Revisions ire based on analysis of treatment
•iata previously submitted for mulu-source leachate
2—Revisions *re based on analysis of treatment
data from EPA'* WAO/PACT «Udy lor »eleclad U
«nd P eNMrtcals
3—Revisions are based on re-analysis o! existing
treatment data and comments
(2) Nanwaslewalers, EPA is
promulgating nonwastewater
concentration-based standards for the
majority of U and P wastes as proposed.
All promulgated concentration-based
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 bums 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, considering relative
availability, expense, and ease for
nonwastewater forms of all of these
organic U and P waste codes. EPA
decided to select a limited number of U
and P waste code compounds
(representing the various classifications
inherent to the structure of these
chemicals) for additional testing 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 treaiability of
each group of waste codes, based on
similarities in chemical structure i.e.,
presence of key functional groups,
elemental composition (including
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 bums were designed such
that the physical forms, concentrations,
and soil coolant of the feed would
represent the range of U and P wastes as
EPA anticipates they will be generated.
The treaiability test consisted of two 6-
hour burns consisting of 11 liquids and 7
solids. Clean Oil (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 Onsite
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
compounds—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. Tims, data from these incineration
tests assumed a critical rote in
developing concentration-based and
technology-based treatment standards
for nonwastewaters.
Detection limits represent the lowest
values of a contaminant that an
analytical measurement procedure 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-treotrnsnt
concentration and therefore calculates
concentration-based standards by
assuming that the detection limit
represents the lowest level to which
Incineration can lower a contaminant's
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 res! of this section. One source was
commentero' data, especially the
"Interlnboratory Ash Study"-discussed
in the following section. Another source
was an in-house study by EPA'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. Subsection
(1) of the following discussion of
comments presents a detailed
discussion of how EPA evaluated this
commenter's ash data. Subsection (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.
(B) Use of the Interiabcratory 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
concentration-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 BOAT list, in samples of incinerator
Rsh at levels near the concentration-
baaed 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 ash from a commercial
incineration facility.
These data also included six sets of
seven spike recoveries reported by the
six laboratories—42 recoveries in all for
each analyte. (Recoveries represent the
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22603
fraction of a known quantity of the
compound in question added to a
sample and then measured (i.e.,
recovered) in 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's detection levels feH within
an order of magnitude of EPA's
dataction levels. As a result, EPA did
not raise concentration-based standards
for thos3 analytes where the
commer.fer's detection limitn fell very
close to those EPA achieved.
Consequently, EPA made several sets
of changes between the proposed and
final standards following analysis of this
commenter's data. These changes
primarily occurred when EPA
reevaluated cases where the commenter
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
standards for many compounds, 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 from an EPA
revaluation of the use of recovery
factors in calculating concentration-
based standards. EPA had calculated
the proposed concentration-based
standards for halogenated aliphatics,
aroma tics and polynuclear aroma tics
using an average recovery factor of
several compounds. However,
concentration-based standards for 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 concentration-based
standards, EPA chose to recalculate
standards for halogenated aliphatics.
aromatics and polynuclear aroma tics
using a single compound recovery
factor. The following compounds were
affected:
1. Halogenated aliphatics: U044,
chloroform; U076,1,1-dichloroethane;
U077, l.2-dichloroethane; U078,1,1-
dichloroethylene; U079, trans-1,2-
dichloroethylene; UQ80, methylene
chloride: U083,1.2-dichloropropane;
U084, cis-l,3-dichloropropene; U084,
trans-l,3-dichloropropene; U131,
hexachloroethane; U208,1,1,1,2-
tetrachloroethane; U209,1,1,2.2-
tetrachloroethane; U210,
tetrachloroethylene; U211, carbon
tetrachloriderU228,1,1,1-
trichloroethane; U227,1,1,2-
trichloroethane; and U243,
hexachloropropene. The proposed
standard for U228, trichloroethylene had
been calculated using single-compound
recoveries and therefore did not need to
be recalculated.
2. Aromatics: U239, total xylenes. The
proposed standards for U010, 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-
acetylaminofiuorene; U018,
ber.zo(a)anthracene; U022,
benzo(a)pyrene; U050, chrysene; U063,
dibenzo{a,h)anthracene; U120,
fluoranthene; U137, indeno(l,2,3-
c,d)pyrene; U157, 2-
methylchlorolanthrene; U165,
naphthalene; U051, naphthalene,
pentachlorophenol, 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 decision not
to base concentration-based-standards
forU and P nonwastewaters on data
from three of the fourteen test bums and
to recalculate the concentration-based
standards with data from the other test
burns Involving matrices more similar to
U and P matrices. These burns
incinerated K011, K013 and K014,
acrylonitrile-cyanide wastes; K024,
phthalic anhydride wastes and K037
disulfoton (an organophosphate
pesticide) wastes. EPA's reason for
excluding these burns from the database
for U and P nonwsstewater is that each
of these waste matrices has a relatively
unique composition in terms of including
very few chemical compounds. By
contrast, the test burns EPA chose for
* the promulgated'standards, namely
those incinerating creosote wastes
(K001), ethyline dichloride wastes
(K019). and veterinary pharmaceutical
wastes (K102), all involved matrices
which are both difficult to treat and
difficult to analyze. The Background
Document for Organic U and P wastes
and Multisource Leachate, Volume C,
discusses the difference among these
waste matrices in more detail.
Nnnwastewater standards affected by
this decision are:
1. Halogenated pesticides and
chlorobenzenes: P060, Isodrin; and U142.
Kepono.
2. Miscellaneous halogenated
orgsnics: U045, chloromethane; U158.
4,4'-methylenebis (2-chloroaniiine) and
U07S, dichlorodifluoromethane.
" 3. Oxygenated organics: U159, methyl
ethyl ketone; U002, acetone: U108,1,4-
dioxane; U112, ethyl acetate; and U117,
Dthyl ether.
4. Organonitrogcns: U009,
aerylonitrile: U172, N-nitroso-di-n-
butylamine; U179, N-nitrosopiperidine;
U180, N-nitropyrrolidine; U1S1, 5-nitro-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
chloride reflects the choice of a different
and higher detection limit from the
ethylene chloride (K019) waste matrix.
EPA reevaluated its choice of
recovery values for P047,4,6-dinitro-o-
cresol: P048, 2,4-dinitrophenol; U004,
acetophenone; and U170,4-nitrophenol
to ensure consistency with the
methodology. Therefore the numerical
values have changed between proposal
and promulgation for these four
compounds.
(b) Changes from Concentration-
Based Standards to Methods of
Treatment as Standards. The rest of the
changes consisted of promulgating
standards expressed as methods of
treatment for U and P wastes for which,
the Agency had proposed concentration-
based standards. For POOS, acrolein;
U003, acetonitrile; U073, 3,3'-
dichlorobenzidine; U038,
chlorobenzilate; U168, 2-naphlhylamine;
U093, p-dimethylaminoazobenzene; and
U057, cyclohexanone, the data
submitted by a commenter representing
the hazardous waste treatment industry
reported such drastic detection limit
discrepancies or extreme recoveries that
EPA believes these analytes belong in
the category of those not amenable to
quantification. EPA notes that the
proposed wastewater standard for POOS,
acrolein, had been a concentration-
based standard while the
nonwastewater standard was a method
of treatment: promulgated standards for
both forms of P003, acrolein, are
methods of treatment.
For 2-chloro-l,3 butadiene, a
constituent of F039 leachate not
regulated as a U or P waste, the
commenter reported zero recoveries for
several sets of replicates and extremely
variable recoveries for another. Based
on EPA's own experience in quantifying
2-chloro-l,3 butadiene, the Agency is
promulgating a treatment method for 2-
chloro-1.3 butadiene rather than a
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
22606
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
concentration-based standard as
proposed.
For U017, benzal chloride, 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 with
SW-848 method 801S in a waste stream
from a remediation project, the
commenter did not characterize the
matrix or the treatment process well
enough for EPA to set numerical
treatment standards for UQ17, 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 benzal
chloride as a constituent of K015
nonwastewaters. EPA believes benzal
chloride can be quantified in K015
nonwastewaters 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 identification and also
that incineration has successfully
treated K015 nonwastewaters. However,
the composition of any U and P wastes
is, by the definition of these wastes,
extremely variable, and the benzal
chloride composition may very well fall
below the level of reliable
quantification.
EPA also changed several standards
in response to information in a recently
released EPA Office of Research and
Development (ORD) study, EPA/600/S4-
B3/OIO,""USEPA Method Study 38: SW-
846 Methods 8270/3510 GC/MS Method
for Semivolatile Organics: Capillary
Column Technique; Separatory Funnel
Liquid-Liquid Extraction". This study
evaluates the analytical methods most
commonly used to quantify semivolatile
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-benzoquinone;
U132, hexachlorophene; U168,1,4-
naphthoquinone; U167, l-nsphlhylamine;
P082, N-nitrosodimethylamine; U1B4,
pentachloroethane; and U201, resorcinol
plus the leachate components aramite,
benzenethiol, phthalic anhydride,
dibenzo(a,e)pyrene, tris (2,3-
dibromophosphate) and
dibenzo(a,i)pyrene.
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 analytes listed
above were so unrealistically high or
low that EPA has declined to
recommend the use of SW-848 methods
3510/8270 for quantifying these analytes
in ground-water monitoring at RCRA-
permitted facilities.
In promulgating the Third Third final
rule, EPA chose to incorporate this
recommendation about the severity of
the problems associated with SW-646
methods 3510/8270 and therefore move
these analytes into the category of those
compounds to be regulated with
technology-based standards. The reason
for this decision is that the study
documents significant problems with
GC/MS (gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry) which is the technique
used almost exclusively to quantify
organic compounds in all environmental
samples and is the basis not only of
SW-846 8270, but for most other SW-848
methods for organic analytesj which are
common to most methods used to
quantify these compounds.
EPA makes one exception, however,
in the case of P020 (Dinoseb), to its
decision to promulgate methods as
standards for those analytes
recommended for deletion from methods
3530 plus 8270 in this ORD study. Since
EPA has specific analytical data on the
incineration of Oinoseb and since the
data was of sufficient QA/QC, EPA is
promulgating the concentration-based
Dinoseb standards as proposed.
In reviewing its own data, EPA also
determined that inadequate
documentation exists demonstrating the
successful quantification of U074, cis-
and trans-l,4-dichloro-2-butene.-
Considering this together with the
problems in quantifying these
compounds as a pair because their
widely different boiling points
complicate their behavior in the GC/MS
apparatus, EPA is promulgating
incineration as a method rather than the
proposed concentration-based standard.
These decisions affect leachale
standards as follows:
1, All nonwastewater leachate
numbers will change as the
concentralion-based-standard for that U
or P waste constituent changes.
2. Compounds identified in the study
as problem analytes by Method 36 will
be dropped from the list of wastewater
and nonwastewater leachate
components, with the exception of P082,
N-nitrosodimethylamine, for which the
Agency has data indicating that it can
be successfully quantified in
wastewaters. Consequently EPA is
promulgating a concentralion-based-
standard for P082 wastewaters while
promulgating methods of treatment as
standards for P082 nonwastewatsrs.
3. Compounds, namely benzal chloride
and l,4-dichloro-2-butene, for which
EPA decided to promulgate methods as
standards rather than concentration-
based-standards as proposed will be
dropped from the list of leachate
components.
4. Compounds dropped because the
commenter's incinerator ash study
identified problems with quantifying
them in ash due to questionable
detection limits and recovery values will
be dropped from the list of leachate
nonwastewater components but will
remain on the list of leachate
wastewater components because the
analytical problems 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 Treatability 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 treatability group section
discussed how the chemistry of waste
codes compared to a compound
incinerated in one of EPA's fourteen test
bums. In addition, the proposal solicited
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 19SO / Rules and Regulations
22S07
comments on issues specific to that
treatability group as a whole (i.e.,
comments on SO, controls for the
Organosuifur Wastes), or pertinent to
individual members of that treatability
group (i.e.. information on possible
ir.echcds for bsnzs! chlari Js analysis in
thi; Miscellaneous Halogenatsd Organic
Wastes section).
Trsatability-group oriented
information describing how each
car.centraticn-based-standard for each
U and P wa'ite is presented in the
Background Document for Organic U
and P v>i?.'es sr;d Muliiscurce Leachate,
Veiune C. The 1'ollowiag discussion
address's was'e-specific comments, but
the n:-. .'.-r.-.s iscussior. contains this
pcsajaliid's primary explanation of those
promulgated standards which differ
from the proposed siandaris.
Furthermore, those F and K wastes
which were grouped with similar U and
P wastes are discussed elsewhere in this
preamble, in the section identified by
the F and K wastes.
The following paragraphs review
those tieatabiiity-group oriented issues
which generated significant comments,
especially those for which EPA
explicitly solicited comments in the
proposed rale. These paragraphs
summarize the comments and EPA's
response in order to provide the
regulated community with a coherent
picture of the issues evaluated in
developing the promulgated standards
rather than to be an exhaustive
summary of each decision made for
each U and P waste regulated in this
group. Such comprehensive summaries
appear in the Background Document for
Organic U and P wastes and
Maltisource Leachats, Volumes B and C;
these present in detail how EPA
developed the proposed itandards and
then modified them for promulgation in
response to information subsequently.
(A) Brominated Organics. In the
proposed rule, £?A solicited comment
on several process design and air
emissions control issues unique to
bromine incineration. Issues of
particular interest were operating
conditions needed to ensure adequata
bromine oxidation and the need for air
pollution control devices. EPA
particularly wanted information
indicating whether treateaat standards
promulgated in this rale should mandate
a maximum bromine concentration in
the feed to the incinerator and the use of
sir emissions control devices. The
Agency also solicited comment on the
appropriateness cf biodegradaticn as
BOAT for PC17, bromoacetcce.
EPA received no substantive
comments en the proposed bromine
standards. Specifically, commenters did
not provide the process design or
emissions control information EPA
solicited in light of bromine's unique
corrosivs properties.
Therefore, EPA is promulgating the
nonwastewater standards as proposed
to the absence of specific comsrents.
EPA continues to believe that
combustion of these wastes couid poss
risks from air emissions at particular
facilities. Ths Agency, however, is
unable to resolve these concerns at this
time. Since any prat-Ism B -likely to be
site-specific, EPA believes, given our
ciirrsrst limitations, thai the best way to
evaluate and control potaatisi! problems
with objectionable air emissions from
burning bronniaated wastes is a psrniit-
by-perrait approach through tae use of
the omnibus permit authority in section
3005(c)(3).
(B) Aroma tics and Other
Hydrocarbons. The only comments
received dealt with fuel substitution as
an alternate treatment method for those
wastes in this group which are not
amenable to quantification.
(C} Oxygenated Organics. In the
proposed rale, tha Agency solicited
comments on three sets of issues
involving analytical methods: (1)
CilBculties the regulated community
may have experienced analyzing U031,
n-butanoU U112. ethyl acetate; and U117,
ethyl ether using methods the Agency
only recently authorized; (2) analytical
data characterizing attempts to quantify
POOS, acrolein, since the Agency
questioned the acrolein data generated
in the fourteen EPA test burns; and (3)
data characterizing attempts to quantify
methanol in waste matrices, particularly
with SW-346 methods. (See 54 FR 48413,
November 22.1989.J
The Agsncy received no substantive
information in response to these
requests. Although one commenter
submitted analytical data showing that
the commenter's system had treated
U154, in the commenter's waste stream
to low levels, this data could not support
a numerical standard fcr 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 U154 wastes the regulated community
mast manage. More importantly, the
commenter's data did not address the
analytical difficulties encountered in
quantifying methanol.
Another commenter challenged the
Agency's decision to set a treatment
method as a standard for U154 rathsr
than to transfer the Solvents Ruie
methanol number, pronulgated in
November 1S86, to U1S4. EPA believes
that the analytical difficulties associated
with quantifying msthanol in U and P
matrices are significantly more savere
than those associated with quantifying
methane! in a TCLP extract, as is the
basis of the F001-F005 Solvents Ruie
msthanol standards. Therefore. EPA
chose incineration and oxidation ES
methods for methanol in U and P wastes
to ensure methsnol destruction.
Parenthetically, EPA notes that S3 FR
31164 (August 17,1988] explains how
EPA developed the Solvents Rule FCOl-
FOGS standards.
^ (D) Organo-Nitrogen Compounds. In
designating incineration as Ssst
Demonstrated Available Tachnclocv for
orcanoniircgen wastes, EPA considered
defining "EDAT incineration" far
organonitrogens as including process
controls to minimize No, emissions.
The proposed rule solicited comment
on several air-emission-related technical
problems and regulatory issues
anticipated to complicate the
incineration of orgsnonitrogen wastes
(see 54 FR 48417, November 22.1999).
The issues all arise from the corrosive
behavior of oxidized nitrogen
compounds. EPA specifically solicited
comments on three aspects of
incinerating organonitrogen wastes: (1)
Information on incinerator feed stream
concentrations of nitrogen 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
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 sentence of section 3CC5)
for units burning these wastes, or
alternatively, to prohibit burning these
wastes in combustion units without
appropriate air pollution controls.
Several commenters urged the Agency
to leave responsibility for air quality at
hazardous waste treatment facilities to
the RCP.A permitting process under 40
CFR parts 264 and 270 ar.d consequently
not to include air emission controls in
the land disposal restriction regulations
as part of the definition of the treatment
system. EPA received limited data
characterising NO, generation at several
RCRA-peraiitting test bums incinerating
several organonitrogen wastes plus a
narrative description of emissions
control systems at one of these
incinerators. These data showed ic-.v
NO, emissions. However, this
information was not detailed enough in
terms of specifying process design and
operation parameter values for the
Agency to use in defining BOAT as
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
Z26G8 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Incineration plus specified emissions
controls for all facilities disposing of
organonitrogen wastes.
The RCRA permitting procedure
requires Regional or State approval of
the entire incinerator system, including
process feed as well as air emission
control units. Additionally, NO,
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 dsta to dictate realistic NO,
control system design. EPA agrees with
the commeaters and chooses not to
mandate sir 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
facilities burning 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
intends to provide guidance to permit
writars with respect to facilities burning
these wastes.
(EJ Organosulfur Wastes. The Agency
is promulgating treatment methods as
standards for all eighteen organosulfur
waste codes as proposed: incineration
for organosulfur nonwastewaters, and
incineration alone or wet air/chemical
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption for organosulfur
wastewaters.
Just as for NO* emission with the
Organonitrogens category, EPA
considered defining "BOAT
incineration" for organosulfur as
including process controls to minimize
SOX 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 22.1989). The
issues all arise from the corrosive
behavior of oxidized sulfur compounds.
some of which are regulated under the
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 organosulfur 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's New Source Review, and (3)
comments on whether to invoke the
omnibus permitting requirements of
RCRA (final sentence of section
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 and NO*
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 284 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 SOX
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*
emissions are specifically 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 SOX 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 bum 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
crganosulfur 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 tha individual U and P
organosulfur compounds nor does it
differentiate regulated from unregulated
organosuifur compounds; the
commenter'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 comes
from nontoxic and unregulated
organosulfur compounds in the waste
stream. Furthermore, the commenter's
suggested method, chemical oxidation,
is already the treatment method
mandated as a standard for
organosulfur wastewaters.
(F) Miscellaneous Organic
Halogenated Wastes. As it did for
Organonitrogen Wastes and
Organosulfur Wastes. EPA requested
comments on the need for controlling
sulfur dioxide emissions in the course of
incinerating P02B, 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 3005(c)(3) omnibus
permits authority.
CHANGES m CONCENTRATION-BASED STANDARDS FOR U, P, AND F039 NONWASTEWATERS
Code
P047. ~,
P04?
P060 _ ,
U002
U004
UOOS—
UC09
UQ18™. ,
(JO?? „ ,
U043.
Constituent
i^P(n«r5KM?"WW'-,.,,.m,-T, ,,rrrml „„.„.„ 1 ,- --,„-,„ „,,„,„ ,,,, 11 11111IJ1NI „..,,....„„!„--,,,„„, „
? 44>initrophwiol i m.™,,,™,,, „.,,,,„ , , t t ,, ,, ,,,,,,,,
Imdrin ......... - ,,,,• ,.,».„„ ,.„,., „,,„.„„„.,
ACfiTOfift .....l.l......l.«»»»...«.tMll I,1,,1,.M. J.1L1.11 , „.„,„„.»,»,„„»„,„,,
ACfllOP^flnOfW ___! ^ 1 L 1 1 llLllll.l,,, , „,,, 1 . l.J 1..1. 11.1,. Ju .1 — „...........».«.«.«.»«,«», »„..!
2-AeefylaintfKrflunMpff .„...,.,„„,.., ,,,i, „„,,„-,,--„ i ,, , 4,,, ,„„.,,„,.,,-,- , ,,
A^fyfO^ilT^ »»,».!»». .»,„..,. ....T.tT.J.t. .. '..I.- t !,,-!» t t ,,,...nrr,r,--, r- n. .,.,,,«1,.Ilo,1. „„„,,,,,,, , rTTt.T rn... I ......... . .
Bsfiz (a) nottvacflw ........................... ......,..,u ;J i i.n.. i...i. n.....,,,.,,,.,.!,,..,.,*™,.. ,«...»,...-, ,.,.,....».», -- --- ..
Befizo (a) pyrfifW.— * - m«L. i ....» — - mi, n.™.,.-,..™.™,. ,,»„.», „„„... , .„ . „. n
Viry rhi
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 10ft / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22523
CHANGES IN CONCENTRATION-BASED STANDARDS FOR U, P, AND F039 NONWASTEWATERS— Continued
Code
U044
U04S.
U050
U051 _.
U051
U051
U051
U051
U063
U075
U076
U077_
U078
UU73._
UOSO
UC83
ir.34...,,
U084
U108
U112
Constituent
CM-wfem
Chteromethane
Chtysare
Naphthalene ...
trans- 1.i-CieKorostr.yiet:e _
G.tM aceiaie
UI17 . . . P!nvtnr*-«r
U120.
U131.._
U 137. ..,...._..
U142
U155
U157
U158_.
U159
U165
U170
U172 .......
U179
U180.
IJ1P1
U208
U209 ._......
U210 ,.
U21 1 ....
U226 .
U227
IfSS
U243
F030
F039
F039
F039 ..
F039
FG3S. „_.
F039 .
F039-...
F039
F039
F039 _
F033
P339 _.
F039
F039
F039
F039 ._
F033._ _.
FO39
FkHxaniPera
H«xacNof"="'-,aTO
indeno (1 2 3-c c8CrtW»
Kspofro
-
:.. . -—• - — i
•
Metrg-.jritn^
3-Me:nytcfloiaMpr»«e
totofSffiZ^'****
r'iinp)
Nspnthataoo
M.Mitro^vpmtfijJtf^
f*|.^4j{r0i£d^rFr0!j^fnffl ...t_ n _, .,. .., . , ,
•vJUitrixviOt'wfltffl
Tstrac^loroetliy'aoo
1 1 ?.TricWnro<>lt«4raj
Xylano^ (*<7»fM)
y^nyt f yiff-iipp
Panthinn
phfli'jW
&.-anstrftt*»r*
tratatuf^ti^
ponjo 1 benzyl phttiaiare ...
Chio*ofiitj>unuiiTtgt*^f.0 «....
Fluoref*e «...«»._...
oiSMjx ip 4^-TP)
?45-'
Cyanide's (total)
Ar*«r,if
f?^(Him
("f>»f*yn;um , „„,„„„„„.,„„„„„„„„. ,..-.. -
Revised I Proposed
(mg/k?) I (ir.g/nnj
5.S
33
8.2
3.1
7.4
3.1
&,2
28
3.2
7.2
7.2
72
33
33
33
18
13
18
173
33
ISO
8.2
Si
8.2
0.13
1.5
15
35
38
3,1
29
17
35
35
28
42
42
5.8
5.3
5.9
5.5
£8
6.2
15
4.S
4.S
4.8
4.0
4.0
1.5
15
7.9
15
4.0
7.9
7.9
1,8
5.6
52
£2
0.025
5.7
6.2
5.6
3.6
1.5
7.4
1.5
1.5
33
13
to
6.2
€.2
6.2
b.2
31
15
15
15
260
55
3.6
20
3.S
0.0«3
0.33
33
29
20T3
S.9
65
54
220
22C
ES
6.2
5.2
62
6.2
G.2
6.2
33
sr
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.1
7.7
1.8
ts
15
16
7.7
2.1
2.1
1.5
1CO
5.D
0.2
5.S
Tha consotjants regulated in U cr P wast* codes aia ateo ragulatea in FOC3 non*
CHANGES FROM CONCENTRATION-BASED CHANGES FROM CONCENTRATION-BASED
STANDARDS TO TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS TO TECHNOLOGY-BASED
STANDARDS FOR U AND P MOM- STANDARDS FOR U AND P NON-
WASTEWATEHS WASTF.VATERS—Continued
CHANGES FROM CONCENTRATION. EAGED
STANDARDS TO TECHNOLOGY-BASED
STANDARDS FOR IT AND P NON-
WASTEWATERS—Continued
Constituent
Acetonrtrila
Revised for
U003
Acrctein „.___..._. POOS
ConstiUient
B^nzat chton* ,...,._„„ ,...,. ,.,„
1,4-CichiofD-2-Sut6r.s {015 and jars)
Re¥i«fid{oi
coaes:
uoir
U'374
Constituent
CMnmhfrmlata
Rovis«^ (or
cuass:
U197
UC3&
-------
£2610
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1590 / Rules and Regulations
CHANGES FROM CONCENTRATION-BASED
STANDARDS TO TECHNOLOGY-BASED
STANDARDS FOR U AND P NON-
WASTEWATERS — Continued
Constituent
Cvcionexarx
3,3'-Dictilon
p-Dimethyla
Hexachlorcf
1.4-Naphtho
1-Naphthyla
2-Naphthyla
N-N:Srosodin
Fent2ch!cro
Rosorcino) .
JO3 .i.iuj__ « __.i
)benzidine «...
minoazobenzene _._._...._
>nene .._......._. ...._..
^UinOnB .mir--, ,---,- - TJ..II
mine.~.™._....-.~. _.. . .
Tiine..........t....»......««»«««...
nethyfarnine
ethane
Revised for
codes:
U057
U073
U093
U132
U166
' U167
U188
UOS2
U184
L'C21
Constituents for which concentrabon-Sased
stanoarCi have been d'CDped rtx F039
nonwastewalers
AcatoratriJe..
Acrolein —
AcryiamtCe..
2-CMoro-1.3
1 ,4-Cicfiioro-
Aramite
Benzenethio
p-3enzoquin
Benzalchlor
Chtorcbenzil
C/dohexanc
Dibenzo (a.e
Dibenzo (a.i
3.3'-Oicriloro
p-Dimetriytar
Hexachlorcp
1,4-NapMtho
1-Naphthylai
2-Naphthylai
N-Nitrosodirr
Pentachlorc*
Phthalic anh
Resorcinol ..
4-Aminobiph
Diphenylamii
Diphenylnitrc
Methano)..
Cyanides (at
Tris-<2.3-dibf
•fc utadiene ....
2-butcre..
1. .„ „
OOfl _ ..
"*» , .-„- ,, -, , ,„ , , -„-,.,
ate.. _ — .
>rte «_
) pyrene. —
pyrene..
MnzidinQ
ninoazobenzene
henfl
qmnone . _.
nine ^., , „, ,, ,, ,„,- , ,
_.._._._....._
Tiine „. .._... . ._ .
rethylamine
sthane ~- . ._...
y/irifja L , ,,,. ,,,,,, I., ... i...
W
samine «
ium^t>le) „„„.„.,-„„-„„...- ,-,-.„.-.,„„ .
CONCENTRATION-BASED BOAT TREAT-
MENT STANDARDS FOR U AND P NON-
WASTEWATEHS
Waste
code
U002
1.1004
U005
U01 2
U018.— _....
Uf)1Q
I!O9?
U024
Mn?l;
UQ77 . .
I"1?"
Regulated organic
constituents
Ac^tOfW
Acetophenona
2-Acetylammottuorene .„.
Aniiirte
3enz(a)anthracene — , —
bts-<2-Chloroethoxy)
methane.
biM2-Chkxoethyt)
ether.
bis-(2-ChloroisopfopyO
ether.
Bromomothane -.».«-. .
Total
corn position
(mg/kg)
180
9.7
140
84
14
62
38
8.2
T2
13.
72
15
CONCENTRATION-BASED BOAT TREAT-
MENT STANDARDS FOR U AND P NON-
WASTEWATERS— Continued
• Waste
code
U030
U031
U036
U037
U039
U043
U044
U045
(J047
U048
U050
UOS1
UOCI
U051 ..___..
DOS 1 ____...
UOS1
U051
UOS1.__ „
UOS2
•J052
U060
nnfin ,
U061
U061
U061
U061
U061
U063
U066
U067
U068
U070
U071
U072
U075
U076
U077
U078.
DO 79
U080
UC81
U082
U083
U084
(J084
(J101
U105
U106
U108
U111
U112
U117
(I11B
U120
U121
U127
U128
U129
U129
U129
U129.
man
11131
Regulated cmanic
conotitier.ii
4-3romopheny1 phenyl
ernar.
n-5uty) alcohol
Chlordane, alpha and
beta.
Chlorobenzene
pOitofO-m-cresol
Vinyl chlon^a, -„„-,„ ,.„,,,
Chiorofofn>»«.
CMorcmethana (msCiyi
cr.londe).
2-Chlcronaphthalen3__.
2-Ch'Oi-cphenol .
Chrysene „...
'Lead (measured in mg/
1 in 7CLP extract).
Pentacnioropnenol
Phenantfirene
Pvrono ...............................
Xyienes
o*Cresol —....«.....— «,™.....
OesoJ (m- and p-
isomers).
P4>'-OCD .......................
p p'-OOD
n o'-nnP
p.p'-ODT ,„.„,„ „
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene..
1,2-Cibromo-3-
chtoropropane.
1 ,2-Oibromoethane
Dibromomethane
o-Oichlorobenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dtcntoroberuena —
Dichlorodinuorometh-
ane.
1.1-Dicfiloroethane
1 ,2-Dictitofoetnane
1 ,1-Dicfi!oroethylene
trans-12-
Dichloroethene.
Mettiytene chloride
2.4-CicnlorDpn8nol
2,6-Oichlorophenol
1 ,2-DtcWoroBrooane
cs-1 ,3-Dichloropropene..
trans-1.3-
Dichloropropene.
2,4-Dimethyi phenol
2.<-Oinitrctoluene
2.6-Oinitrotoluene
1 ,4-Dioxane
Di-n-propylnitrosoamine ..
Ethyl acetate .
Ethyl ether
Ethyl methacrylate.
Ruoranthene
Trichloromonofluoro-
metfiane.
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorcbutadiene —
alpha-BHC
bnta-BHC „, ,
(tettlhBHC
gamma-8HC .. „
HexacfHorocydopenta-
dtene.
Hexachloroethane
Total
composition
(mg/kg)
15
2.6
0.13
5.7
14
33
5.5
23
5.0
5.7
8.2
0.51
3.1
7.4
3.1
8.2
28
28
5.5
3.2
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
8.2
15
15
15
62
62
6.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
33
33
33
14
14
18
18
18
14
140
28
170
14
33
160
160
8.2
33
37
28
0.066
0.066
0.066
0.066
4.8
28
CONCENTRATION-BASED BOAT TREAT-
MENT STANDARDS FOR U AND P NON-
WASTEWATERS— Continued
Waste
code
U1S7.
U 138 ..._„„
U140
U141__
U142
U152
U155
U157
U1J8
tV59
U161
U162
U165
U!69 . „
U170
U172
U174. ..
U179
U^80 ............
U181
U183
U185.
U1B7
U188
IMQg
U203
U207
U208
0209
U210
U211
U'?"
U225
U226
U2?7 . .
II9M
U239
U?-"1
U?43 . .
U247
P004._:
P020™
P024
P037
P048
P050
F050,,.n
POSO
P051
P051
P059.
P059
P060
P077
P101
P123
Raguiated organic
constituents
lnhol
Isosafrde .._,,,,,,,,,,
Kepone ........«..»«».»«.«.»
MethacrylonitrHe
Methapyrtene
S-Memyfchloanthrene
4,4-Veft>l9T.e-bis-(2-
i±torcer.:iine).
Methyl ethyl ketone _..
Methy! isobutyt Xstone....
Mathyi meshacrylate
Naphthalene -«.
Nitrobenzene.™ ..'.....
4-Nitc'Oohenol .,
N-N^so-dMV
butylamine.
N-Nitrosodiet*iylarnine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pentachkxobenzene
Pentacrtloronitroben-
zene.
Ptuyno*
Cj|fmlA
1.2,4,5-
Tetrachlorobenzene.
1.1.12-
Tetrachloroethane.
1.12.2-
Tetrachloroemane.
Tetrachloroethene
Carbon tetrachlonde
Tnliiono „--.,— , ,
Tribromometnane
(bromofomn).
1.1.1 -Trichkxoethana —
1,1.2-Tnchtoroe thane .
yylana/9)
2.4-
DicrUorophenoxyace-
ticaod.
Methoxychlor.. _
Aldrin
2-sec-Butyt-4,6-
dinitrophenol.
p-Chloroaniline
DieWrin
2,4-Dmrtroprienol
Endosuttan I ...__ „
Endosulfan II _.
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide .-
Fthyl ey$n^4
Toxaphene «w.H..n
Total
composition
(mg/Kg)
8.2
65
170
2.6
0.13
84
1.5
15
35
3S
33
160
3.1
14
29
17
28
35
35
28
37
4.8
16
6.2
1.5
16
22
19
42
42
5.6
5.6
28
15
5.6
5.6
5.6
28
10
28
0.18
0.066
2.5
16
0.13
160
160
0.066
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.066
0.066
0.066
28
360
U
-------
OSWER DIE, NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22611
b. Technology-based Standards for
Specific Organics
As explained in section III.A,l.(h)(2)
of the proposed rule (54 FR 48387), the
Agency has determined that for many U
and P wastes, as well as for some F and
K wastes, several complications arise in
teras of how reliably the primary
hazardous constituents can be
quantified. These complications formed
the basis of the Agency's decision to
promulgate technology-based BOAT
treatment standards (i.e., 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 significant
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
IlLA.5.(a). Since the standards had
originally been proposed as
concentration-based standards, the
section on nonwastawaters with
conccntration-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-346,
that are currently verified for the
quantification of the constituent of
interest in treatment residuals; (3)
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 unstable in water and
immediately hydrolyses into a different
entity (i.e., it reacts with water}; and (4)
the U or P waste is not specifically listed
as a single chemical entity (e.g. P030 is
listed aa "soluble cyanide salts, not
otherwise specified"). Chemical specific
complications were presented in the
appropriate section of the proposed rule
preamble that discussed the specific
treatability group where the U or P
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 b'fad 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 wastewaiers
and nonwastewaters. Generally, for U
and P ncnwastewaters, this process is
relatively aasy because incineration
processes are relatively indiscrkcinata
in the destruction of organics due to die
high temperatures, efficient mixing, and
consistent residence times available
from a well-designed and well-operated
incinerator. However, in the Rase of
wastewater treatment technologies,
there are more chemical specific factors
to consider such as: water solubility,
instability, molecular sizs, 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) Nonwastewciers, 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 unquantiflable 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. Commenters noted that many
organic U and P wastes in the "not
amenable to quantification category",
such as cumene, have significant energy
recovery value and are thus blended for
fuel substitution. One commenler further
stated that without this change in the
standard, these wastes would require
incineration st a much greater expense.
The commenter urged 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 tea
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 not 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: ail "Aromatics and Other
Hydrocarbons", all "Polynuclear
Aromatics", ail "Oxygenated
Hydrocarbons and Heterocyciics" 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 wastes than
did the proposed rule; fuel substitution
was proposed as an alternative to
incineration for "Oxygenated
Hydrocarbons and Heterocyciics" alons.
Additionally, several wastes in these
treatability 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-benzoquinone;
and U201, resorcinoL
In other words, EPA bans fuel
substitution as an alternative to
incineration for all unquantifiabie U and
P wastes which contain halogens, sulfur
or nitrogen. Eliminating these wastes
removes the potential for unregulated
SO,, NO, 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 ur.sarurated)
components of these wastes are
typically used as fuel because of their
high heating vaiue; and the oxygenated
and phenolic components are already
partially oxidized.
To summarize ths promulgated rule
for nonwastewater forms of U and P
wastes no amenable to quantification:
-------
22612 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
EPA is promulgating "Incineration
{INCIN) as the Method of Treatment" for
those organic U and P wastes containing
nitrogen, phosphorous, sulfur, chlorine,
bromine or fluorine in their molecular
structure and "Incineration (INCIN) or
Fuel Substitution (FSUBS) as a Method
of Treatment" for those organic U and P
wastes containing only carbon.
hydrogen and oxygen in their molecular
structure. See 40 CFR 268.42 Table t for
a detailed description of the technology
standard referred to by the five letter
technology code in the parentheses.
Incineration as a nwttiod of treatment for
nomvesiewaier forms of:
PC02— 1-Acetyl 2-tMcurea
P007— Muscimol (S-Aminoethyt 3-iso*azotel)
P008— 4-Aminopyndin8
PQ 14— Benzene truol (Thiopnenol)
P016— Bis-chtoromettiyl ether
POi 7— Bromoacesone
P018— Bryeirta
P022— CarUon disulfide
P023— CnloroaeetafdehydB
P026— Mo-CMoraphenyt) thtourea
P027— 3-Cntoroproptonitnle
P028— Benzyl chlonbe
FTO4— 2-odOhe*y1-4,6-dinrtroptienol
P042— Epineptirine
PQ45— TWofanc*
PG46— alpna. aJpha-Dimethyiphenethyiarnini
PO47— 4.6-dmrtrocresoi salts
P049— 2.4-Oithiobiwet
PQ54— Aaridine
P057— 2-Fluoroacetamide
POS8 — Ruoroace&c acid, sodium salt
P064 — isocyarac acid, ethyl asony1 fluoride
U034— Trichtoroacetaldehyde
U035— Chtaramoycii
U038— Chtorobenzrlale
U041— n-Chkxo-2,3-epoxypropane
U042— 2-Chtoroethyl vinyl ether
U046— Chtoromethyt methyl ether
Incineration at a method of treatment (or
nonwastewater forms of:
U049— *-ctikxx>-toluidine hydracrtlohde
U059— Oaunomyan
U052-Ciallate
U073 — 3,3'DichlorobenzjdinB
U074— (cis)-l ,4-OicMoro-2-t>utene
U074— (transM .4-t>cWciro-2-buter«
U092— Dimsthyiamine
U093— p-Methylaminoazobenzena
U095— 3,3'-Dim9my(benzic«na
UOS7— Oimathyloarbomyl chloride
U11 0— Oipropylamme
U114— Ettiytene bts-diMocarbarnic acid
U1 1 5— Ethytene thro^aa
U1 19— Ethyl metnane sulfonate
U1 32 — Hexachtorcahene
U1 43— iastocafpina
U148— Malaic Hydraada
U14S— Malonorairiie
U150— Melpnalan
U153— Mathanethiol
U156— Memyi crtlorocaitMflata
U163— N-Methy) N-nitro N^iitroguanidine
U 1 64— Matnyltniouraol
U1 67— 1 -Napmhytemine
U1 68— 2-Naphthylamine
U171— 2-Nitropropana
U1 73— N-Nitms(HJi-n>etrianolamino
U177—N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
U178—N - Nitroso-N-me thyl ix ethane
U184—Pentachloroe thane
U191—2-Picoiina
U193—1,3-Propane suftone
U194—rvPropytamine
U200—Rasefpine
U2Q2—Saccharin and salts
U20S—5l/eptozotoon
U218—Thioacetamide
U21S—Thiourea
U222—o-Totaidine hydrochtoride
U234—sym-Tnnitrobenzana
U236-Trypan Blue
U237—Uraca mustard
U238—Ethyt carbamate
U240—salts and esters of 2.4-D
U244—Thiram
Incineration or fuel substitution as methods of
treatment lor nonwastewater tofma of;
P801— Warfarin (>0.3S)
P003— Acrolein
POOS-AKyt alcohol
P088-€nootha«
P102— Ptepargyl alcohol
U001— AcetaWehyde
IXW8— Acryitc acid
U016— 8enz (c) acodine
UOS3— CrotonaJdenyde
U055— Cumeoe (isopropyl benzene)
UOS6-Cydonexane
UOS7— Cydohexanone
U065— 1^3,4-Dtepoxytxrtane
U089— Ctethyt sWbestrot
U090— OHtydrosafrele
U094— 7.12-dmemn benz (a) anthracene
Ul 13— Ethyl acrylate
U122— Fomialdehydo
U123— formic BCK)
Incineration or fuel substitution as methods o(
treatment for nonwastewaior fixms of:
U124—Furan
U125—Furfural
U12S—Glycidaldehyde
U147—Maietc annydride
U154—Metnanoi
U168—1,4-Naphthoquinone
U182—Pareidehyde
Ui 86—1,3-P9ntadicne
U !97—p-Benzoquinone
U201—flasorcinot
U213—Tetrahydrofuran
U248—Warfarin (<0.3%)
(2) Wasietvaters. EPA has typically
proposed two alternative methods of
treatment as the treatment standard for
these U and P wastewater treatability
groups. In all cases, the Agency believes
that incineration, while not always
practical for wastewaters, will provide
an efficient destruction of these organic
U and P constituents in wastewaters.
While the Agency does not want to
identify incineration as the primary
BOAT treatment technology for these
wastewaters, it also does not want to
preclude its use. In addition, the Agency
does not want to process needless
variances for a technology that is
recognized to be effective. Therefore, in
all cases, "Incineration as a Method of
Treatment" is promulgated as one of the
alternative treatment standards for
wastewater forms of these organic U
and P wastes.
However, other oxidation-based
treatment technologies are more
appropriate than incineration for
aqueous waste streams and EPA is
promulgating several treatment systems
based on oxidation followed by carbon
absorption as methods for these
wastewaters. The wastewater treatment
technology that most closely resembles
incineration is wet air oxidation. It is
specifically designed to destroy organics
in wastewaters and efficiently oxidizes
organics in aqueous media by operating
at relatively high temperatures and high
pressures. Furthermore, wet air
oxidation is typically performed on
wastewaters that contain relatively high
concentrations of organics (i.e., those
that are at or near the 1% TOC cut-off
for wastewaters}. For wastewaters that
contain significantly lower
concentrations of organica. chemical
oxidation typically provides the
necessary destruction of organics to
levels that can then be adsorbed onto
activated carbon (as a mandatory
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Rofister / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22813
polishing step). Electrolytic oxidation is
also included under chemical oxidation
because the process actually performs a
fora of chemical oxidation induced by
electricity and because the Agency has
data indicating its effectiveness 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
end P constituents that requires
specified methods of treatment.
None f.f 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/
indicator parameters. However, the
Agency is currently investigating the
potential use of surrogates/indicators
that could be used in future rulemakings
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 ambient
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, tea treatment unit
operators cannot control the levels of
these compounds reaching the working
organisms in the biological treatment
unit, or document that the wastes are
effectively biodegraded. The risk of
sending immeasurable quantities 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 treatment 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
entira treatment system with essentially
no treatment A shock load high enough
in organic components could push the
activated carbon unit to breakthrough,
sanding 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. Bioireatment 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.
Commemers suggested that EPA 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
commentary' suggestions because
oxidation is more ragged than
biotrea'jnent: 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 role, wet-air oxidation is
most appropriate for those wastewaters
near the wastewater cutoff level (i.e. 1%
TOC], while chemical oxidation
effectively treats those wastes with
lower percentages of TOG. EPA'ia
decision to require activated carbon
following the oxidation step ensures a
backup system to compensate for the
uncertainty about final effluent
concentrations of these U and P wastes
inherent in any process treating
unquanufiable wastes. Most
importantly, however, since spent
activated carbon from treating these
wastewaters becomes a nonwastewater
form cf these wastes (54 FR 48384), and
thus must be incinerated according to
the promulgated nonwasteweter
standard, requiring activated carbon
treatment ensures that both wastewater
and nonwastewater forms of these
wastes go 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
wastewaters puts an arbitrary and
heavy burden on those generators who
had been using biological treatment
alone or other simple methods of pre-
disposa! 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 to ensure
consistent and complete treatment
In the proposed rule, EPA also
solicited data demonstrating the :
feasibility of regulating TOC or COD
(chemical cxygec demand) as a
surrogate for these U and P
wastewaters: Sy setting a cor.csntraticn-
based limit on the TOC or COD level of
a waste to be land-disposed, EPA would
necsssarily linit the concentration of a «
organic toxic materials in that wests.
Comraenters objected to this proposed
practice as unrealistic. No information
was submitted demonstrating that TOC
or COD coald be reliable surrogates for
these unquantiRable organic
compounds. Consequently, EPA is not
promulgating the usa of TCC or COD as
surrogates.
One cominenter objected to the
method-based standard requiring
activated carbon following biological
treatment; the commenter reported that
his plant routinely sent pharmaceutical
wastes to the facility's in-plant
industrial waste treatment plant and
stated that the activated-carbon
requirement was superfluous. EPA has
removed the biolugical-trettment option
for wastewater forms of wastes not
amenable to quantification and explains
this decision, including the requirement
that the spent activated carbon be
incinerated, in the section IH.a.S.a.(3).
For wastewater forms of organic U
and P wastes not amenable to
quantification: EPA is promulgating
"Incineration (INCIN) BS the Method of
Treatment" or, alternatively, "Chemical
oxidation (CKOXD) or wet-air oxidation
(WETOX) followed by carbon
adsorption (CAR3N]." See 40 CFR 268.42
Table 1 for a detailed description of the
technology standard referred to by the
five letter technology code in the
parentheses.
(Wei air oxKiaUcn or chemical oxidation;, followed by
carbon adsorption; or incineration as matnoos at
treatment tor wcstewver forms oft
P001—Warfarin (>0.3%)
P002—1-Aesly! 2-ftiouraa
P003—Acrttem
POC5—Aflyi alcohol
PC07—Muatimoi (5-toinoashy) 3-isoxazoioO
PC08—4-Amnopyndine
P014—Benzene thiol (TWcuhenoO
P016—3is-chlorometr>yt etrwr
PO17—SrotnoacHtona
POift—aracirw
Reproduced tram
bast available copy.
-------
22614 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 /Friday, fune 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
{We! air oxidation or chemical oxidation), followed by
cartxxi aosorooon; or incineration as methods of
treatment for wastewaier farms of:
P023— Chtoroacetaldenyde
P026— Ho-Chloroofwny)) thiouma
C027— 3-Chtoropropwnrtnie
P028— Benzyl cnlonda
P034 — Z-cyciohflxyM.&dMtropnonol
PC42— Epineprtrine
P045— Thtofanox
P047— 4,6-dMWcresol sans
P049— 2.4-Oitnio6iuret
PQ54— Aziridine
P057— 2-Fluoroacetamide
P05S— Huoracetks acid, sodium salt
P064— Isocyanw aoo, otnyl aster
PCS8— Matnomyl
pee ,'— 2-Metrtyiaziridine
PQ69— Metnytlactorwrila
P070— Aidtcaro
P072— i-Naonifiyt-2-tfMiurea (Bantu)
P07S — Nicotine ind salts
PC84— N-Nitrosomemytvinytamine
P088— Endotnall
P093— N-Phertyithiourea
P095 — Phosgene
P102— Propanjyt alcohol
P108— Strychnine and salts
P1 16— Thosemtcarosode
P1 is— Trichtoromemanethiol
UOOi — Acetauenyda
UOQS— Acetyi Chionda
U007— AcrylamkJe
UOOS— Acrylic tod
U010— Mitomyon C
U011— Amitrot*
U014— Aurarruna
U015— Azasarme
L) 01 6— Benzlcjacridir*
U017— Benzal cntonde
U020— SenzenasuHonyi chloride
U021— Benadine
U026— Criloronapnazma
U033— Carbon* fluoride
U034— Tnctiloroacetaldenyde
U035— Chloramoucil
U041— n-Ctiloro-2,3-epoxypropar>e
U042— a-CWoroetnyl vmyt ether
U046— Cnioramethyl methyl ether
U049— 4^hto«HMohiid«ne hydroehtorida
U053— Crotonaldefiyda
U055— Cumena (isopropyl benzene)
U058— Cydohexane
UOS9— Oaunomyon
U062— Oiailate
U06*— 1 ,2,7,8-Oibenzopyrene
U073— ajOicnlorobenatfine
U074— 1 .4-Oichtoro-2-ouwne
U085— 1 ,23,4-DiwoicyiJuttn*
U089— Oiethyl stlt>eSTO(
U090— Oihydrosatrote
U091 — 3,3-Otmetfx3xyt>enz)OH>e
U092— Otmettiyiamine
U094— 7,12-Dimettiyi bera(a)antfiracen«
U095-3,3'-Oftneiftytbenzialne
UM7— DimettfytcarDomy) ctiloods
U 11 0— Oipropytafnine
U113— Ethyl acrylate
U 1 1 *— €tfiyteoe bra^throcartamic acad
U116— Ethyiene Mourea
(Wei air oxidation or chemical oxidation), followed by
ca/oon adsorption: or manefauon as memoos of
treatment tor wastewaier forms of:
U119— Ethyl methane sulfonats
U 1 22— ^ormaldenyoa
U1 23— Forme acid
U124— Furan
U12S— furfural
U126— Glyciaaidehyde
U 1 32— Haxacnioropnanene
U143— Lasocarrxoe
U147— Maleic annydride
U146— MaleK Hydrazxla
U14»— Malononithle
U150— Melphalan
U153— Methane Wot
U154— Memanol
U1SS— Methyl cNorocarbonata
U163 — N-Mamyt N-/WO N-mtroguanidirw
U 1 64 — Metdy itniouracrt
U166 — 1 ,4-NBoninoQuinone
U167— 1-NapntHyianwie
L» 7 1 — 2-Nitroorooane
U 1 73— iN-Nitroso-dt-n-athanolamirte
U1 78— N-Nitroso-N-etnylyrea
U 1 77— N-Nitroso-N-memyturea
U173— N-Nrtroso-N-nrwmyiuretnane
U182— Paraldanyde
U 1 84— PemacMoroethane
U186— 1,3-Pentadmne
U184— PantBcnioroetnana
U1 93—1 ,3-Prooane sultone
U194 — n-PropyWmme
U1 97— p-8enzoauirxx>e
U200— Reserpma
U201— ftesorcmot
U202— Saccharin and salt*
U206— Streptozotocm
U21 3— Tetranydroturan
U21 8— Thioacetimide
U2l»-Tnwure«
U222— O-Toluidine hydrochionda
U234— tynvTnnitrobenzana
U236— Trypan Blue
U237— Uractl mustard
U238— €thyt cartamate
U240— salts and esierm of 2.449
U244— Thvam
U248— Warfarin (<3%)
c. U and P Wastes That are Potentially
Reactive
These wastes were grouped together
because they are either highly reactive
or explosive, or they are polymers that
tend to be highly reactive. These wastes
pose a significant risk during handling
due to their reactivity; this is reflected in
the fact that there are DO standard SW-
848 methods for analyzing reactivity.
Because of the difficulties in handling
and analyzing these wastes, the Agency
is promulgating treatment standards
expressed as required methods of
treatment (thus eliminating the need to
analyze treatment residues).
The Agency investigated several
options for developing treatment
standards for these wastes, including
incineration, chemical oxidation and
chemical reduction. Most of these
wastes are curently managed by
incineration. Other wastes included in
this group can be recovered or recycled.
For the purpose of BOAT
determinations, the Agency has
identified four subcategories according
to similarities in treatment, chemical
composition, and structure. These
groups are: (1) Incinerable Reactive
Organics and Hydrazine Derivatives; (2)
Incinerable Inorganics; (3) Fluorine
Compounds; and, (4) Recoverable
Metallics. The discussion of the
treatment standards applicable to each
subcategory are as follows.
(!) Incinerable Reactive Organics and
Hydrazine Derivatives,
P009—Ammonium picrate
P081—Nitroglyeerin
P112—Tetranitrome thane
U023—Benzoin chloride
U096—a, a-Dlinethyl benzyl hydraperoxtde
U103—Dimethyl sulfate
U160—Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide
P068—Methyl hydrazine
P103—Sodium azide
U088—N. N-Diethylhydrazine
U098—i, 1-Dimethylhydrazine
U099—1.2-Dimethylhydrazine
U109—1.2-Diphenylhydrazine
U133—Hydrazine
EPA has grouped these wastes into a
treatabtlity group together because they
contain no metal constituents and have
high inherent fuel values. Consequently,
because of the similar characteristics.
these wastes can be treated with the
same technologies.
The Agency does not believe.
however, that concentration-based
treatment standards can be established
for these wastes at this time. The major
problems in establishing concentration-
based standards for these wastes are:
(1) EPA does not currently have an
analytical method for measuring many
of these wastes in treatment residues;
and (2) where the Agency does have
methods, there are no data available on
the treatment of these chemicals. In
cases when there is no verified
analytical method for a particular waste.
EPA tries to find an appropriate
measurable surrogate or indicator
compound; however, no constituent has
been identified in these wastes that
could be used as a surrogate or indicator
compound. (See section IEA.l.h.(2) for a
detailed discussion of analytical
problems.)
One of the specific problems
encountered in analysis of P068, Pi05.
P112, U023, U098, U099, and U103 is that
these wastes break down quickly in
water (hydrolyze) and that the analysis
of wastewater forms of these wastes is
very difficult as well as often hazardous
due to the intensity of the reaction. See
further discussion on the impact of
instability hi water on the development
of treatment standards in section
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 108 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22SI5
m.A.l.h.(2.)(c.) of today's notice. In
addition, the Agency lacks data on what
effects the hydrolysis products would
have on the environment. Besides,
verified analytical methods do not
currandy exist for the quantification of
thesa hydrolysis products in treatment
residues.
Aacthsr analytical problem is created
because PCS! wastes are only
quantifiable by HPLC msthcds (Note:
EPA rejects HPLC methods for waste
treatment residua! matrices for reasons
discussed in section IH.A.l.h.(2.)(a.).j In
addition, there are no verified SVV-846
analytical methods for measuring PG09
and L'123 in treatment residues.
7h«.-i»: anaiyr'cai problems preclude
setting ccnccntrslica-based treatment
standards; consequently, the Agency
proposed 'Thermal Destruction" (e.g.,
incineration) as a required method of
treatment for the nonwastswater forms
of these U and P wastes (54 FH 4a*27).
The Agency, however, reconsidered tha.
treatment technologies applicable for
treatment of wastes in this treatability
group as a result of information in tha
comments.
EPA continues to believe that
incineration is an applicable technology
because data indicate that most of of
these wastes are currently incinerated
by commercial, as well as military
facilities. Additionally, since most these
wastes have high Bta 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
can be chemically deactivated using
chemical oxidation and chemical
reduction technologies.
Based on all the available
information, tha Agency is promulgating
"Incineration (INCIN), Fuel Substitution
(FSUBS), Chemical Oxidation (CHOXD),
or Chemical Reduction (CHRED) as
Methods of Treatment" for P009, PCS8,
FCW1. P105, P112. U023. U086. U09B.
U09a U099, U103, U109, U133 and UlOO
nonwastewaters, 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 proposed "Incineration or
Carbon Adsorption" as required
methods of treatment for the
wastewater 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 treatability group.
EPA still believes that incineration is
applicable because it will destroy the
constituents present in the wastewaters. -
Carbon adsorption is also applicable
because wastewater forms of thesa
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 nor.wastewatars.) However, data has
also been provided that indicate that
seme of these wastcwaters (i.e., P063)
cin b« trsated 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 wastewa'er forms of
this treatabiiity group.
The Agency believes all the above
mentioned applicable technologies are
demonstrated and available hence,
"best". Therefore, EPA is promulgating
"Incineration (INCIN), Chemical
Oxidation (CHOXD), Chemical
Reduction {CHRED}, Carbon Adsorption
(CARBN). or Biodegradation {BIODG) as
Methods of Treatment" for P009, PC6S,
P081. P105, P112, U023, U086, U0i6,
U098, U099, U103. U109, U133 and U160
wastewaters. See section 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.
Although there is an SVV-846 method
for U109, the Agency is not establishing
a numerical standard for this waste
since it is very similar to P068, U086,
U098, U099, and U133 (all are hydrazine
compounds) and it is the Agency's belief
that the promulgated 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 disposal; see 5 261.33,
first sentence).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR POOD,
P058, P031. P10S, P112, UQ23, U088,
UC36, U098, U099, U103, U109. U133,
AND U160
tNortwastewatars 1
incineration (INCIN). fuel sufesi.falkxi (FSU3SS.
chemical creation (CriGXC). of sr.efwcal rsCuction
(CKRSD) as memoes of treatment •
* S.*» ? 26C.42 TaWe 1 in tocay's rule lor a c*-
ui.'a-J ssscnofion of in* tecftnocoy stanonra refer?1*]
to By me rtve letter tecnnoiogy code in tr.e parorcna-
sss.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR FC09,
P063, PC-SI, P105, P112, UQ23, UCSS,
UOS8, U09S, UC23, U1C3, U103, U123,
AJJOU1SO
[Wastewatsrsl
Incineration (INCIN). <*«n>oai oxidation (CHOXD),
CRS.TUcai reduction (CHRED). csrSon adsorption
(CAR3N), or tsiodegradalton (BiOOG) as methods of
troaunent *
• Sae § 263.42 Tabte 1 in tody's ruM for a Co-
tailed description of tne technology stanflaifl referred
to by She live tertsr technology cod* in the parenine-
sss.
(2) Incinerable Inorganics.
P006—Aluminum phosphide
PQ98—Phosphine
flZZ—Zinc phosphide f >1Q%)
U135—Hydrogen sulfide
U189—Phosphorus sulfide
U249—Zinc phosphide (<\V&} -
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
numerical 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
(bydrolyzc), making the analysis of
wastewater forms of these wastes very
difficult. In cases when there is no
analytical method for a particular waste,
EPA tries to find an appropriate
measurable surrogate or indicator
-------
22816 Federal Register/ Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 19iO / Rules and Regulations
compound; however, no constituent has
been identified in these wastes that
could be used as a surrogate or indicator
compound for nonwastewaters. See
section ffl.A.l.h.(2) for a detailed
discussion of analytical problems.
Data available at the time of proposal
indicated that these wastes were 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
treatability group as a result of
information submitted in the comments.
One ccmmenter specifically requested
that chemical oxidation be a method cf
treatment for phosphine gas (PQ96) and
hydrogen aulfide gas (U13SJ. This
commenter 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 phosphorous 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-suifur U and P
wastes in section HLAJ.g.). EPA does
not believe that fuel substitution is
applicable for wastes in this treatability
group because of the hazards associated
%vith the toxic gases that can be
generated.
Based on the information presented
above, the Agency is promulgating
"Incineration (INCIN), Chemical
Oxidation (CHOXD), or Chemical
Reduction (CHRED) as Methods of
Treatment" for P008, P069, P122, U135,
LJ189, and U249 nonwastewaters. See
section 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.
For wastewater forms of POOB, 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 then- 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 BOAT 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 inorganic
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 (INCIN),
Chemical Oxidation (CHOXD), or
Chemical Reduction (CHRED) as
Methods of Treatment" for PQ06, P096,
P122. U135, U189, U249 wastewaters.
See § 288.42 Table 1 in today's role 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
technologies 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).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR POC6,
P096, P122, U135, U189, AND U249
[Noowaslewaters and wasiewaters]
Incineration (!NCIN). chemical oxkiation (CHCXO). or
cnemica) reduction (CHRED) as a metnod of
treatment'
* Se» section 263.42 Table 1 in today's ai!e for a
detailed desertion ct tr» technology standard ro-
tated to by ihe (we latter technology code in the
parentheses.
(3) Fluorine Compounds.
MSB—Fluorine
L'134—HydroSuorie 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
Followed by Precipitation as Calcium
Fluoride" as a method for the
nonwastewater farm of these wastes.
based on the chemical properties of
aqueous fluoride ions and the
insolubility of calcium fluoride. The
Agency also proposed recovery as an
alternative specified method. The
Agency requested comments and data
on these options.
EPA has reconsidered the "insoluble
salts" requirement and believes that
generally POS6 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 those
compounds. Therefore, the Agency is
not finalizing the insoluble salt
requirement
EPA is promulgating "Adsorption
(ADCAS) followed by Neutralization
(NEUTR) as a Method of Treatment" for
P056 nonwastewaters and
"Neutralization (NEUTR) or Adsorption
(ADGAS) followed by Neutralization
(NEUTR) as Methods of Treatment" for
11134 nonwastewaters since this waste
can exist as an acidic solution or a gas.
See 126142 Table 1 in today's rule for a.
detailed description of the technology
standard referred to by the five letter
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No.106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Hegulations 22617
technology code in the parentheses. EPA
believes "adsorption" instead of
"solubilization" better describes the
process of releasing a gas into a liquid
media and that "neutralization" of the
resulting acidic waste allows the
regulated community greater flexibility
than "precipitation as calcium fluoride".
The Agency made thii decision as a
result of information indicating that
most facilities are currently treating
gaseous forms of P058 and U134 by
reacting the gases with alkaline solution
and that it is common practice to
neutralize waste hydrofluoric acid
(U13-J).
One comraenter >?aid these fluorine
compounds are mixed with other wastes
requiring incineration and that they can
be safely incinerated and that
incineration should be an allowed
technology. The Agsr.cy 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
BOAT Background Document for
Wastewaters Containing BDAT Lict
Ccnstihjsnts in the RCRA Docket).
Based on these data, the Agency
proposed a concentration-based
treatment standard of 35 mg/1 fluoride
for P056 and U134 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 TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P056
C Nonwastewawisl
Adsorrmi" •' ^CGAS) followed tsy neutraftzafion
(NtwTR) at a memo* of treatment *
BDAT TBEATME?,T STANDARDS FOB Ut34
CNenwastewaMfsJ
Neutralization (NEUTR) or adsorption (ADGAS>
foUowea tiy neutwaaiion (NEUTR) as mettxxJ* of
treatment *
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOB P056
AND U134
[WastewatersJ
Regulated constituent
F**.. __
Maximum
for any
single tfiib
sample,
loW
composition
(mg/l)
35
• See §269.42 TaW* 1 In today1* rote for * do-
taiiad descnotxin of me technology standard referred
to by tr» five letter ttctwittosy ccoa in tne pateRttie-
cae
(4) Recoverable Meial'/cs.
P015—Ber/Hium dust
P073—Nickel carfaonyl
P087—Osmium tetroxide
The Agency has identified the wastes
in this group as metal wastes that have
a high potsntial for recovery. Because
there are so little data on these wastes,
characterization is very difficult. Ail the
wastes in this group contain metallic
elements (i.e., beryilinm, osmiom, and
nickel) that can be recovered due to
their high economic value. Information
available to the Agency indicates that
recovery of these reetsHis elements from
these wastes is feasible and Is cnarsntiy
practiced.
The Agency proposed a standard of
"Recovery as a Method of Treatment"
for both nomirastewater and wastswater
fonr.s of these was;es. 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 trsataent
Several commenters stated that it is
inappropriate to establish recovery as
the only acceptable treatment method
for rackel tai'bony! (F073J. One „-
commenter generates very small
quantities of POTS (typically less than
two pounds per year) and said that due
to the highly reactive natare of the
chemical, long-term storage in order to
obtain quantities sufficient to justify
recovery either oa-site cr oil-site would
present a significant safety hazard. This
commenter currently disposes of P073
by oxidation, either thermally in an
incinerator, or chemically in a
laboratory scale treatment facility
followed by stabilization and feels that
this is the only safe, economical and
environmentally sctmd treatment
method for small quantities of nickel
carbonyl.
The Agency agrees feat 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 ia
wastewaters believed to be similar to
P073 wastewaters and stabilization data
for nickel in nonwastewaters believed to
be similar to POTS nonwastewaters, 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 PQ73
aonwastewaters and a concentration-
based standard cf 0.44 mg/1 nickei 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
(P015) and osmium tetroxide (P087) and
suggested that EPA develop quantitative
or alternate technology standards.
However, the Agency received neither
performance data nor information
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 hand,
the Agency did receive a comment from
a producer of beryllium and beryllium-
CD ntaining 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 POTS
and P087 nonwastewaters and
wastewaters and is promulgating
"Recovery (RMETL or RTHKM) as a
Method of Treatment" for all forms of
P015 and P087. As noted through the
preamble, Congress axpressed a strcng
preference in the land disposal ban
legislative history fcr recovery as
opposed to treatment followed by
disposal. See. e.g» HJL Rep. No. 193 at
31. The standard for these wastes is
consistent with the Congressional
preference.
-------
22618 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, J-qnc 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P015,
AND P087
Recovery (RMETL or RTHRM) as a method of.
treatment*
* See 1268.42 Table 1 in today's ruts for a ca-
tailed description of tne technology standard referred
to by the five letter technology code in the oarenew-
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P073
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Nickel.
Wawmym
for any
samste,
TCLP
Leictiate
(rog/l)
0.32
5DAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P073
IWastewatersl
Regulated constituent
Nickel.
Maximum
for any
single grab
samoie.
total
composition
(mg/l)
0.44
d. Gases
PQ78—Nitric oxide
P078—Nitrogen dioxide
U115—Ethyiene 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 land disposal but
is promulgating these standards in the
interest of completeness.
In die proposed rule, the Agency
solicited information on whether these
wastes are actually being land disposed,
how such land disposal takes place,
whether anyone intends to land dispose
of these wastes in die future and any
treatability data that may lead to
appropriate numerical land-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
281.7(a)(l|(i) and 40 CFR 261.7(ap) 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 288." .
Since cylinders depressurized to
atmospheric pressure are explicitly
defined as non-hazardous waste
(assuming the cylinder itself is not
hazardous when disposed), the two
physical forms in which these three
wastes will moat likely pose land-
disposal problems are damaged
cylinders unacceptable for recycling or
reuse and rirsewater used to clean such
cylinders. Conrnenters reported that
damaged cylinders pose significant risk
of explosion and thus are very
dangerous to store and handle;
furthermore ~ost cylinder-handling
firms refkse to take damaged cylinders.
Therefore, cDnunsnters report thsy have
been axpeditiously 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 subpart X (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 analytical 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
non waste waters.
UllS (ethylene oxide) can be oxidized
to carbon dioxide and water so EPA can
specify chemical or thermal oxidation
for UllS nonwastewaters and
incineration or chemical oxidation plus"
carbon absorption or biological
treatment plus carbon absorption for
UllS 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*) because the resulting
oxidation product is (he undesirable
NO, equilibrium mixture. Consequently,
EPA is promulgating as treatment
standards for P076 and P078 a method
suggested by one of the commenters:
venting into a reducing solution. EPA
leaves the means of venting to the
treatment facility and requires only that
the effluent, gas or washwatsr,
ultimately be sent through a reducing
solution to. transform NO and NOj to N»
andOj.
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 nonwastev/ater forms of
UllS and "Incineration (INCIN) cf
Chemical (CHOXD) or Wet-Air
Oxidaticn (WETOX) Followed by
Carbon Adsorption (CAR3.N) as
Methods of Treatment" for UllS
wastewaters.
SDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOB F"3
AND P073
[Wastewaters and Nonwastewaters]
Vencr.g into a reducing medium (AOGAS) as a
rrerwx) o» treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR Ut 15
[.Nonwastewaters]
Thermal or chemical osodaten (1NC;N, CHOXD} as a
mettxxt of treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR U115
CWastewaters]
Incineration (INON) or chemical (CHOXD) or wet air
owJaoon (WETOX) followed By carbon absorption
(CARBN) as i memod of treatment
e. U and P Cyanogens
P031—Cyanogen
P033—Cyanogen chloride
U248—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.
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 106 / Friday, June 1, 1930 / Rules and Regulations
22819
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOB P031,
P033, U246
(Nonwastewaters and wastewatars]
Chemical oxidation (CHOXD). wet air oxidation
(WETOXi or ioanergBoo (INCIN) as a memod of
treatment'
«Sws f 2£3.«2, Table 1 '« today's rute fdf a
dstsiied descnpeon ol tf>e tecnnoo^ standard re-
ferred by the five Icner lecrmotogy cooe in the
6, Development of Treatment Standards
far Mufti-Source Leachata
a. Background
In the preamble to the proposed rule
(54 FR 48461-48469), 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 31146-31150) due to
concerns about available treatment
capacity and (to a lesser extent)
treatability. As a result, on March 7,
1S89, EPA changed certain rules
pertaining to the modification of permits
(54 FR 9596), This was followed on May
2,1909 by a final rule that rescheduled
the prohibition date for most multi-
source leachate to that of the Third
Third (54 FR 13836). 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
from land disposal no later than May 8,
1590. These principles have been upheld
by the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA. 869 F.2d 1528,1536,
153&-37 (D.C. Cir. 1S89).
b. Final Approach for Regulating Multi-
Source Leachate
In developing treatment standards for
multi-source leachate and residues from
treating such leachate (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 the leachate is derived, or
whether to designate such multi-source
leachate as a separate treatability group
with a separate treatment standard. FJ>A
has decided to adopt the second
approach, which had almost unanimous
support in the public comments. In
today's final rule, therefore, the Agency
Is establishing a separate treatability
group for multi-source leachate and is
giving it the Hazardous Waste No. F039.
The Agency is also adopting one set of
wasteweter and nonwastewater
treatment standards consisting of
approximately 200 constituents. (As
explained in section (4) below, however,
the permit writer has the discretion to
narrow the number of constituents that
must be regularly analyzed and to
determine the frequency of testing.) The
following sections discuss in greater
detail the Agency's final approach for
regulating multi-source leachate.
(1) Definition of Multi-scarce
Leachate. Leachata is defined in 40 CFR
260.10 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" nils in 40
CFR 261.3(c)(2). Multi-source leachate is
leachate that is derived from the
treatment, storage or disposal of more
than one listed hazardous waste (54 FR
8264; February 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.
A number of ccmmenters favored the
idea of a definition based on more than
one treatability group, stating that if the
leachate was derived from only a few
similar wastes, it would be burdensome
to analyze for constituents that would
not be present in the originating listed
waste. Other commenters, however,
stated that such a definition would be
unnecessary and confusing to
implement EPA agrees with those
commenters that a definition based
upon treatability groups would be
difficult to implement in this final rule.
There is not sufficient time to develop
all potential treatability groups, nor to
provide public notice necessary to
implement the treatability group concept
within the time constraints of this final
rule. The Agency believes, moreover,
that compliance with the multi-source
leachate standards need not be overly
burdensome due to the flexibility
allowed the permit writer (in the
facility's waste analysis plan) to
determine constituents to monitor and to
decide testing frequency (see section (4)
belcw}. The Agency, therefore, is
defining multi-source leachate as
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 ona listed
dioxin-containing waste. The Agency
requested comments specifically on
whether to consider leachate derived
exclusively from F02&-F023 and F026-
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 exctption cf
F020) subject to special management
standards and (as practical matter)
special aad 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 4S482), and thus would require the
same scrutiny and should be subject to
the same management standards.
Therefore, leachate derived exclusively
from F020-F023 and F026-F028, and no
other listed hazardous wastes, is single-
source leachate that is classified as, and
must meet the treatment standards for,
the underlying waste codes, F020-F023
and F026-F028. Further discussion of
this classification is found in section d,
below.
(2) Single Waste Cods for Multi-
source Leachate. EPA has decided to
establish a separate treatability group
for multi-source leachate, and to
designate such leachate by its own
waste code. Hazardous Waste No.
F039.3It should be noted, therefore, that
when today's rule is effective, a
generator does not have the option to
continue classifying their multi-source
laachate (under the waste code carry-
through) as all the listed wastes from
which it is derived; multi-source
leachate must be classified as FOG9.
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 (2 virtual consensus in
the comments), then multi-source
leachate should have a separate waste
code and separate treatment standards.
Not only does this appear to be the or.ly
logical result of creating a separate
3 At wzi explained in the proposed rule, this urvw
not mean that inch waxe is newly identified or
listed for purposes of SCRA hammer*, or other
RCRA piopoMi-iuch at eligibility (or interim status.
Rather, the Agency is making a bookkeeping charge
in the w»y it designates a type of waste that •l*»u
-------
22820 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
treatability group, but the rules will be
easier to implement and enforce if there
is a single treatment standard for multi-
source leachate rather than the large
number of potential treatment standards
(depending on the number of wastes
from which the leachate is derived), the
result of using the alternative waste
code carry-through approach. In
addition, it would be harder and more
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
cf 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 under the waste code carry-
through approach. Thus. EPA sees the
treatment standards adopted today as
somewhat more protective than those
that would apply under a waste code
carry-through approach.
The Agency is promulgating a
treatment standard for multi-source
leachate that includes concentration-
based standards for virtually the entire
list of BDAT constituents. Because
multi-source leachate derives potentially
from any and all of the listed hazardous
waste, the treatment standard must
account for this possibility, and must
consequently include all of the potential
constituents that may be present (See
§ 268.41(a) where the Agency adopted
the same approach for F001-F005 as
well as treatment standards
promulgated in this rule for K086
wastes.)
The Agency is not saying that all
multi-source leachate contains all of the
BDAT list constituents; obviously, some
leachates do not. The Agency recognizes
that it is unnecessary and wasteful to
monitor constituents that are not
present Working out which constituents
to monitor is a site-specific
determination, however. The Agency is
today promulgating an implementation
scheme to account for such site-specific
determinations. This implementation
scheme is similar to that used by EPA's
Effluent Guidelines program, which
requires an initial analysis that may
include all toxic organics, followed by
subsequent analyses for only those
pollutants which would reasonably be
expected to be present This
implementation scheme is discussed in
greater detail in section (4) below.
(3) Separate Waste Code for Multi-
Source Leachate. As was already
mentioned, EPA is listing multi-source
leachate by a separate waste code.
Hazardous Waste No. F039.
Commenters supported this decision on
the grounds that multi-source leachate is
a distinct type of waste different from
the underlying wastes from which it is
derived. In addition, they asserted that
they will face fewer administrative
obstacles, particularly with respect to
permit modifications, if multi-source
ieachate and its treatment residues have
a separate waste code. This raises
certain issues relating to state
authorization and CERCLA importable
quantities that are discussed below.
EPA 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 commenters 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 concluded that
the designation of multi-source leachate
is a HSWA regulation, in that it
effectuates the requirements of RCRA
section 3004(m) to set treatment
standards for prohibited wastes. As was
discussed at 54 FR 9806 (March 7,1989),
Class One through Three permit
modification procedures are appropriate
and will be used by EPA'to implement
such HSWA requirements in authorized
and unauthorized States. Since EPA will
be modifying the RCRA permit in order
to implement these HSWA
requirements, a state may not need to
take any action to recognize the
effectiveness of the modification.
The Agency has determined that
listing multi-source leachate as a
separate waste code is indeed more
strict than applying the waste-code
carry through principal because: (1)
Designating multi-source leachate as a
separate waste code requires the
monitoring and treatment of more BDAT
constituents than would be required
under the waste-code carry through
approach to regulating multi-source
leachate; and, (2) standards for dioxins
and furans in multi-source leachate
wastewaters are more strict than those
that have applied under the waste-code
carry through approach.
All hazardous wastes listed pursuant
to RCRA section 3001, as well as any
solid waste that meets one or more of
the characteristics of a RCRA hazardous
waste (as defined at 40 CFR 261.21-
261.24), are hazardous substances as
defined at Section 101(14) of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. The
CERCLA hazardous substances are
listed at 40 CFR 302.4 along with their
Reportable Quantities (RQs). CERCLA
section 103(a) requires that persons in
charge of vessels or facilities from
which a hazardous substance has been
released in a quantity that is equal to or
greater than its RQ immediately notify
the National Response Center at (800)
424-8802 or at (202) 426-2675. In
addition, section 304 of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (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 State
Emergency Response Commission
(SERC) or Local Emergency Planning
Committee (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 CERCLA. ail
hazardous wastes newly designated
under RCRA will have a statutorily
imposed RQ of one pound unless and
until adjusted by regulation under
CERCLA. In order to coordinate the
RCRA and CERCLA rule-makings with
respect to new waste listings, the
Agency today is making final regulatory
amendments under CERCLA authority
in connection with the listing of EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F039. The Agency
will designate EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F039 as a hazardous substance
under Section 102(b) of CERCLA and
establish the RQ for EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F039 at one pound.
The RQ for this waste stream is based
on the RQs of the hazardous
constituents of concern identified under
RCRA for the waste stream (50 FR
13456, April 4,1985). Thus, if a newly
listed hazardous waste has only one
constituent of concern, the waste will
have an RQ that is the same as the RQ
for the constituent It as in this case, the
hazardous waste has more than one
constituent of concern, the lowest RQ
assigned to any of the constituents will
be the RQ for the hazardous waste. RQs
are set at 1:10; 100; 1000: and 5000
pounds. EPA Hazardous waste No. F039
contains several constituents that have
RQs of one pound (e.g., mercury,
dieldrin, vinyl chloride, eta); therefore,
the RQ of this waste is also one pound.
The list of hazardous constituents for
this waste may be found at 40 CFR
268.43(a), Table CCW. The definition of
multi-source leachate, F039, may be
found at 40 CFR 281.31.
(4) Permit modifications and
implementation procedures. It would
appear that listing multi-source leachate
by a separate waste code necessitates
amending many RCRA permits that do
not already include a narrative
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22G21
description for multi-source leachate
and multi-source leachate treatment
residues. EPA has also concluded that
this designation as a single waste code
may require some modification to
existing permits in order to treat, store,
cr 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.
EFA believes that a Class 1 submission
is all that is required when a permit is
simply being changed by substituting the
FQ29 waste code for the multiple waste
codes that are carried 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.) . • •
As described more fully in section
III.G, of this preamble, it will take some
time for permit writers to incorporate
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 1 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 specified in
item E(2)(a] of appendix I), or whether
the Class 2 process should be used (see
item B(2Kb}). Presented with this
question, and responding to commanters
who desired an expeditious way to
address the appropriate F029 waste
analysis procedures, the Agency is
today establishing a new Class 1 permit
modification (with prior approve!) for
this purpose. (See item 3(l}(b) in
appendix I to 40 CFR 270.42.) EPA
believes that this classification strikes
the proper balance between a
streamlined mechanism for upgrading
* EPA reiterate! that the designation of she new
wast* code for multi-source leachate doe> not mean
that such waite U nawly Identified or tilled under
RCRA. Rather, because torn permit* m*y restrict
management to •pecified waste coda* or rypea of
waalea, it i» appropriate to treat lueh modification*
M if th*y were newly Hated w*tte. «« the waits
code hai been newly changed. ,
the WAP for F039, while maintaining
Agency oversight and approval of the
proposal change. All persons 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 cor.stitutents to be
analyzed should not be the entire EDAT
list, but rather, it should be a list of all
tha constituents associated with ail the
hazardous wastes that has bean
disposed of in the land disposal unit.
Commenters suggested this approach is
particularly appropriate for non-
commercial facilities that have stable
and well-defined waste streams that ara
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 approach, and
may be considered on a site-specific
basis. As discussed in more detail in
..preamble section III.G...however, in
most cases there is still a need for
corroborative testing.
The Agency believes that in order to
assure compliance 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 F039.
Based on the results of this analysis, 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 in the composition of the
leechate are detected.
This approach is suggested pending an
opportunity for the Agency to prescribe
the appropriate constituents for analysis
and testing frequency for the facility. It
is therefore recommended that interim
status facilities incorporate such an
approach into the WAPs that they
maintain pursuant to 40 CFR 265.13.
For both 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, including,
but not limited to, modifying a facility's
permit or pursuing an enforcement
action.
(5) Treatment standards for multi-
sourcs leachate. The F039 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 84353, referencing these
data). Today's promulgated treatment
standard regulates the entire EDAT list
of constituents. Mere information on
how the standards for each constituent
were developed can be found in the
Final BOAT Background Document fcr
Organic U and P Wastes and Multi-
Source Leachates (F039), available in
the RCRA docket.
As was discussed earlier in section
(1), sores commenters suggested that
multi-source leachate constituent
standards should be based on
treatability groups, 30 as^not to trigger
analysis of the whole BOAT list if the
leachate was derived from only a few
similar wastes. Other commenters
suggested that multi-source leachate
standards should be facility-specific.
The Agency believes there is some merit
to the concept of treatability groups for
multi-source leachate, and
acknowledges the need for site-specific
considerations in implementing the
treatment standard. However, the
Agency believes that one set of
wastewater and nonwastewater
standards baaed on the BOAT 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 BDAT 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 treatability
group that cannot be analyzed. It is
EPA's conclusion ia the case of multi-
source leachate, however, that
establishing numerical treatment
standards for each BDAT list
-------
22622 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
constituent obviates the need to specify
methods of treatment for any
constituent. In other words, the
constituents on the BDAT list serve 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 leachate
nonwastewater treatment standards are
based on a direct transfer of 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 D, 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
nonwastewater standards, most of
which were based on incineration as
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
nonwastewater 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 analysis of the
leachate matrix were used to calculate
today's revised nonwastewater
constituent treatment standards for
disulfoton, Famphur, parathion, phorate
and methyl parathion.
Most of the wastewater constituent
treatment standards were transferred
from treatment data developed for
various other EPA regulatory programs,
and are based on data from numerous
sources. (These data apply to the
development of treatment standards for
other wastewaters besides multi-source
leachate. Further discussion of these
data is presented in preamble section
IJI.A.5.) Additional data were reviewed
during the comment period, including
data from a recently completed EPA
study of wastewater 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 treatment standards normally
should be based on wastewater
treatment data rather than constituent
concentrations in incinerator scrubber
water. Therefore whenever the
biological treatment performance data
demonstrated substantial treatment and
met BDAT QA/QC requirements, they
were used to set today's revised
wastewater constituent treatment
standards.
Generally, data on wet air oxidation
followed by PACT supported the
proposed wastewater constituent
treatment standards. In addition, most
of the treatment data on multi-source
leachate wastewaters show no problems
achieving the proposed standards.
Whenever multi-source leachate
treatment data showed difficulty
meeting the proposed standard, while at
the same time showed substantial
treatment of a constituent by a
demonstrated, available technology,
these data were used in developing
today's revised numerical standards.
(Details on the development or transfer
of these wastewater standards per
constituent 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)
c. Multi-Source Leachate That Exhibits a
Characteristic of Hazardous Waste
EPA is not promulgating separate
standards for multi-source leachate that
exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
wastes. By proposing standards for all
of the BDAT list constituents, all of the
constituents and properties that define
any particular characteristic will be
addressed. This is consistent with the
Agency's resolution of situations where
prohibited listed wastes also exhibit a
characteristic: the specific treatment
standard for the listed waste controls
because it is more specific, and in the
case of the standard for multi-source
leachate, addresses the constituent that
causes the waste to exhibit the
characteristic. Should multi-source
leachate or its treatment residues
exhibit a characteristic at the point of
disposal, however, it must be treated to
meet the treatment standard for that
characteristic. Finally, if multi-source
leachate simply exhibits 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 Furaas
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 such multi-source leachate (albeit the
leachate remains within the ambit, at
least, of the statutory hard hammer in
RCRA section 3004(g]), and application
of the management standards for acute
hazardous wastes would not apply to
multi-source leachate. Rather, EPA
proposed to establish treatment
standards for dioxins and furans as part
of the standards for multi-source
leachate (see 54 FR 48464-48465). This
proposed approach was based primarily
on analytical data demonstrating either
non-detectable or very low levels of
these constituents are present in the
leachate (using analytical methods
capable of analyzing orders of
magnitude below the standard limit of
detection of 1 ppb). 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 tile 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
leachate, the Agency is retaining the
dioxin classification for the type of
leachate most likely to be sufficiently
contaminated with dioxins: and furans to
warrant the special status and scrutiny
required for these wastes.
The final issue presented at proposal
was whether the treatment standards
for multi-source leachate should include
a treatment standard for dioxins and
furans, or whether a surrogate
constituent could indicate treatment of
these constituents. The Agency
examined all available multi-source
leachate data and was unable to
develop an adequate surrogate for
dioxin (the Agency's efforts are
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. _55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22623
documented fully in the Response to
BDAT-Related Comments Background
Document). The Agency, therefore, is
promulgating treatment standards for
dioxins and furans in both the
wastewater and nonwastewater forms
of multi-source Isachate.
e. Status of Multi-source Leachate that is
Mixed with Other Prohibited Wastes
EPA reiterates that if another
prohibited waste is mixed with uiulti-
sourcs leachata, that waste must still
meet the treatment standard applicable
to that waste. Thus, onca the treatment
standards for multi-source leachate
become effective, if the treatment
standard for 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 f 288.41(b)), (Conversely,
if the standard for multi-source leachate
is stricter than for the non-leachate
prohibited waste, the mixture would
have to meet the standard for multi-
source leachate.) Id. EPA is not
reopening this 1986 regulation for
review, but is restating that rule here In
order to make sure that the regulated
community realizes that §§ 268.41(b]
and 288.43(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.,
leachate derived-frorn only one waste
code such as might be expected from a
monofill) cannot be combined to create
multi-source leachate, and single-source
leachate from separate facilities cannot
be combined to create multi-source
leachate (this is analogous to the
principle that one ordinarily cannot
dilute to create a new treatability
group). The Agency agrees, however,
that it is permissible to combine various
multi-source leachate streams at one
facility in order to facilitate treatment
(so long as the treatment does not
constitute land disposal).
It should be noted that at least for the
short term, the status of mixtures of
multi-source leachate and First Third
prohibited wastes is controlled by a stay
order entered by a panel of the District
of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.
The order states that "as to anything
contaminated both by leachate and by
other first-third prohibited wastes, the
other wastes must, to the extent
technically feasible, be treated to the "
applicable treatment standards.
Prohibited wastes intentionally mixed
with leachate for the purpose of
avoiding applicable treatment standards
remain subject to all of the First Third
standards." Order of April 24,1989 in
Chemical Waste Management v. EPA,
No. 88-1581.
As explained at 54 FR 26602 (June 23,
1983). 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 avoiding a First Third
rale 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 the treatment standards. EPA in
fact intends to move jointly with the
petitioners in the case to lift this portion
of the stay ordsr. 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 groundwater/multi-source leachate
mixture is a hazardous waste so long as
the multi-source leachate is contained in
the groundwater (54 FR 48482). (See
Chemical Waste Management v, EPA,
869 F, 2d at 1539-40, upholding the
contained-Ln principle as a reasonable
construction of the mixture and derived-
from rules.) 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 to multi-source leachate.
(During the period of a national capacity
variance, the multi-source leachate/
groundwater mixture would have to be
managed in surface impoundments that
satisfy the minimum technology
standards if the mixture is managed in
an impoundment (see § 288.5(h)(2)].)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
[Noowaslewaters]
Regulated organic constituents
Aoetorw
Acenapftthal«ne ...
2-Acatyiaminotluorene..
Acrytonitnt*.__ ,
A/*!*
Maximum for
any swrgw
grab samot«,
total
comoositian
(mg/kg)
160
3.4
4.0
9.7
140
84
0.066
14
4.0
SDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATH—Continued
CNorwosJewatersJ
F$egu!ated organic constituents
Maximum for
any single
grac sample,
total
compestion
(mg/>>.g)
Arodor 1016..-
AfOdor 122!..
Araeiof 1232
Aroctor 1242
Aredor 1248™
A/oclor 1254 .__
Aroclor 1260
alpfia-SKC
beta-SHC.—;
delta-BHC
gamma-3HC ..„____
Benzene—
Benzo (k) fluoranttiene _
i (g, h. i) peryiane -
i (a) I
Brormometnane (rremyt bromide).
4-8romoplwnyt phanyl ether ____.
n-8utanol.
Q.S2
0.92
O.S2
0.92
0,92
1.8
1.8
0.056
0,065
C.066
36
8,2
3.4
3.4
1.5
8.2
15
15
15
IS
2.8
7.9
ZS
S.6
0.13
18
5.7
16
6.0
72
12
5.5
7.2
14
33
5.6
5.7
28
8,2
5.6
3.2
15
-------
22624 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June l, 1S90 / Rules and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE— Continued
(Nonwastewatersl
Regulated organic constituents
O-n-oGtyl phthalate._.
Dt-n-propylnitrosoamine ,.
1,4-Cioxarie ......._...
Endosui'an U ..
Endosulran iiillate..
Endrin Aldehyde.
Ethyl benzene..
bis-<2-Etnyirwxyt) pntnalate _
Ethyl metr
Famphur..,
He-acMofoben-ana
Htixachtoroo-tadiene „........._
Hexacnlorocydopentadiene _
Hexacnlorodibenzo-fur arts.......
HexacnlortK-Oenzo-p-Oioxins..
H«McMoroprepene____~
Indeno < 1 Z3.-c.cJ) pyrerw.,
lsab-tanol_.
MemactykH-trile..
Metnoxycntor..
4.4-Vetny*ene-B4S-(2-chtoroafvline)..
Methyl Bobutyl ketone..
Methyl memacryiate—
Meihyt ParatTHon
p-Nitroanil(f(e_™
Nitrobenzene—
5-Nitro-o-tokjtCme
4-Nitropheoo(....
N-NitT-osomeihytetny tanuoe,
N-Nitrosomorpnoline ,_.,
N-Nitrosopiperidine._
N-MitrosopyrroJicw>e...__
Para then ___________
Pentachlorcxlibanzo-turan«.._
Pentacnlof odtbenzo-ixiKwms..
Pentachlorophenol.,
Pr*nanthrene_
Pionafrtde,
Maximum for
any single
grab sample,
total
compowtioo
4
1 ijp-Tric^inro<>ttw<4,u>L..i>. ,,,..1,1,1,,
2,4,5-Trichloroprierwl ,.
1 JZ 3-TrtCfllOfOPfOPin*
Uinyl r^ilnrirfa ln .,...., .„, .,.,„„ ,„ „,
Cy)«nirt^!f (Tflt$l) ,„„,„., ,-„,,- ,, ,„-„,-
A^fimony i ......i n, tr ,.i....»..,i.....
Cad™nim
Cl«fWii>vm (TOW) ..„.„...,.....„...,.,...„...., ..
Mercury, .._......„..,..„....„,.„„ ,„ -
NW.nl . .,.. , .,, . .
S^Hw^vn1. ».»...,™...«. _».....i
Maximum Itx
any single
grab sample,
total
composition
(mg/kg)
16
22
7.9-
7.9
19
0.001
0.001
42
42
5.5
37
28
1.3
19
5.6
5.6
5.8
37
37
28
28
33
28
1.B
•0.23
1 5.0 (EP)
'52
'0.066
'5.2
"O.S1
1 0.025
•0.32
'5.7
•0.072
1 Maximum lor any single gran sample; TCLP
(mg/l).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
CWastewaters]
Regulated organic and inorganic
constituents
Acetone
AwwpritrtatonB,,... .„...,„...„.„,., ,,„ ,„ „
*n« „--,.„„.,....,..,.,.„
.-Acatylammottoorene — .
Akjrin m _, m ,,u i , Aiau
4-Aminob-3e .
1 _?-Dibfomoetrane—-.—. -
2.4-OichlofOpnefXJxyacatic acxJ._
Ofl'-DDE.
of'-OOT
p*'-DDT.
Oichiorodifluorometnane...
1.1-Otctiloroethane..
1,2-Dchlofoetnane..
1,1-Cichkxoemytene _..
trans-1.2-DicWoroerhene.
2,4-Dtcnkxopnend.
2.6-Oicriloroprteno).
1 «2-Dk>cfiioropf opane
cis-1,3-Ocnkxoixooene—
tran9-l.3-OicftkxopfOpene...
Oietdrin....
DietJiyl phthalate
P-Ctmettiytamiooazoberttene..
2.4-Dimetnyt pnenol.
Dimetnyl pntfiaiate...
CX-n-butyl phthalate.
1.4-Oinitrobenzene...
4.6-Oinrtrocresot—
2,4-Oinitropnenbol ....
2,-t-Dimtro-Xuene.
2,6-Oinitrou>luene,
DKVpropyimtfo30amine—
Maximum for
any 24 hr.
coinposits,
total
composition
tmg/1)
.C017
.14
.059
.061
.055
.0055
.059
.25
.11
.055
5.S
.017
.066
.057
.014
.0033
.46
.057
.10
.057
27
.036
.033
.057
.046
.055
.018
.19
.055
,044
.026
.059
.11
.77
.38
.11
.028
.11
.72
.023
.023
.031
.031
.0039
.0039
.055
.036
.088
.090
.23
.059
.21
.025
.054
.044
.044
.88
.036
.036
.017
20
.13
.036
.047
.057
.32
.23
.12
.32
.55
.017
.40
-------
U1K. JNU.
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rales and Regulations 2282S
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE—Continued
CWastewatersJ
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE—Continued
r.Vastewaters]
Regulatsd organic srui incxganic
const tu a: :ts
1 4-Cioxane
Endosclian I „„. -
E."5d06u!fan it _.„_ _. ..
Ettiyi ac*»tai3 ..
Ethyl cyanida . . - _ ~.
bts-(2-Ethylhexv1) phmaiate
Etnylena oxide
F^mnhiir : _ _ __.
Fluor&ne . _
Heptachkx . _.
Heptacnkx epoxide
HexacTHorobenzene
HexacMiorobutaCiene
Hexactilorocyclopentadiene
Hexacfitorodibenzo-furans
Haxachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Hexachtoroettian*
Hexacniorop'°po~> 1
Inaeno (1.2.3,-c.d) pyrene
lodorncthino T ,,,,„,,,, „, ...,„,..„, ... ..
Isnhulyi ;ilC-Ohis-(2-chlofoanJlin«) _.
Meihylene chloride
Methyl etny) ketorte. „__.._
Mathv* isnhulyt katnna
Mflttlyi rru:im3<^ylq^ _ _
Metnyi metfiansultcnate ._.
Matnyi ParaThion...
Naphthalene ~— _™™
p-Nftrnamline
NtL-.thanrana
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
4-Nnrophenol I
N-Nilmsodiemytemina
N-Nitroso-dwvbirtylamme .
N-Niirosomethyletnylarnine
N-N'trosomorptioiine
N-Nitrnsnpipaririina
N-Nitrosopymrtdina __.^___
Piva^hion
P»nlS/7*il(Vr^>«in^an«)
Pentachlorodibenzo-furans
Pentacrikxodibenzo-fwJioxins
Pentachtorenrtrooenzene
Poma.chio'op'HCYit
Phenaratin
Pherumttvora
Phannl , .„ ___._ _.
Phoraw „ ,
Prnnamina
Pyrono , ,
Sa.frn'a
Silvex (2.4,5-TP)
7.4.S-T
Maximum for
any 24 fir.
composite.
total
comcostion
(rig/I)
.037
'.2
.017
.023
.029
.029
.0028
.025
.34
.0=7
.21
.12
.28
.1*
.12
.017
.068
.059 '
.0012 '
.016
.055
.055
.057
.000063
.000063
.055
\ .035
.0055
.19
5.6
.021
.081
.0011
.24
.081
.25
.0055
.50
.089
2&
.14
.14.
.018
.014
.059
.52
.028
.066
.32
.12
.40
.40
.40
.40
.013
.013
.Ot7
.055
.000035
.000063
.055
.069
.081
.059'
.039
.021
.093
.067
.014
.081
72
72
Regulated organic and inorganic
constituents
1 ?.<:.5-Tetrachlcrobenzena
Te!rachlorodiben:o-(urans
Teracniorod:Ssrr:3-p-*oxios _
2,3.7.5- TBtracfiicrccj&oruo-o-Sioxin
1.!,1.2-Tatraoikxoetnane
1 . 1 .S.2-7s*Tacfilo.-oe;.Tsr.8
TairacWorceihene
;.3.4,5-T6tracWoroohenci -
Toiufi'i-? - .«....—..—...... ..__.......
TcxasMfoe _
Tnbromomethara (hrorr.oform) —
1 ^.4-Ti-icnlo'OJ>ePze.-'9 „.
1 .1 .1 -TricWoroetnane _
1,1.2- rnctiloroethara
Trtcnloro^thene
Tricfiloromonofluorofnethane
2.4.5-TricMoropnenol „
2.4,6-TrictilOfOpneno* __«—
1 i.3-Tricnloroprooane
1 . 1 ,2-Tricrilorp-l .2.2-tnf!uoroetftane . —
Vinvl chlonde
X^lnnpfs)
Fluoride ._. ..
Sulfide ,
Anftrnony^ .,.,. t ,,,,..,,. , ^
Arsor>*C ,
Cadmium
Chromium (Total) ..,..., „ , J
Ninkal __ „ . ., .
Sjlpnnjm ..,,,. _.MII M i
7irv
Maximum for.
any 24 r-.r.
composite,
iota.1
comoosition
(mg,i)
.055
.000063
.000053
.000063
.C57
.057
.056
.C30
.060
.CC35
.63
.055
.054
.054
.054
.020
.18
.035
.85
.057
21
.32
35
14
1.9
5.0
1-2
.82
.20
.37
1.3
-28
.15
.55
.82
.29
.042
1.0
7. Applicability of Treatment Standards
to Soil and Debris
Soil and debris that are contaminated
with prohibited wastes are subject to
the land disposal restrictions and must
meet the treatment standard for the
contaminating waste prior to land
disposal. The Agency realizes, however.
that there are certain problems
associated with regulating hazardous
wastes in soil and debris matrices. It
may be difficult to obtain a
representative sample of the waste in
order to determine the level of
contaminant concentrations in soil and
debris. Additionally, there are a wide
variety of soil types, and wastes that
may be classified as debris that may
range in size from clay-sized particles to
large contaminated tanks and buildings.
Because of such problems, the Agency is
preparing a separate rule-making that
will establish'treatability groups and
treatment standards for contaminated
soil and debris. Until contaminated soil
and debris can be better organized into
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 III.A.S.a.)
If 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 17,1968] or a
fuil-;-cale variance (40 CFR 253.44;.
Categorizing such contaminated soil and
debris according to type, volair.e, 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 significantly from the
waste analyzed in developing the
treatment standard, the waste cannot be
treated to specified levels or by the
specified methods (see 40 CFR 268.44).
At proposal, EPA solicited comment
on the appropriate treatment standard
for scrap metal destined for land
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
constituents 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 decontamination
techniques. The Agency also noted the
imprecision of these terms and the
difficulties in developing an
implementable approach. Id.
Most commenters supported the
Agency's proposal, and some
commentes urged the Agency to extend
the same concept to other types of
debris mixtures. Commenters were not
able, however, to find satisfactory
answers for the problems that EPA
raised at proposal It also appears that
there are only isolated instances of
scrap metal destined for land disposal
being contaminated unavoidably with
listed prohibited hazardous wastes. EPA
consequently believes that the best way
to deal with this situation at the present
time is on an individualized basis
through the § 268.44 treatability
variance rather than in a general rule.
(The Agency believes that one approacn
for variance applicants to consider
-------
22628
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 100 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
would be a demonstration that all of the
BDAT eonstihitents not common to both
the scrap metal and the listed prohibited
waste meet the treatment standards. 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
Agsncy 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
balievea that an individualized approach
is preferable.
8. Radioactive Mixed IVaste
Radioactive mixed wastes are those
wastas that satisfy the definition of
radioactive waste subject to the Atomic
Energy Act (AHA) that also contain
waste that is either listed as a
hazardous waste in subpart D of 40 CFR
part 231, or that exhibits any of the
hazardous waste characteristics
identified in subpart C of 40 CFR part
281. On July 3,1988 (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 facilities.
Since the hazardous portions of the
mixed waste are subject to RCRA, the
land disposal restrictions apply to such
waste. This means that the 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 288.44) may
be used to resolve such problems. If the
treatment technologies determined to
represent BDAT (and used to establish
the treatment standards) are
"inappropriate" due to the radioactive
hazard of a mixed waste (i.e., requiring
a different technology design), a
demonstration may be made to 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: (!)
Low-level wastes, (2) trar.3uranic (TRIO
wastes, and (3) high-level wastes. Low-
level wastes include radioactive waste
that is not classified as spent ftial from
commercial nuclear power plants, or
defense high-level radioactive waste
from producing weapons. TRU wastes
are those wastes containing elements
with atomic numbers greater than 92,
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 hi several ways. For example,
medical diagnostic procedures use
scintillation fluids that contain email
amounts of radioactivity in toxic organic
solvents (e.g., xylene and toluene).
These solvents generally pose a greater
chemical hazard than does the low-level
radioactivity. 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 may be
classified as low-level mixed wastes.
This included a wide variety of liquid
organic wastes such as spent solvents
containing suspended or dissolved
radionuclides, scintillation cocktails,
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 materials such as spent
ion-exchange resins (contaminated with
various metals), niters 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 waste.
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 ore
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 es the waste resulting from the
reprocessing of irradiated fuel rods from
commercial and military nuclear
reactors. This reprocessing involves the
handling of materials that are extremely
hot both thermally and radiologicaily.
One of ttkfi roprnrp
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22S27
the liquid low-level waste fraction, The
material sets up as a solid mass,
immobilizing the waste. The
performance data Indicate that
stabilization provides immobilization of
ths characteristic metal constituents and
radioactive contacaaants 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
cistais.
For organic low-level mixed wastes,
Jh-5 Agsncy believes thst L'cinsraiic." is
sa applicable technology for organic
compounds in both wastcivaisr and
r.snwastewater matrices, and that
technologies such &s carbon adsorption
can achieve removal of organlcs in
wasJs'.vsters whsre incineration is net
practical. DOE has submitted
information indicating that plans are in
place to begin incineration of a DOQ1
ignitable liquid mixed waste containing
benzene. Incineration is also an
applicable technology for DOC1 Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory nonradioacn've
wastes. Therefore, this particular mixed
waste, if incinerated, would meet the
treatment standard for D001 Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory,
For TP.U 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 constituents. 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 a more
complex treatment process which
includes a series of chemical steps that
separate the low-level radioactive waste
fractions from the high-level radioactive
v/sste. The high-level radioactive
portion is then vitrified. When using
separation technologies such, as
precipitation followed by settling or
filtration, ths bulk of the radioactivity
can be incorporated into a high-level
liquid waste containing up to 89 percent
of the radioactivity of the original
irradiated fuel rods. By separating high-
level and low-level mixed wastes, the
amount of high-level waste that may
require vitrification treatment can.be
reduced.
DOE submitted specific data on how
vitrification will be used to treat high-
level mixed waste. As used in the
facility design, the vitrification process
will incorporate 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 in a liquid base). The mixture
will be pumped into a glass melter and
heated so that the \vater is evaporated
end the solid glass and waste particles
melt and blend. After the mixture has
been converted into molten glass, it will
be poured into protective stainless steel
canisters, where it will harden to form
bcrosilisate glass. The canisters will
thsr. be capped and decontaminated and
a second cap will be welded into placs.
br-r.ing an additional seal.
c. Dettt:n:i"atica of EDAT for Certain
Mixad V/asKs
In many cases, currant practice or
planned treatment will achieve the
prr.nju!gsted treatment standards for ths
RCRA hazardous wastes. For example.
DOE generates radioactive zirconium
fines that ars pyrophoric under 40 CFR
261.21{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 D001 Reactive
Ignitable Subcategory by EPA. The
Agency is promulgating "Deactivation
as a Method of Treatment" as the
treatment standard for D001 Ignitable
Reactives Subcategory. The DOE
submitted data which indicate that this
waste can be stabilized to remove the
characteristic, thereby achieving the
treatment standard.
(1) Treatment Standards foe Mixed -
Wastes Not Otherwise Subcategorized,
The Agency is reiterating that as of the
effective date of today's rule, all
promulgated treatment standards for
RCRA listed and characteristic wastes
apply to the RCRA hazardous portion of
mixed radioactive (high-level, TRU, and
low-level) wastes, unless EPA has
specifically established a separate
treatability group for a specific category
of mixed waste. In other words, unless
specifically noted in § § 268.41,268.42, or
268.43 of today's rule, the standards
located in these sections apply to all
mixed wastes. (All alternative standards
that are specifically discussed later in
this section of the preamble that apply
only to specific mixed wastes are
identified in § 268.42 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 Standards for Specific
High-Level Wastes. For most
characteristic metal wastes, the Agency
has determined that conventional
stabilization is BOAT, and has
developed treatment standards using
stabilization performance data. The
Agency does not believe, however, that
stabilization using cementitious binders
is an appropriate treatment for high-
level radioactive mixed wastss
generated specifically during the
reprocessing of fuel rods. Such mixed
wastes exhibit the characteristic of
ioxiciiy for certain RCRA hazardous
metals (lead, chromium, barium.
mercury, and silver). While stabiiiznticn
would reduce the leaching potential of
ths characteristic metals, it would net
provide treatment of the high-level
radioactive portion of the mixed waste.
The Agency provided notice ir. the
proposed rule (54 FR 48492J that DOE •
v/as providing to the Agency trsa:rr.:-.-.:
data for mixed waste. These data were
received and placed in the docket for
the proposed rule end were available
during the comment period for notice
and public comment. The Agency
analyzed these data and performed a
subsequent site 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 effective
immobilization of the inorganic
constituents (i.e., both radioactive and
RCRA hazardous) in high-level mixed
waste generated during the reprocessing
of fuai rods. The Agency is hereby
specifying that vitrification is BOAT 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 concentration-based treatment
standard. For these reasons, the Agency
is promulgating "Vitrification of High
Level Radioactive Waste as a Method of
Treatment" as ths treatment standard
for the high-level fraction of the mixed
waste generated during the reprocessing
of fuel rods exhibiting the
characteristics of corrosivity (D002) and
toxicity for metals (D004-D011). (See
§ 2S3.42 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.)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D002, D004, 0005, D006, D007, DOCS,
0009, 0010, AND D011
[Radioactive high-tave* wastes generated during tr>e
reprocessing of fix* rods suecasegoryl
Vitrification of high-level radioactive was'e (HLvrT)
as a nwUKXJ Ot treatment
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
22623
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(3) Treatment Standards for D008
Radioactive Lead Solids, The Agency
proposed to develop a subcategory
within the D008 wastes and to establish
separate treatment standards for
specific radioactive lead solids (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
Treatment."
The Agency received corr.ment9
requesting that the Agency clarify what
would be included in "lead solids" for
purposes of meeting this treatment
standard. To clarify this point, today's
treatment standard applies to ail fonr.s
of radioactive mixed waste containing
elemental lead (including discarded
equipment containing elemental lead
that served a personnel- or equipment-
shielding purpose prior to becoming a
RCRA hazardous waste). These lead
solids do not include treatment residuals
such as hydroxide sludges, other
wastewater treatment residuals, or
incinerator ash that can undergo
conventional pozzolanic stabilization,
nor do they include organo-lead
materials that can be incinerated and
then stabilized as ash.
One comrnenter 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 decontaminated 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 "best". The Agency,
therefore, is dropping "Surface
Deactivation" from the final treatment
standard.
The Agency is today promulgating a
treatment standard expressed as a
required method of treatment for the
radioactive iead solids treatability
group; "Macroencapsulation as a
Method of Treatment" (MACRO). See
I 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.)
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/1.
For low-level radioactive wastes
containing lead, conventional
stabilization technologies generally
should not be affected 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).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR COOS
[Raaioactve Lead Solids * Subcategory J
MacroencaowMion (MACRO! of radioactive lead
sows as a mefrtod o( treatment
•Thesa lead solids include elerramal terms of
lead. These tend solids do not inciuoe treatment
restduart sue!) at hyarowde wxkfes. otMr
wastewaler treatment residuals, or incrwrator ashes
mat can undergo conventional pozzotamc stabiliza-
tion, nor do may include orgww-tead materials that
can be incinerated and men stabilized aa ash.
(4) Treatment Standards for Mixed
Waste Containing Elemental Mercury,
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 DC09 or LJ151 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 oi Treatment",
and the Agency had no information
indicating that these processes could
separate the mercury from the
radioactive material (i.e.. 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 acid (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 well 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 § 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.) Roasting, retorting, cr
other recovery processes are not
precluded from use by this standard aa
long as all residuals from these recovery
processes comply with the
amalgamation treatment standard prior
to land disposal.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS PCS DC03
AND U151
[Radioactive elemental mercury subcategory)
Amalgamation (AMLGM) at a method erf treatment
(5) Treatment Standards for Mercury-
Containing Hydraulic Oil Contaminated
with Radioactive Materials. The Agency
proposed a treatment standard of
"Incineration as a Method of Treatment
with Incinerator Residues Meeting 0.2
mg/1" for D009 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 tha use of a required method of
treatment are not required to also meet
a concentration-based standard (sea
section III.A-l.b). Today's final
treatment standard for DOC9 hydraulic
oil contaminated with radioactive
materials is "Incineration as a Method
of Treatment" (INON). [See § 258.42
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.)
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register /Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June1, 1990 /Rules and Regulations
22629
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D009
[Merory-containinq hydraulic oil contaminated witti
radoacuve maienais subcaiegocy]
Incineration (INCIN) as a method of treatment
9. Alternate Treatment Standards for
Lab Packs
a. Background
The Agency received several
comments in response to the Second
Third proposed rale (54 FR1056, 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 peck. The commenters 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
specific 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 in
response to the proposal, and is today
promulgating the alternate treatment
standards with some revisions.
b. Alternate Treatment Standards
Many commenters suggested that EPA
expand the universe of waste allowed in
organic and inorganic lab packs. The
Agency agrees with some of the .
information and suggestions provided
by the commenters, and is 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 208 to include
certain inorganic and organometallic
hazardous wastes. The revised appendix
IV includes the following hazardous
wastes:
(I) Inorganic
(2) Organometallic;
(3) Organic:
(4) D003 reactives; 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 (Le., D004-
D008, and DOlO-DQll; 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 (nonhazardous) 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 IV or V lab pack.
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
owners/operators 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, D002 corrosive, and DOCS
reactive wastes where the waste codes
are identified in appendix IV. As
explained below, these waste streams
must continue to meet all applicable
treatment standards for the EP toxic
metal constituents.
Generators who wish to use the
alternate treatment standards for leb
packs must notify the treatment facility
in writing of the EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers) 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 268. (The Agency
reiterates, however, that owners/
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 264,316 and
265.316. 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 (Le., 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 for
lab packs. In general, commenters
agreed with the proposed approach:
however, they provided .
recommendations for further relief from
the administrative and technical
requirements for lab packs. The issues
raised by commenters are addressed in
the preamble and background document
to today's final rule.
{!) Inorganic and Organometallic Lab
Packs, The Agency proposed an
alternate treatment standard of
stabilization with Portland cement in a
SO percent binder-to-waste ratio (by
weight) for lab packs containing certain
EP toxic metals. As proposed, the
alternate treatment standard was
narrowly denned to include only
barium, cadmium, trivalent chromium,
lead, and silver; therefore,, the alternate
treatment stardards were applicable
primarily to those EP toxic characteristic
wastes. Several commenters 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
standard of incineration followed by
stabilization for organometaliic wastes
(including F and K waste codes for
which EPA has promulgated treatment
standards for metal constituents). The
commenters 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
-------
22S30
Fadbzal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 19SO / Rules and Regulations
who stated that the altercate standard
for inorganic hazardous waste disposed
of in lab packs should be expanded,
ascd that the treatment tram proposed
by the commenters may effectively treat
certain organometallic wastes. The
Agency believes that a more effective
approach to managing inorganic and
organometaliic wastes would allow
commingling of these wastes in an
"organomstailic" or "appendix IV lab
pack." The alternate treatment standard
of incineration followed by treatment to
achieve tha treatment standards for the
EP toxic metals included in appendix IV
will effectively destroy the organics and
immobilize the aetal constituents. The
Agency, therefore, is not promulgating
the alternate treatment standard for
"inorganic !sb packs" as proposed, but
rather is promulgating an alternate
standard for "crganomeiaLUc" 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 varying 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 from 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 resetting environmental
exposure. The Agency was unaware of
these safety and environmental
concerns, and does not wish to increase
the risks associated with treatment of
these wastes.
Several commenters suggested that
the Agency allow corrosive (D002) and
reactive (D003) wastes in organic lab
packs, while others requested that they
be allowed in inorganic or
orgar.ometailic lab packs. The
commenters stated that industry
experience with these wastes indicates
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 incinerated
effectively [54 FR 43422), many of these
wastes contain metal constituents that
may require further treatment The
Agency is concerned that incineration of
metal-bearing wastes without
verification 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 Issd disposal restriction
requirements, and analysis of the
treatment residues is not required for
purposes of complying with part 268.)
The Agency, therefore, is prohibiting
D002 corrosive and D003 reactive
wastes from appendix V lab packs.
Rather, the Agency believes that the
alternate treatment standard for
Appendix IV organometaliic lab packs,
which requires Lncinceration and
treatment to meet certain EP toxic metal
treatment standards, is mere
appropriate for DOQ2 and COOS 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 D002 and
D003 wastes in an appendix IV
(organometallic) lab pack along with
oiher wastes identified in appendix IV,
provided that the compatibility
standards in J 5 284.318 and 285.318 are
met
The Agency wishes to clarify that
where an appendix IV lab pack contains
listed hazardous waste with waste code-
specific treatment standards for
inorganic constituents that are also EP
toxic metals (| 261.24) (within the same
lab pack), the waste must be treated, at
a minimum, to meet the EP toxic metal
treatment standard. For example, an
appendix IV lab pack may contain
analytical samples of F006 waste
(wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations) which has
waste code-specific treatment standards
for cadmium, chromium, 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 FOC8 treatment
standards for cadmium, lead, and silver
are lower than their respective EP toxic
metal treatment standards, while the
F008 treatment standard for chromium is
higher. The applicable alternate
treatment standards for all of the metal
constituents in this hypothetical analytic
sample, at a minimum, would be the
treatment standards for the EP toxic
metals.
The Agency further wishes to clarify
that where lab packs are combined with
other non-lab pack hazardous wastes
prior to or during treatment (e.g., prior to
incineration), §§268.41 and268.43(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 en
EP toxic characteristic lead waste
together with non-lab pack K001
nonwastewatars (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 mg/1 for the K001
nonwastewater, and 5.0 mg/1 for the
characteristic waste. In this case, tha
more stringent treatment standard
would apply, based on ths mixture of
the K001 waste with, the lab pack
containing an EP toxic metal
constituent
(2) Unregulated (Nonhazardcus)
Waste. In the proposed role, 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 inorganics destined for
disposal in "organic" and "inorganic"
lab packs were not available; therefore,
the Agency was reluctant to allow
disposal of these wastes in lab packs
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 incinerated 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 an also disposed of in lab
packs. The commenters argued that
these unregulated wastes should also be
allowed in lab packs because their
presence does not affect the
" performance of incineration of
hazardous waste.
The Agency also received comments
indicating that the excessive cost of lab
pack disposal discourages commingling
of hazardous and unregulated wastes.
Thus, in most cases, disposal of
unregulated waste in lab packs is
limited to small 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 TV lab packs.
(3) Organic Lab Packs. The Agency
proposed to limit the applicability of ths
alternate treatment standard to organic
wastes that have a treatment standard
based on the performance of
incineration or thermal destruction, or
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. Mo. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 /Rules and Regulations
22631
where incineration only is specified as
the treatment standard.
Some commenters stated that there is
nc sound basis for excluding waste
codes that already meet the treatment
siandards from disposal in their
respective lab packs. The Agency is not
opposed to extending the alternate
standards to such waste, but was
unaware that generators disposed of
treated waste (or waste that initially
meets the treatment standard) in this
manner. Numerous commenters have
expressed a dssire to continue this
practice; therefore, the Agency is
revising the language in 40 CFR
2S8.42(c)(l) so that prohibited waste that
meets the applicable treatment
standards is not precluded from disposal
utilizing the alternate treatment
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 pack.
Several co.mmenters stated that
incineration (or deactivation by
incineration) of small quantities of
reactive U and P wastes in lab packs is
proven to be safe and effective. The
conmenters further point to the fact that
EPA proposed deactivation,
incineration, or thermal treatment for
several U and P waste codes that are
potentially reactive wastes, but failed to
include the applicable waste codes in
appendix IV. The Agency agrees with
the commenters that small quantities of
reactive U and P waste codes as
specified in the proposed rule (54 FR
48427-48428) can be safely packaged
and incinerated in a lab pack provided
that the requirements for incompatible
waste in §§264.318 and 265.316 are met
The Agency is therefore amending
appendices IV and V to include several
additional U and P wastes codes. The
Agency also is including California list
PCBs and dioxin-containing waste
(F020-F023, F02S-F028) in the lab pack
tre a lability group as proposed, but
reiterates that treatment of these wastes
requires more stringent performance
standards than wastes included in part
288 appendices IV and V {Le,, dioxins
must achieve a destruction and removal
efficiency of 99.9999 percent and PCBs .
must meet the technical standard in 40
CFR 761.70). Where generators choose to
commingle one or both of these wastes
with organic iab pack wastes listed in
appendices IV and V, the entire lab pack
must be incinerated to meet the more
stringent standard. The following
examples are provided for clarification:
(a) A lab pack containing dioxin-
containing waste, California list PCBs
anu appendix V waste must be
incinerated according to the technical
standards of 40 CFR 761.70 and the
applicable requirements of parts 284,
265, and 266 (including all applicable
performance standards for dioxin-
containing waste).
(b) A lab pack that contains only
dioxin-containing waste (F020-23 and
F026-23) or a mixture of dioxin-
containing waste and organic hazardous
waste codes listed in appendix V to part
260 must be incinerated according to the
provisions in part 264 or 255 subpart O
(including the applicable performance
standards for dioxin-containing waste).
According to the provisions of today's
final rule, generators may utilize the
alternate treatment standards if their lab
packs contain these wastes summarized
below:
(a) "Appendix IV organometallic lab
packs" may contain the following
hazardous waste identified in appendix
IV:
(1) Organometallic;
(2) Inorganic;
(3) Organic;
(4) D002 corrosives; and
(5) D003 reactives.
(b) "Appendix V organic 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. Other Requirements
EPA proposed that generators or
owners/operators who dispose of lab
packs according to the alternate
treatment standard must also meet the
requirements for lab packs specified in
40 CFR 284.318 and 265.316. Several
commenters expressed concern with the
provision that requires metal outer
containers (§ 264.316{b)) and
§ 265.316{b)), and pointed out that the
original intent of these regulations was
to ensure adequate containment for lab
pack wastes that were bsing land
disposed with or without prior
treatment. The commenters further
stated that iab packs destined for
incineration are generally put in fiber
packs that meet the Department of
Transportation (DOT) requirements (49
CFR 173.12) and are suitable for
incineration. The commenters requested
that the Agency allow the continued use
of fiber packs that meet applicable DOT
requirements. The Agency does not wish
to disrupt the use of fiber packs, and is
amending §§ 264.316lb) and 265.316(b) to
allow their continued use.
The Agency is promulgating its
proposed approach with regard to
genera tor notification requirements, and
is requiring generators to list each EPA
Hazardous Waste Code on a notification
form and identify the applicable lab
pack categories. Several commenters
stated that the notification provision as
proposed is burdensome. The Agency
believes, however, that notification is
necessary in order for owners/operators
to verify that they are accepting for
treatment only those waste codes
covered under their permit. The Agency
reiterates that the provisions
promulgated in today's final rule do not
supersede permit requirements ynder
the RCRA hazardous wasts program.
Generators cr owners/operators who
intend to utilize the applicable alternate
treatment standard for hazardous waste
codes listed in appendix IV and
appendix V to part 268 must comply
with the notification, certification, and
recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR
268,7(a) (7) and (8). They must also
comply with the provisions in sections
(a)(l), (a)(5). {a)(6J. (b)(2) and (c). Th.
Agency is requiring generators utilizing
the alternate treatment standards to
state whether the lab pack is an
appendix IV or appendix V lab pack.
and certify that hazardous wastes
included therein are listed 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.268 are excluded from the alternate
treatment standards for lab packs.
IIl.B Capacity Determinations
1, Determination of Alternative
Capacity and Effective Dates for
Surface-Disposed Wastes. Between May
8,1990, when this rule was signed, and
the date of its publication in the Federal
Register, EPA 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 capacity analyses for
wastes Per which EPA is today finalizing
treatment standards were conducted
using the National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal,
and Recycling Facilities (the TSDR
Survey). EPA conducted the TSDR
Survey during 1987 and early Ifl88 to
obtain comprehensive data on the
nation's capacity for managing
hazardous waste and on the volumes of
hazardous waste being disposed of in or
on the land in 1936 (i.e.. land disposal).
-------
22632
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, Jane 1, 1930 / Rules and Regulations
Survey data are part of the record for
this final rule.
Other major sources of data include
the National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators, conducted by EPA
cl'iring 1988 and Ii8i. 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/radioactive wastes.
EPA used data supplied by the U.S.
Department of Energy. Low-level
radioactive wcste survey data from
individual states and State compacts
were also used, as were data summaries
in several overview reports on mixed
radioactive waste.
The vsrious land disposal methods
used in 1S53 and the quantities of waste
they handled (excluding mixed
radioactive wastes] are presented in
Table IHJ-l.(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 estimate 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 treatment.
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
s.3 treatment capacity required In
today's rule,
TABLE !ll.B.l.(a)—VOLUME OF WASTES BY
LAND DISPOSAL METHOD FOR WHICH
STANDARDS ARE BE;«G FINALIZED
ImMura of gallons/year]
Land disposal mettod
Storage:
waste piles..
Treatment:
Waste piles
Surface wnpeundmtnts.
Disposal:
Lanelilte ..,.,.„.„
Underground injected
Volume
77
2
30
22
349
81
52
5,086
TABLE MI.B.1.(a>—VOLUME OF WASTES BY
LAND DISPOSAL METHOD FOR WHICH
STANDARDS ARE BEING FINALIZED—
Continued
(millions of gallons/year]
Land disposal method
Tnlal . .„ , , ,
Vohjtne
5,701
In addition, 30 million gallons of
wastes were treated in weste piies, 52
million gallons were disposed of in
surface impoundments, 430 million
gallons were disposed of in land
treatment units or landfills, and S.I
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 capcity for wastewaters that
were treated or disposed of in surface
impoundments at the time of the survey
(1987 and early 1388). This
overstatement is due to the requirement
that impoundments receiving most
hazardous wastes must now be
retrofitted to meet minimum technology
requirements, or taken out of service, as
a result of RCRA section 30050). If an
impoundment continues to operate after
being retrofitted, it becomes a section
3005(j)(ll) impoundment, provided that
ths 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)(ll)
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 closure plan
approvals, EPA believes lhat most of
these impoundments removed liquid
hazardous wastes on or about
November 8,193a EPA believes that the
remaining volume of wastewaters 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
wastewatera destined for deepwell
disposal.)
EPA also requested comments on the
quantity of RCRA P and U waste codes
currently being disposed of in
deepwelis. The TSDR Survey data
inciude seme 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 deepwelis 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-disposed P and U wastes.
Since the facilities generally described
the volume of P end 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-disposed
are less than 100.COO gallons.
EPA received several comments
concerning deepwell-injected P and U
wastes. One commenter submitted data
indicating that their facility disposed of
20,455 gallons of U wastes by deepwell
injection in 198i. However, this
commenter 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
commenter'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
261.3(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 miniznis losses—but
rather the total wastewater 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 capacity analysis for the
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. IDS / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22633
final rule. The detailed analyses are
presented in the background document.
and all data are included in the public
docket
b. Required Alternative Capacity for
Surface-Disposed Wastes. EPA assessed
the requirements resulting from today's
fins! rule for alternative treatment
capacity for surface-disposed wastes.
Using primarily the TSDR and Generator
Survey data, EPA first characterized the
volumes of wastes for which treatment
standards are being established. Waste
streams were characterized on the basis
of land disposal method, waste code,
physical and chemical form, and waste
characterization data. Using this
information, EPA placsd the wastes in
treatEbility groups associated with
applicable treatment technologies. The
waste volumes were then summed by
testability group to determine the
amount and type of alternative
treatment capacity that would be
required when owners or operators
comply with the land disposal
restrictions being finalized today.
Based on this analysis. EPA estimates
that today's rule could affect about S.7
billion gallons of wastes that are land-
disposed annually. This total includes 77
million gallons in short-term storage,
and 79 million gallons that already meet
treatment standards or that can be
treated on-site. Consequently, only
about 5.5 billion gallons will require
treatment to meet standards EPA is
promulgating in today's rule. Of this
total, 515 million gallons were surface-
disposed (i.e., excluding underground
injection), and the remaining 5 billion
gallons were underground injected. (See
Section 2 for determinations of
alternative capacity and effective dates
for wastes injected underground.) EPA
estimates that treatment of these
surface-disposed and deepweil-injected
wastes will generate approximately 82
million gallons of residuals requiring
treatment before land disposal.
The volumes of surface-disposed
wastes by waste codes that require
commercial treatment and/or recycling •
capacity to meet the standards that EPA
is promulgating today are presented in
Table OLB.l.(b). This table does not
include waste volumes that can be
treated on-site by the generator, nor
does it contain volumes of mixed
radioactive wastes.
As explained in section ELLA of this
preamble, EPA is finalizing treatment
standards expressed either as
concentration limits based on the
performance of the BOAT, or as a
specific treatment technology. When a
treatment standard is expressed as a
concentration limit a specific treatment
method ts"not required to achieve that
concentration level. However, the BOAT
(and comparable technologies], as
discussed in Section ILI.A., were used as
the basis for determining available
capacity. When the treatment standard
is expressed as a specific technology
(rather than a concentration limit), that
technology must be used.
The TSDPv Survey contains data on
specific treatment processes at facilities.
The data enable EPA to identify specific
BDAT treatment (and comparable
treatment) in its assessment of both off-
site and on-site capacity. Therefore,
EPA believes that the capacity identified
es available for a specific treatment
technology will be capable of meeting
the BDAT standard, which has been
developed such that a well-designed and
well-operated BDAT treatment process
should be capable of meeting it.
In the proposed rule, EPA established
criteria for differentiating between a
liquid and a solid waste because of the
variance for DOQ1 sludges and solids.
EPA requested comments on the
proposed criteria, and during the public
comment period received two comments
requesting clarification of-the sludge/
solid definition. EPA also received
several comments identifying additional
sludge/solid incineration capacity.
Commenters identified new units at
existing facilities and increased capacity
resulting from trial burns conducted
after the 1988 survey. Based on an
analysis of this information, EPA has
determined that there is adequate
capacity to incinerate D001 sludge/solid
wastes. Consequently, EPA is not
granting DC01 sludge/solids a variance.
and the criteria proposed for
differentiating between a liquid and a
solid are no longer necessary.
TABLE IH.B.1.(b}—REQUIRED ALTERNA-
TIVE COMMERCIAL TREATMENT/RECY-
CLING CAPACITY FOR SURFACE-DIS-
POSED WASTES
(million gallona/year]
Waste coda
First Thin) Cod*:
FOC6 _„
F019
K004_
K017._
K035.
K050.
K051.
K073_
Capacity
required
lex
surfaca-
disposad
wastes
20.3
12.8
0.1
0.6
37.1
31.7
11.8
78.1
MS
TABLE !ll.B.l.(b)—REQUIRED ALTERNA-
TIVE COMMERCIAL TREATMENT/RECY-
CLING CAPACITY FOR SURFACE-DIS-
POSED WASTES—Continued
[million gallons/year]
Waste coda
tor
surtsc^-
K084....
XOS5....
K106_
FOCI
P004._..
FOOS-...
PS10
P012
P015
P018
P020
P037
P048.,
POSO.,
P069-.
P070
P081
P087,
0.2
<0.1
O.S
<0.1
fl
>7
>fl
_
_
— -
__
-_
._..
__
_
—
-
—
--
—
~~
_
0.1
0.3
<0.f
0.3
0.1
C0.1
2.7
-------
22634 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 106 / Friday, June 1, 19£0 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE ll!.B.1.(b)— REQUIRED ALTERNA-
TIVE COMMERCIAL TREATMENT/RECY-
CUNQ CAPACITY FOR SURFACE-DIS-
POSED WASTES — Continued
Inmfton gallons/year]
Wasie cods
U237.
U248
U249 —
Second ThW Coda:
FQ24.__,_
K105
P002,.__
onna
P014
P066,.
P067_
UC02....
U005.
U008.
U014.
U021..
U032.
U057.
U070.
U073.
U083.
U092.
U093.
U106.
U109.
U116.
U119.
U131.
U140..
U142.
U146.
U147.
U149.,
U162.
U165.
U163.
U170..
U196..
U208
U213,_
U214...
U217._
U218
U239
U244_
Tnird Third Code:
DC01__
0002
0003..,..
0004 .„
0005.
0006 __
0007 ..„
DQOS.
0009.
0011 _.....
0012™
0013
D014...._.
D015
0016
Capacity
required
for
turtace-
dis posed
wastes
2.7
0.1
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22855
TABLE Hl.B.l,(c5—AVAILABLE AND REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE COMMERCIAL TREATMENT (INCLUDING RECYCLING) CAPACITY FOR
SURFACE-DISPOSED WASTES
Imfflons of gallons/yr.'
Technology '
Add Caching followed oy chemical precipitation * «„ „ ... ™ ,™-», __.... ,. — ......
Afkai<;
-------
22836 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 108 / Friday, June 1. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
data for incineration and cement kilns,
EPA has determined that adequate
capacity exists to treat surface-disposed
D001 liquids wastes. Therefore, EPA is
not granting a national capacity
variance for these wastes.
EPA is promulgating deactivation as
the method of treatment for D001
ismitable rsasb'ves and oxidizers, EPA
has determined that sufficient capacity
exists for these wastes; therefore, EPA Is
not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
For D001 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
(D002). EPA has identified three
treatability groups for D002 wastes:
acids, alkaliaes, and othsr corrosives.
EPA is promulgating deectivation, which
includes neutralization, as the method of
treatment for the D002 acid and alkaline
subcategories. In addition, recovers' of
acids or basss is included as an option
for these standards. By definition,
wastes in these subcategories are
lie .ids; therefore based on the limited
number of surface impoundments that
meet minimum technology requirements
and the ban on liquids in landfills, EPA
relieves that few, if any, of these wastes
are surface-disposed. For the capacity
analysis, EPA assigned all D002 wastes
to neutralisation. EPA has determined
that sufficient neutralization capacity
does exist for acid and alkaline D002
wastes that are surface-disposed;
therefore, EPA is not granting a national
capacity variance for them.
For ths DOC2 other corrosives
category, EPA is promulgating
deactivation as the method of treatment
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 granting a
r.aHoi'd capacity variance for them.
(cj Inactive Characteristic Wastes
(DOGS). For 0003 wastes, EPA has
identified five treatability groups:
reactive cyanides, explosives, water
rsactives, reactive sulfides, and other
reactives. For DQ03 cyanides. EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on alkaline chiorination, wet-air
oxidation, or electrolytic oxidation.
Although reactive cyanides account far
the majority of 0003 generated wastes,
EPA believes that most are already
restricted from landfills by existing
regulations (40 CFR Part 264.312,
35.312}. EPA believes that sufficient
apacity does exist for the volume of
surface-disposed B003 cyanide reactive
wastes; therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
For D003 reactive sulfides, 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 D003 suifide
wastes; therefore, EPA is not panting a
national capacity variance for them.
For D003 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 DOG3 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 DOGS wastes, EPA
promulgating deactivetion as the
method of treatment EPA believes these
wastes could be incinerated or
detonated openly and that there is
adequate capacity for treating the small
volumes that are surface-disposed.
Therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
(d) EP Toxic Haiogenated Pesticide
Wastes.
D012—Characteristic of EP Toxic for Endrin
D013—Characteristic of EP Toxic for Lindane
D014—Characteristic of EP Toxic for
. Metfaoxyehlor
D01S—Characteristic of EP Toxic for
Toxaphene
D01S—Characteristic of EP Toxic for 2.4-D
DO!"—Characteristic of EP Toxic for 2.4,5-TP
For these EP toxic halogenated
pesticide nonwastewatars, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on incineration. For 0012 and
D015 wastewaters, EPA is promulgating
incineration or biological treatment as
methods of treatment; far D013
wastewaters. EPA has set incineration
or carbon adsorption as methods of
treatment: for DC14 wastswaters, EPA is
promulgating incineration or wet-air
oxidation as methods of treatment; for
D016 and D017 wastewaters, EPA has
set incineration or chemical oxidation as
methods of treatment. EPA has also set
bindegradalion as an alternate method
of treatment for D016 ncnwastewaters.
EPA has determined that sufficient
treatment capacity exists for these
wastes; therefore, EPA is not granting
EF toxic pesticide wastawaters 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
DC04—EP Toxic for arsenic
K031—By-product salts genratad is the
production of KSMA and cacodyUc acid
£084—Wastewater tresticent sludges
generated during the production of
veterinary phannseesticals freai arsenii
or organo-arsenic compounds
K101—Distillation tar residues frosa ths
distillation of anilir.e-bssed compounds
in She production of veterinary
Pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organo-
arsenic compounds
K102—Residues from the use of activated
carbon for decoSorization in the
production of veterinary pharmaceutics!*
front arsenic or orgaao-arsenie
compounds
P010—Arsenic acid
P011—Arsenic (V) oxids
P0i2—Arsenic (III) oxide
P035—Dichlorophenyiarsine
PC38—Diethylarsine
L'136—Cacodylic acid
Far arsenic nonwastewaters, EPA 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 ths arsenate form followed by
chemical precipitation with iron sslts
followed by arsenic stabilization of the
precipitate. This technology may be
inappropriate for all arsenic
nonwastewaters because organics are
known to interfere with the stabilization
process. EPA beiieves vitrification will
work for all forms of arsenic
nonwastewaters, because high
temperatures are expected to destroy
the organo-metaiiic bonds, and
therefore, its performance is not limited
by the presence of organics. Thus, EPA
has assigned arsenic nonwastewaters to
vitrification for tha capacity analysis.
The TSDR Survey indicates that no
commercial vitrification capacity exists.
EPA. requested information en
commercial vitrification capacity, b-jt
received no comments demonstratiag
that this type of capacity exists.
Thsrfore, EPA is granting a two-year
capacity variance to the surface-
disposed arsenic nonwastewaters listed
above.
For arsenic waslewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chemical precipitation. The
TSDR Survey and other capacity data
indicate that adequate chemical
precipitation capacity exists: therefore,
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1S90 / Rules and Regulations
22637
EPA is not granting arsenic wastewaters
a capacity variance.
(b) Barium Wastes. For DOOS and P013
westewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation: for 0005 and
PC13 (except as indicated below)
ncnwastewaters. EPA is 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 trsat surface-disposed DC05 and P013
wastes. Therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
(c) Cadmium Wastes. For DOOS
wastes, EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for three categories:
wastewaters, nonwastewaters, and
cadmium batteries.
For D006 wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chemical precipitation. For
D006 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 D006 cadmium batteries, EPA is
promulgating thermal recovery as the
method of treatment. In the proposed
rule, EPA proposed granting D006
cadmium batteries a national capacity
variance due to a lack of identified
recovery capacity. During the public
comment period, two commenters
identified available commercial
cadmium battery recovery capacity
(these comments were available for
reply comments). EPA contacted these
commenters to verify their capacity.
Based on these contacts, EPA received
additional information and determined
that adequate capacity for treating
surface-disposed cadmium batteries
exists. Therefore. EPA is not granting
D006 cadmium batteries a national
capacity variance.
(d) Chromium Wastes. For D007
chromium and U032 (calcium chromate)
wastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chromium reduction followed by
chemical precipitation: for 0007 and
U032 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.
D008—EP toxic for lead
PllO—Tetraethyl lead
U144—Lead acetate
U145—Lead phosphate
U146—Lead subacetate
K069—Emissision control dust/sludge from
secondary lead smelting
KlOO—Waste leaching solution from acid
leaching of emission control dust/sludge
from secondary lead smelting
For DOOS wastes, EPA is promulgating
standards for three categories:
nonwastewaters, wastewaters. and
lead-acid batteries. For DOOS
nonwastewater lead wastes, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on stabilization, except where the
waste contains significant
concentrations of organics. In this case,
these wastes may need to be incinerated
prior to stabilization. For DOOS
wastewaters. EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation. EPA believes
sufficient capacity exists for surface-
disposed DOGS wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. Therefore, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
DOOS wastewaters and nonwastewaters,
with the exceptions noted below.
EPA is promulgating thermal recovery
as the method of treatment for lead-acid
batteries. Secondary lead smelters have
stated that they store these wastes in
piles prior to recovery. EPA has
indicated in a previous rulemaking that
the shells surrounding lead-acid
batteries are considered to be storage
containers (see 47 FR12318 and 40 CFR
264.314(0(3)). Therefore, to the extent
that lead-acid battery storage meets all
the requirements of the LDR storage
prohibitions at 40 CFR 268.50. such
storage is permissible.
In the proposed rule, EPA solicited
comments on the management of other
DOOS 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 comments
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 to 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-ysar
national capacity variance in this rule.
however, the Agency need not make a
final decision on this point in this
'•rulemaking.
For PllO. U144, U145, and U146
wastes, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical oxidation followed by
chemical precipitation for wastewaters.
and stabilization for nonwastewaters.
PllO, U144. U145. and U146
nonwastewaters containing significant
concentrations of organics may require
incineration prior to stabilization. EPA
believes sufficient capacity exists for
the small volume of these wastes that
are surface-disposed: therefore. EPA is
not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
EPA is revoking the no land disposal
standard based on recycling standard
promulgated in the First Third role for
the non-calcium sulfate subcategory for
K069 nonwastewaters. For K069 calcium
sulfate nonwastewaters. EPA is
promulgating concentration standards-
based on stabilization. For K069 non-
calcium sulfate nonwastewaters. EPA is
promulgating recycling as the method of
treatment For K069 wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chemical precipitation. EPA
believes adequate capacity exists to
treat the volume of surface-disposed
KC69 wastewaters and nonwastewaters:
therefore, EPA is not granting a capacity
variance for them.
For KlOO 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 KlOO wastes.
Therefore. EPA is not granting a
capacity variance for them.
-------
22S38 Federal Register / ¥ol 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1S90 / Rules and Regulations
(f) Mercury Wastes.
D009—EP toxic for mercury
K071—Brine purification muds from the
mercury cell process in chlorine
production, where separately tepurified
brine is not used
KlOS—Wastewater treatment sludges from
the mercury cell process in chlorine
production
POSS—Mercury fulminate
P092—Phenylraercuric acetate
UlSl—Mercury
For DOCS, K1C8, and UI51
wastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation. For P065 and
PC92 wastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical oxidation followed by
chemical precipitation. X071 wastawater
standards ware promulgated in the First
Third rule and remain unchanged. It
should be noted that mercury-bearing
wastewaters containing faexavalent
chromium may require chromium
reduction prior to treatment of the
mercury. Likewise, wastewaters
containing organics may require
chemical oxidation prior to treatment of
the mercury.
Foe mercury nonwastewaters, EPA is
establishing low mercury and high
mercury subcategories. For the high.
mercury subcategory (greater than as
equal to 260 rag/kg}, EPA is
promulgating roasting or retorting as
methods of treatment for 0009, KlOfl.
and UlSl nonwastewaters. For the high
mercury subcategory of P065 and PC82
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
incineration followed by roasting or
retorting as the method of treatment Foe
the low mercury subcategory of 0009,
KlGB, PQ85. P092, and UI51
nonwastewaters. EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on acid
leaching and chemical precipitation.
Treatment standards forKOTl
Rortwastewaters were originally
promulgated in the First Third rule. In
the proposed Third Third rule. EPA
proposed to revise the standards for
K071 nonwastewaters with a high
mercury content. For this high mercury
subeategory, EPA proposed roasting or
retorting as methods of treatment For
the final role, EPA is not adopting the
proposed revisions to K071 wastes, and
the promulgated First Third BOAT
remains unchanged.
EPA believes sufficient capacity
exists to treat the volume of all surface-
disposed mercury wastewaters.
Therefore. EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
Because current data do- not provide
sufficient information on the volume of
nonwastewaters that contain high and
low concentrations of msicury, EPA
conducted a worst-case analysis and
assigned all volumes of surface disposed
mercury nonwastewaters to bom
mercury retorting and acid leaching
followed by chemical precipitation. EPA
has identified a small amount of
commercial mercury retorting capacity
(10,000 gallons). There is insufficient
mercury retorting capacity for DOW,
K106, and UlSl nonwastewaters. Oue to
the sporadic generation rate of P tvastes
from year to year and the small amount
of available commercial mercury
retorting capacity, EPA is granting all
high mercury nonwastewaters a two-
year national capacity variance. EPA
has also determined that thsre is
insufficient commercial cnpadty for acid
leaching followed by chemical
precipitation: therefore, EPA is granting
lew mercury D009, K106, P085, P092, and
UlSl nonwastewaters a national
capacity variance.
(g) Selenium wastes.
DOIO—2P Toxic for aelenima
P103—Selenourea
P114—Thailiuni seienite
U204—Stlenioua acid
U205—Selenium dkulfide
For selenium nonwastewaters, 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 adequate stabilization
capacity exists. Therefore. EPA is not
granting selenium nonwastewaters a
national capacity variance.
For selenium wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chemical precipitation. The
TSDR Survey and other capacity data
indicate that adequate chemical
precipitation capacity exists; therefore,
EPA is not granting selenium
wastewaters a national capacity
variance
(h) Silver Wastes.
DOI1—EP toxic for silver
P099—Potassium silver cyanide
P104—Silver cyacide
Treatment standards for P099 and
P104 nonwastewaters were promulgated
in the Second Third final rale. For PC99
and P104 wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chemical precipitation. For
DOll, EPA is promulgating concentration
standards based on chemical
precipitation for wastewaters. and
recovery or stabilization for
nonwastewaters. EPA believes adequate
capacity exists to treat surface-disposed
DOll. P099, and P104 wastewaters and
0011 nonwastewaters. Therefore. EPA is
not granting a capacity variance for
them.
(i) Thallium Wastes.
P113—Thallic oxide
P114—Thallium aelenite
P115—Thallium (I> suifate
U214—Thallium (I) aeetats
U215—Thalliura (I) carbonate
U21&—Thailiura (I) shleride
U217-—Thallium (I) nitrata
For P113, P115, U214, U215, U216, and
U217, EPA is promulgating thermal
recovery or stabilization as methods of
treatment for nonwastewaters. and
concentration standards based en
chemical precipitation for wastewaters.
For P114. EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based en
stabilisation, vitrification, recovery for
nonwastewaters, and chemical
precipitation for wastewaters. Based on
the TSDR Survey and otier capacity
data, adequate capacity exists for
surface-disposed thallium waste wafers
and nonwastewaters. Therefore. EFA is
not granting a national capacity
variar.ee far them.
(|) Vanadium Wastes.
PllJN-Ammonnnn vaaadSate
P120—Vanadium pentoxid*
For P113 and P12Q, EPA ia
promulgating stabilization as the method
of treatment for nocwastewaters, and
concentration standards baaed on
chemical precipitation for wastewaters.
Because adequate capacity exists for
chemical precipitation and stabilization.
EPA is not granting PllS and P120
wastewaters and non waste waters a
national capacity variance.
(3) Treatment Standards foe
Remaining F and K Wastes and UOS1.
These groups include certain FQ02 and
F005 wastes; FG06 wastewaters and
F019; FQ24; F025; K001 and 'J051; wastes
from pigment production (KOQ2 through
KOOB); K011. K013. KOI 4; K015; K017 and
K073; K021; KQ22; K025. K02B. K035* and
K083; K028, K029. KOSS, and KOS& KQ32.
K033, K034, K041. K097. and K098
wastes; K038 and K037: K342, K035, and
K105 wastes; K044. K043*KQ46. K047;
K648 through K052; K06& KC81
wastawaters; and KC86.
(a] Additional Treatment Standard*
for FC02 and FMS Wastes. Treatment
standards for FOC2 aad FOC5 were
promulgated in the Solvents and Dioxins
rule. Today^ EPA is revising the
treatment standards far F002 and i'005
to account for fccr newly listed FC02
and FCQS constituents. Wastewater
concentration standards far F002
containing 14,2-Tricbic«oethane' and
FOOS containing benzene are based on:
biological treatment, or steam stripping,
or carbon adsorption, or liquid
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1390 / Ralea and Regulations
22633
extraction. For nonwastewaters,
concentration standards for these two
solvents are based on incineration. Fsr
7005 containing 2-Ethoxyethanol, EPA is
promulgating incineration as the method
of treatment for nonwastewaters. and
incineration or biodegradation as
methods of treatment for wasiewsters.
for FG05 wastev/aters containing 2-
nitropropar.e, EPA is promulgating
incinceration. or wet-sir oxidation
followed by carfacn adsorption, or
chemical oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption sa methods of treatment. For
?005 nonwastevvaters containing 2-
nitropropane. EPA is requiring
incinsration as the method of treatment.
EPA believes that adequate treatment
capacity exists for these wastes;
therefore, EPA is not granting a national
capacity variance for them.
(b) FOGS and FOli Wastes. For FOGS
wastswaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based ors
alkaline chlorination for cyanides and
chromium reduction followed by
chemical precipitation for znetals, EPA
believes that adequate capacity exists
for the volume of surface-disposed FOOS
wastewaters. Therefore, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
EPA is prointilgau'i^ concentration
standards for FC19 wastewatsrs based
on alkaline chlorination for cyanides
and chromium reduction followed by
chemical precipitation for chromium. la
the proposed rule, EPA proposed
treatment standards for amenable and
total cyanide in F019 nonwastev/atars
based on wet-air oxidation. Due to
insufficient wet-air oxidation capacity,
EPA proposed a national capacity
variance for these wastes. In the final
rule, EPA is promulgating FQli
nonwastewater concentration standards
based on alkaline chlorination for
cyanides and stabilization for
chromium. Because sufficient treatment
capacity exists to treat the F019
wastewaters and nonwastewaters, EPA
is not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
(c) FQ24 Wastes. EPA promulgated
concentration standards for F024
wastewaters and nonwastewatcrs in the
Second Third rule based on rotary kiln
incineration for the organic constituents
in nonwastewaters, and rotary kiln
incineration fcr organic constituents
followed by chemical precipitation for
metal constituents in wastewaters.
Today, EPA is revising certain of these
standards and is promulgating
concentration standards based on
stabilization for metal constituents in
F024 nonwastewaters. EPA is providing
the option of incineration as a treatment
method fcr this waste in order to remove
obstacles to acceptance, previously
created by the explicit standard for
dioxins and furans. Several cocnmenters
responded to EPA's request for
information, indicating that the
treatment facilities wars not accepting
the wastes due to the dioxin and faraa
standard. Today's revisions to the
treatment standards aw expected to
ensure that sufficient capacity is
available to treat FC24, and that all F024
wastes containing diexins and furans
will be incinerated, thereby ensuring
effective treatment of these constituents.
EPA has determined that adequate
capacity exists to treat thase
wastewaters and aonwastewatars;
therefore, EPA is not granting a national
capacity variance for them.
(d] F025 Wastes. On December 11,
1289 (54 FR 50968), EPA amended the
listing for F025 waste (condensed light
ends, spent filters and filter aids, and
spent desiccant wastes from the
production of certain chlorinated
aiiphatics). The Hating becomes effective
en Juna 11,1990. Most generators
already treat F025 as if it were
hazardous, and some facilities
commingle F024 and F02S. Today, EPA
is promulgating concentration standards
for ail categories of F025 wastewatera
and nonwastewaters based on
incineration. EPA has determined that
no alternative treatment capacity is
needed for F02S wastes. Therefore. EPA
is not granting these wastes a national
capacity variance, restricting land
disposal on August 8,19SO.
(e) K001 andUOSl Wastes. EPA is
promulgating revisions to the
concentration-based treatment
standards for K001 organics due to a
mathematical error that was made in the
calculation of the original standards in
the First Third rule. Since the treatment
standards for UOS1 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters are based on a transfer
of the performance of K001, the
concentration-based standards for UC51
also reflect this change For the organics
in K001 and U051 wastswatsrs and
nonwastewaters, EPA in promulgating
concentration standards based on
incineration. EPA is also Finalizing
concentration standards for lead in K001
and U051 based on stabilization for
nonwastewaters and chemical
precipitation for wastewaters. Sufficient
capacity exists for treatment of both of
these wastes; therefore, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
(f) Wastes from Inorganic Pizment
Production (K002, K003, K004, KOQ5,
K006. KC07, and K008). EPA is amending
the no land disposal standard previously
promulgated for K004. KG05, KC07. and
K008 nonwastewaters. EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chromium reduction followed
by chemical precipitation far K002, KOC3,
KOC4, K006, and KOC8 wastewaters, and
alkaline chiorination followed by
chromium reduction followed by
chemcal precipitation far K005 ar.J
KOG7 wastewatars. For nonwasiewa&r
forms of these wastes, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on stabilization. EPA believes
that sufficient cspacity exists far
surface-disposed KOG2, KOC3, KC04,
K005, K006, K007, and KC08 wasiewaters
and ncnv/astewaters. Therefore. EPA is
not granting a capacity variance for
them.
(g) K011. K013, and KC14 Wastes.
Treatment standards for the surface
disposal of nonwastewater fcnas of
KOll, K013, and K014 were promulgated
in the Second Third final rale. For KOll,
KQ13, and K014 wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on wet-air oxidation. The TSDR
Survey indicates that sufficient capacity
exists for the volume of surface-
disposed KOll, K013, and K014
wastewaters. Therefore, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them,
(h) K015 Wastes. EPA is revoking the
no land disposal based on no generation
standard previously promulgated for
K01S (benzyl chloride distillation
wastes) nonwastewaters because of ths
reported generation of aah containing
this waste. Consequently, for K015
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards for five organic
and two metal constituents based on
incineration followed by stabilization.
Sufficient capacity exists to treat this
waste; therefore. EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for K015
nonwastewaters.
(i) K017 and K073 Wastes.
KO17—Heavy ends (still bottoms) from the
purification column in the production of
epichlorohydrin
K073—Chlorinated hydrocarbon waste from
the purification step cf the diaphragm ceil
process using graphite sacdes in chlorine
production
In today's rule, EPA is promulgating.
final treatment standards for K017 and
K073 wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
Concentration standards for the
wastewater and nonwastewater fonr.s
of these wastes are based on
incineration. Sufficient capacity exists
to treat these wastes. Therefore, EPA is
not granting a national capacity
variance for K017 and K073 wastes.
(j) K021 Wastes.
-------
22S40 Federal Register/ Vol. 55. No,106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
K021—Aqueous spent antimony catalyst from
flucromethane production
Concentration standards are being
promulgated today for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of K021 based on
incineration. EPA is also promulgating
concentration standards for antimony
nonwastewaters based on stabilization
and antimony wastewaters based on
chemical precipitation. Sufficient
capacity exists to treat these wastes.
Therefore, EPA is not granting K021
wastes a national capacity variance.
(k) K022, K025, K028, K035, and K083
Wastes. EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for K022 wastewaters and all
forms of K02S, K028, K035. and K083
wastes. Treatment standards being
promulgated today for K025 and K083
would replace current treatment
standards of "No Land Disposal Based
on No Generation" that were
promulgated in prior rules.
For organics contained in K022, K035,
and K083 wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on: biological treatment, or steam
stripping, or carbon adsorption, or liquid
extraction. Concentration standards
promulgated for metals in K022 and
K083 wastewaters are based on
chemical precipitation. For organics in
K03S and K083 nonwastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on incineration. For metals in
K083 nonwastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on stabilization of incinerator
ashes.
For K025 and K028, 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 K02S
wastewaters.
EPA has determined that adequate
capacity exists for K022 wastewaters,
and the wastewater and nonwastewater
fonus of K025, K026. K035, and K083.
Therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for these
wastes.
(1] K028, K029, K095. and K096
Wastes.
K02S—Spent catalyst from hydrochlorinstor
reactor in the production of 1,1,1-
tricnloroethane
K029—Waste from the product steam stripper
in the production of 1,1.1-trichloroethane
K095—Distillation bottoms from the
production of 1,1,1-trichJoroethane
K096—Heavy end* bom the heavy end*
column from the production of 1,1,1-
trichlore thane
Treatment standards based on
incineration were promulgated for K028
wastewaters and nonwastewaters and
the nonwastewaters forms of K029.
K09S, and K096 in the Second Third rule.
Today, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards for organics in
K029, K09S and K098 wastewaters based
on incineration. EPA is also
promulgating concentration standards
for metal constituents in K028
nonwastewaters based on stabilization.
Sufficient capacity exists to treat these
wastes. Therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for K02&
K029, K095 and K096.
(m) K032, K033, K034, K041, KG97. and
K098 Wastes.
K032—Waatewater treatment sludge from the
production of chlordane
K033—Wastewater treatment scrubber water
from the chlorinaticn of cyclopentadiene in
the production of chlordane
K034—Filter solids from filtration of
hexachlorocyclopentadieoe in the
production of chlordane
K041—Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of toxaphene
K097—Vacuum stripper discharge from the
chlordane chlohnator in the production of
chlordane
K098—Untreated process wastewater from
the production of toxaphene
For K032, K033, K034, K041, K097, and
K098 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) K038 and KQ37 Wastes, EPA
promulgated a treatment standard of
"no land disposal based on no
generation" for K036 nonwastewaters in
the First Third rule. EPA also
promulgated concentration standards
based on incineration for K037
wastewaters and nonwastewaters in the
First Third rule. Today, EPA is revising
these treatment standards for the
nonwastewater form of K036 (still
bottoms from toluene reclamation
distillation in the production of
disulfoton) and the wastewater form of
K037 (wastewater treatment sludges
from the production of disulfoton).
Today, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards for KOQ6
nonwastewaters based on incineration.
EPA believes that adequate capacity
exists for these surface-disposed K038
nonwastewaters. Therefore, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
For K037 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 K037 wastewaters;
therefore, EPA is not granting a national
capacity variance for them.
(o) K042, K085, and K105 Wastes.
K042—Heavy ends or distillation residues
from the distillation of tetrachlorobenzene
in the production of 2,4,5-T
K085—Distillation of fractions tion column
bottoms from the production of
chlorobenzenes
K10S—Separated aqueous stream from the
reactor product washing step in the
production of chlorobenzenes
For K042, K085, and K105 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) K044, K045, K046, K047 Wastes.
For K044, K04S, and K047, EPA is
revoking the "no land disposal"
standard promulgated in the First Third
rule. EPA is promulgating deactivation
as the method of treatment for
wasteweters and nonwastewaters. EPA
has determined adequate capacity
exists to treat these wastes; therefore.
EPA is not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
Today, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards for K046
reactive nonwastewaters based on
deactivation followed by stabilization.
For K048 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 K046 nonreactive
nonwastewaters. For K04B 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 (K04&-
K052). EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for organic constituents and
cyanides in K048-K052 based on data
from incineration, solvent extraction.
For the metals in K048-K052, 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
K048-KOS2 wastewaters, nor for cyanide
to nonwastewaters. In addition, today's
rule deletes the treatment standards
proposed for arsenic and selenium in
nonwastewater forms of K048-K052
based on stabilization. Today's rule also
promulgates revised treatment
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, Juris t, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22611
standards for nickel and total chromium
in nonwsstswater forms of K048-K052
based on stabilization.
The TSDH Survey Indicates that
642,000 tons of KQ48-K052 will require
treatment capacity {i,e., will be
displaced from land disposal and will
require treatment). EPA recognizes,
however, that this information is dated,
and. to this end undertook to obtain as
current an assessment of demand for
treatment capacity as possible.
Based on informal contact with the
petroleum industry trade association* it
appears that the industry may be able to
manage approximately three quarters of
these wastes cm-site after August 1SSO,
in ways not involving land disposal
{primarily in-house incineration, use as
fuel, or use in coking). (This figure is
based on an informal survey of 33 API
member companies and assumes that
nons of the pending no migration
petitions for land treatment units will be
granted. However, this estimate does
not account for the uncertainty and
timing of constructing and obtaining
permits for on-sits disposal/treatment
facilities.) Therefore, assuming best case
(i.e.. on-site capacity is available), this
results in approximately 161,000 tons par
year of wastes that will require
alternative treatment capacity,
EPA estimated that 100,000 tons of
capacity for treatment of K043-K052
wastes existed in the form of solids
incineration capacity and fuel
substitution capacity (these wastes are
suitable for use as alternative fuels in
industrial furnaces provided that they
are dewatered first). There is very little
commercial solvent extraction capacity
presently on-line, (EPA knows of some
small volume mobile solvent extraction
units being utilized in California, but
these units provide limited volumetric
treatment capacity.) Thus, based on
these data, there would be a capacity
shortfall of approximately 60,000 tons as
of May 8.*
However, EPA is aware of one large
commercial incinerator which could
come en line after May 8 that could
provide additional substantial volumes
of capacity (80,000 tons of new annual
capacity in addition to the 100,000 tons
of existing capacity) for KQ48-KOS2
wastes. This facility is presently seeking
1 tt was on the basii of this analysis that EPA
senior management tentatively coneiuiiea that a
one-year naiteiul capacity extension might be
warranted, which draft determination was
communicated to all interested parties by letter late
in April, a copy of which it available in the docket
This wai not« final EPA decision, however, and
CPA continued to nsorutot Ac situation. The
determiisnton in U»e Hnal role reflect* more
;afomi«tian than was available to EPA at the time
•j! its ientative determination.
a no-migration variance from EPA
regarding disposal of scrubber %*ater
into a deep injection well. If the petition
is granted, this facility would provide
sufficient capacity to accommodate
treatment demand posed by petroleum
wastes. A final decision on the no-
migration petition isr expected within the
next six weeks. (There could still be
short-term logistic difficulties associated
with getting wastes to the facility and
the facility coming on-line that could
prevent immediate utilization of this
capacity, however.)
EPA also recently became aware
(within the last two weeks) of additional
solids incineration capacity which 5s
presently available that would provide
significant additional treatment capacity
for petroleum wastes. This technology,
however, requires that wastes undergo a
specialized dawatering pretreatment
step. The treatment company presently
has two mobile dewatsring pretreatmer.t
units and {according to its estimates)
can add two additional dewatermg units
every three months. This limited amount
of pretreatment equipment (there are
approximately 190 petroleum facilities
to be serviced) could create a temporary
treatment bottleneck to use the
incineration capacity. (This information
appears to have been presented to the
petroleum industry by the treatment
company late in 1989, so that EPA does
not see notice and comment problems
vis-a-vis the petroleum industry in
relying en the information in this
ralamaking.)
Based on this information, EPA has
decided to grant a six-month national
capacity variance for these wastes,
lasting until November?, 1990. (This
effectively extends the industry's
prohibitian compliance date three
months from the date established in the
first third rulemaking]. EPA believes
that by this date, there will be adequate
pretreatment capacity as well as
incineration and fuel substitution
capacity to satisfy demand. There also
may be solvent extraction capacity
available by that date, although there
are sharply conflicting estimates in the
record of how quickly solvent extraction
capacity can be brought on-line. EPA
would be unjustified, however, in
extending the national capacity
variance until solvent extraction
capacity is available. See S. Rep. No.
234, S8th Cong. 1st Sess. 19 ("It is not
intended that a generating industry * * *
could be allowed to continue to have its
wastes disposed of in an otherwise
prohibited manner solely by binding
itself to using a facility which has not
been constructed. Thus, when an
'alternate technology' facility is
operating at less than maximum
capacity, the Administrator should
determine that alternative capacity is
available * * *"). Thus, EPA's decision
today is based on its best estimates of
when treatment capacity of any type
will be available to accommodate these
wastes.
EPA recognizes that these data are
not the most precise, in some cases. la
addition, EPA is concerned with using
data that it obtains at the very end of
the rulemaking in making such decisions
(albeit these data tend to corroborate
other existing information regarding
amounts of solids combustion capacity
coming on-lineJ. Therefore, based or.
further information provided ta EPA.
EPA may amend the capacity extension
in today's rule (through use of
appropriate rulemaking procedures).
(r] K060 Wastes. Today EPA is
revoking cha "no land disposal" based
on a no generation standard
promulgated for KQSQ nomvastewaters
in the First Third rule. Instead, f«/r KCGO
noawastewatos, EPA is alao
promulgating concentration standards
based on incineration. SPA is
establishing concentration standards for
KC6Q wastewaters based on biological
treatment. EPA believes that adequate
capacity exists for the volume of
surface-disposed K060 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters requiring treatment.
Therefore, EPA is not grar.tfag a
national capacity variance for them.
(sj K081 Wastes. Today, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chemical reduction followed
by chemical precipitation for K061
wastewaters. EPA believes adequate
capacity exists for the volume of
surface-disposed K061 wastewaters.
Therefore, EPA is not granting a
variance for them.
(t) Revisions to K086 Wastes. EPA
promulgated concentration, standards
far K086 solvent washes in the First
Third rule based on incineration and
stabilization of ash for nonwastewaiBrs,
and incineration and chromium
reduction followed b? chemical
precipitation for wastewaters. EPA is
promulgating revised concentration
standards for all K086 wastewater forma
of these wastes based on biological
treatment or wet-air oxidation foilcwsd
by carbon adsorption or chemical
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption for organics, chromium
reduction followed by chemical
precipitation for metals, and alkaline
chlorisation for cyanides. For
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based OK
incineration for erganics, followed by
stabilization for metals. As a "worst-
ID
Reproduced from
bast available copy,
-------
22642 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 K085 wastes
identified in the TSDR Survey.
Consequently, no additional capacity
will be required by today's rule, and no
capacity variance is being granted for
KCC8 wastes.
(4) Treatment Standards for UtmdP
Wastes. Today's rule promulgates
treatment standards and capacity
determinations for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of U and P wastes
(as defined in 40 CFR 261.33 (e) and (f)}.
Treatment standards and capacity
determinations for other U and P wastes
that are listed specifically as metal salts
or organo-metafiics 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
(e.g., carbon, halogens, and metalsj: and
(2) the presence of key functional groups
(e.g., phenolics, esters, and amines}
within the structure of the individual
chemical represented. EPA 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
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
Donwastewatera; (c) technology-based
standards for wastewaters: and (d)
technology-based standards for
nonwastewaters.
(a) Concentration-Based Standards for
Specific Organic U and P Wastewaters.
EPA is promulgating concentration-
based standards for those specific
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 Treatment or Wet-Air
Oxidation Followed by Carbon
Adsorption _,
P004, P020, P022. P024, M37. P047 (4.8-
Dinitrocreaol), P048, PD50. P351. P053. PD60.
P077. P082. PIOI. P123. UOG2. U003. U004.
UCOS, U009, U012, U018, U019, U022, U024.
U025, U027, U029, U030, U031. UOM, U037,
U038, U039, U043, U044. U04S. U047, U048.
U050, U051, U052, U057, U060, UOM, U003.
1/088, U067, U063, U070, UQ71, U072, UG7S.
U078, U077, U078, U079, U080, U081, U082.
UOM, U084. UlOl, U105, U108. U10& Utll.
mis. Uii7, Una. uizo, uizi. ui27. uiaa,
U129, U13I. U137. U138, U140. U141. U142.
U152, UlSS, U157, U158, U159,11161. U182,
U165. U188, U169, U170, U172. U174. U179,
UlSO, U181. U183, U185, U187, U188, UI92.
U196, U203. U207. U20S, U209. U210. U211,
U220. U225. U228, U227. U228, U229. U24a
(2.4-D acetic acid), U243, and U247
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 Standards Based on
Incineration
P004, P020. F024, P037, P047. P048, P050. P051.
POS9. POBO, P077, P101. W23. U002, U004.
uoos. uoo9. uoiz. uoia, uoia 11022, utm.
U025. U027. UQ29, U030. U031, U036. U037.
U039, U043, U044, U045. U047, U048, UOSO.
U051. U052. U060. U081. U063. U068. U067.
L'068. U070. U071. U072. U075. U078, U077,
U07& U079. uoeo, uon. uoaz. uoss, uos4,
. irioi. uios. tnoe, uioa. uni. um u«7.
uim tmo, uizi, ui27, uiaa 11129, mat.
U137. U138, U140. U141, U142, U152, U155.
U157. U1S8. UlSS. U181. U162. U165. U169,
U170, U172, U174, U178. U180. U181, U183.
U183, U1B7, U188, U192. U196. U203. U207.
U208. U209, U210. U211. U220, UZ2S, U228.
UZZ7. U228. U239, U240 (2.4-D acetic acid).
U243. and U247
For all of these specific organic U and
P nonwastewaters, EPA has identified
sufficient incineration capacity to treat
these nonwastewaters; therefore, EPA is
not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
(c) Technology-Based Standards for
Specific Organic U and P Wastewaters.
EPA is promulgating technology-based
treatment standards (i.e., 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 Oxidation), -
Followed By Carbon Adsorption; or
Incineration as Methods of Treatment
POOl. P002, P003, POOS. P007, P008. P014, P016,
P017, P018, P023, P028, P027, P028, P034.
P042. P045, P046, P047 (4,8-dinitrocresol
salts), P049. P054, POS7. P058. PG84. P066
P067, P069, P070, PQ72. P075. POS4. PQTO.
P093, PC9S, P102. P108, P116, P118. UCiOl.
U006, U007, U008, U010, U011. U014. UO15,
U016, U017, U020, U021. U028, UQ33, UC34.
U035, U041. U042. U046, U049, UOS3, UQS5,
UOS6. U059, U082, U064. U073. U074. U08S.
U069, U09a U091, U092. U093, U094. UOSS,
U097, uiia um uii4, une, UHQ, uizz.
U123, L'124. U125. U128. U130. U132. U143.
U147, U148, U149. UlSO, U153, U1S4. UlSd,
U1B3. U164. U1S6. U1B7, U171. U173. U175.
U177, U178. U182, U184, U186. U191. U1U3.
U194. U197, U200. U201, U202. U2C6, U213,
U213, U219, U222, U234. U236. VZ37. L'233.
U240 (2,4-D salts and esters). U244. and
U248.
EPA has identified sufficient capacity
for these organic U and P wastewaters.
Therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
(d) Technology-Based Standards for
Specific Organic U and P
Nonwastewaters. EPA is promulgating
the proposed technology-based
standards for the following organic U
and P wastes.
U and P Nonwastewaters With
Incineration as the Method of Treatment
P002, P007. POQ8, P«4, P018. P017. P01S. PC2i
P023. P028, P027. P028, P034, P042. P04S.
P046. PQ47 (4.B-dinitrocresoi salts). PC49.
P054. POS7, PQS8. P064. PQ66. P067, P069,
P070, P072. P075, P082, P084. P093. P09S.
P108. P11& Plia U«»3, U006. U007, UQ10,
U011. U014. U015, U017, U02a U021. U021
U033. U034, U035. U038. L'041. U042. U046.
U049. UOS7, U059, U062. U073, U074. U091,
U092. U093. U09S, U097, UllO, U114. U116.
U119, UlSO. U132. U143, U148, U149. UlSO.
U153, U156, U183, U184, U167, U168. U171.
U173, U176. U177, U178. U184. U191, L'193.
Uli4, U20Q, U202. U2G8. U218. U219. U22Z
U234, U236. U237, U23& U240 {Salts and
esters). U244
Incineration or Fuel Substitution as
Methods of Treatment
POOl, POM, POOS, P088. P102. U001. U008.
U016. U053. UOSS. U056, U064. U08S. UOSS.
U090. U094, U113, U122. U123. U124. U12S.
U128. U147, U154, U166, U182. U188, U197,
U20T, U213. U248
EPA has identified sufficient capacity
for all of these U and P nonwastewaters.
Therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
J5) Potentially Reactive P and U
Wastes. This subgroup includes the
following waste codes:
POOS—Aluminum phosphide
POOS—Ammonium picrate
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22S43
POtS—Beryllium dust
P056—Fluorine
P068—.Methyl hydrazine
P075—Nickel carbonyl
P081—Nitroglycarin
P087—Osmium tetroxide
P096—Phosphias
PlOS—Sodium aside
P112—Tetranitronethane
P122—Zinc phosphide (
UQ23—Benzo trichloride
U086—N.N-Diethylhydrazine
U096—a.a-Ditnethyl benzyl hydroperoxide
U098—1.1-Dimethylhydrazine
U099—1,2-DimethylhydrazJae
U103—Dizethyl sulfate
U109—l.2-Diphenylhydrazu:e
L'133—Hydrazine
L'134—Hydrofluoric acid
U135—Hydrogen sulfide
U160—Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide
U189—Phosphorus sulfide
U249—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 BDAT determinations,
EPA has identified four subcategories:
incinerable reactive organies and
hydrazine derivatives (PQ09, P068. P081,
PlOS, P112. U023, U088, U098, U098,
U099, U103, U109, U133. and U160);
incinerable inorganics (POC6, P096, P122,
U13S, U189, and U249); fluorine
compounds (POS6 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, PlOS, P112. U023, U088,
U096, U098, U099, U103, U109. U133,
U160, and U186), EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
For all inciaerable inorganic
nor.wastewaters, EPA is promulgating
incineration, chemical oxidation, 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 P056
nonwastewaters, and neutralization or
adsorption, followed by neutralization
as methods of treatment for U134
nonwastewaters. For POS6 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.
fa the proposed rule, EPA proposed
recovery as the method of treatment for
P015 wastes. During the comment
period, EPA received one comment
concerning P01S 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 far them,
For PQ87 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
recovery as the method of treatment
EPA has determined that there is not
sufficient treatment capacity for P087
wastewaters and nonwastewaters, and
is granting these wastes a national
capacity variance.
(6) Cases. 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 incineration, 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, PQ78, and
UllS were reported as surface disposed
in the TSDR survey, EPA is not granting
a national capacity variance for them,
[7] U and P Cyanogens. For the U and
P wastes containing cyanide, P031
[Cyanogen), P033 (Cyanogen chloride),
and U246 (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.
(3) Capacity Determination for Main-
Source Leachate. (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
rale, such leachate will be restricted
from land disposal. Residues frora
treating such leachate, as well as
residues such as soil and grouridwatnr
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 laachate.
(b) Previous Treatment Standards.
EPA imposed land disposal prohibitions
on multi-source leachate in the Solvents
and Dioxins, California list, and First
Third rulemakings. 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 derived (see 53 FR
31146-150 (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 in order to fully
study 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 ciulti-
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 Alternative
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
,4-f
-------
22544
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 I Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
recovery capacity is available for multi-
sourse leachate.
Multi-source leachate is primarily
generated in landfills. However, EPA
recognizes that multi-source leachate
can also be generated at closed
facilities. Because only sparse data exist
on such leachate, EPA requested
comments on the characterization of
multi-source leachate at closed facilities
and on the volume of treated leachate
that is presently land-disposed in
surface disposal units. EPA also
requested the submission of current data
from interested parties on the volumes
of multi-source leachate generated, the
current management of such leachate.
the amount of residuals generated, and
the waste constituent composition of
multi-source leachate.
Several commenters suggested that
EPA aas underestimated required
capacity for multi-source leachate
because leachate from closed landfills
and ground water from corrective
actions and CERCLA cleanups were not
considered. EPA did not obtain
adequate data to quantify the volumes
of such leacha tes and leachate
treatment residuals that might be
surface disposed. These surface-
disposed volumes, however, are not
expected to affect the national capacity
variance determination.
In addition to data from the TSDR and
Generator Surveys, EPA examined data
submitted as part of 8 leachate study
plan by four major companies managing
hazardous wastes at 17 facilities. EPA
evaluated this information to estimate
the volume cf multi-source leachate
requiring alternative treatment
(e) Determining National Variances
for Multi-Source Leachate. EPA
analyzed the alternative treatment or
recovery capacity for two categories of
multi-source leachate: wastewaters and
nonwastewaters.
Most multi-source leachate is
managed in wastewater treatment
systems and discharged via an NPDES
permit and/or to a POTW. EPA
estimates that over 41 million gallons of
multi-source leachate nonwastewatsr
residues are surface disposed.
Given the low volumes of surface-
disposed multi-source leachate
wastewaters and the adequate capacity
to treat these wastes, EPA proposed and -
has decided not to grant a national
capacity variance for surface-disposed
multi-source leachate wastewaters. For
multi-source leachate nonwastewaters,
EPA is finalizing its proposal to grant a
two-year national capacity variance for
these wastes, because there is
insufficient incineration capacity.
Most commenters agreed with the
proposed variance for surface-disposed
multi-source leachate nonwastewaters.
However, a few commenters requested a
national capacity variance for surface-
disposed multi-source leachate
wastewaters. However, commenters did
not provide evidence of surface-
disposed volumes of multi-source
leachate wastewaters. EPA did not
revise the estimates of wastewater
volumes because no data were provided
showing volumes of multi-source
leachate wastewaters that are surface-
disposed. Also, as noted above, this
surface disposal must involve retrofitted
surface impoundments, under RCRA
section 3005(j), which ordinarily are
section 30Q5(j)(ll) impoundments.
Therefore, thers should be little
additional demand for capacity for
displaced leachate wastewaters.
Commenters did not dispute this
analysis.
(9) Capacity Determination for Mixed
Radioactive Wastes, (a) Background.
EPA has defined a mixed RCRA/
radioactive waste as any matrix
containing a RCRA hazardous waste
and a radioactive waste subject to the
Atomic Energy Act (53 FR 37C45, 37046,
September 23,1983). Regardless of the
type of radioactive constituents that
these wastes contain (e.g., high-level.
low-level, or transuranic), they are
subject to the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations, including the land disposal
restrictions.
Radioactive wastes that are mixed
with spent solvents, dioxins, or
California list wastes are subject to the
land disposal restrictions already
promulgated for those hazardous
wastes. EPA has determined, however,
that radioactive wastes that are mixed
with First Third and Second Third
wastes will be included in the Third
Third ralemaktag (40 CFR 2S8.12(c)).
Thus, today's rule addresses radioactive
wastes that contain First Third, Second
Third, and Third Third wastes.
(b) Data Sources. The Department of
Energy (DOE] is a major generator of
mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes. For
data on DOE wastes. EPA used a data
set submitted by DOE. This data set is
based on a recent DOE survey and
contains information on mixed RCRA/
radioactive waste inventories,
generation rates, and existing and
planned treatment capacity at 21 DOE
facilities.
A variety of non-DOE facilities also
generate mixed RCRA/radioactive
wastes, including nuclear power plants,
academic and medical institutions, and
industrial facilities. A variety of
information sources were used to
identify the non-DOE generators,
estimate the quantities and types of
mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes that
they generate, and determine current
management practices and treatment
capacity. These sources included the
TSDR Survey, the Generator Survey,
and other studies. EPA believes that
these sources provide available
information on non-DOE mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes.
(c) Determining National Variances
for Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes.
After investigating the data sources
noted above, EPA estimated that
approximately 3S3 million gallons of
radioactive waste mixed with First,
Second, and Third Third wastes will
require treatment. Contaminated soil
and debris accounts for 103 million
gallons of this total, which also includes
wastes generated annually as well as
untreated wastes in storage. Although
DOE is in the process of increasing its
capacity to treat mixed RCAR/
radioactive wastes, data supplied by
DOS indicate a current capacity
shortfall for the treatment of First,
Second, and Third Third mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes. DOE indicated a
stabilization capacity of approximately
2.3 million gallons and a neutralization
capacity of approximately 400,000
gallons. The data, however, showed
significant alternative treatment
capacity shortfalls for all treatment
technologies, including stabilization and
neutralization. EPA's investigation of
non-DOE data sources showed a
significant Jack of commercial treatment
capacity as well. Although one facility
was identified that manages a specific
type of mixed RCRA/radioactive waste,
data sources indicate a lack of sufficient
treatment capacity for all treatment
technologies. Thus, EPA has determined
that sufficient alternative treatment
capacity is not available and is granting
a two-year national capacity variance
for mixed RCRA/radioactive waste
wastewaters and nonwastwaters.
One commenter indicated that the
proposed two-year national capacity
variance is unlawfully and
unnecessarily broad, and that EPA
should grant variances only for specific
waste streams. EPA disagrees 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/radioactive wastes, EPA's
capacity analysis methodology is
designed to assess available treatment
capacity at the national level. (See
RCRA section 3004(h)(2).) EPA believes
the capacity analysis performed
demonstrates a mixed RCRA/
radioactive waste cap? city shortfall for
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1390 / Rules and Regulations 22B43
all alternative treatment technologies at
the national level.
The same commenter indicated that
EPA must determine that 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 m!e. Not only does the TSDR
Survey show a lack of permitted
treatment facilities accepting mixed
RCRA/radioactive wastes, the most
recent data made available fay 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/radioactive 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/radioactive 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 incomplete. Consequently,
EPA requested comments by interested
parties on the current generation of
mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes. Of
particular interest to EPA was
information on mixtures of radioactive
wastes and First, Second, or Third Third
waste streams. Although several
commenters addressed problems
associated with the storage and disposal
of mixed 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.
2. Determination of Alternative
Capacity and Effective Dates for
Underground Injected Waste.
Today, EPA is prohibiting the
underground injection of virtually all
remaining RCRA section 3QQ4(g] wastes.
including characteristic wastes, for
which no effective dates have been set.
EPA is not acting on certain newly listed
or aewly 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 laachate that is currently
being injected.
EPA received several responses to
this request. One commenter submitted
data on the volume of U wastes (20,456
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 injecting
7,200 tons of D004 waste at one of its
facilities. Further, one commenter stated
that it was injecting a wastewater
containing UllS. Additionally, one
commenter submitted an underground
injection well survey. EPA
acknowledges these comments and has
incorporated them appropriately into the
capacity analysts.
EPA also received comments
pertaining to the form of certain wastes.
Several commenters indicated that the
nonwastewater forms of D002. D003
(reactive cyanide), D007, and K014 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 Rale
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 r.ot currently being deep well-
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-injected are
listed in table IU.B.2.(a).
The volumes of deepwell-injected
wastes that require alternative
commercial treatment and/or recycling
capacity are presented in table
III.B.2.(b). This table does not include
wastes that are currently being
deepwell-injected by facilities with
appropriate on-site alternative treatment
technologies for treating the waste.
EPA is establishing effective data
determinations for all underground
injected wastes in treatability groups. If
there is adequate available alternative
treatment capacity for ail the injected
volume in a single testability 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 treatability group, for
which no capacity exists, will receive a
two-year national capacity variance.
EPA believes that this is most consistent
with Congressional intent which favors
both treatment over disposal and
minimal use of capacity variances. EPA
specifically solicited comments on this
approach; however no comments were
received during the public comment
period.
EPA recognizes that the effectivs
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 injection
facility.
The injection wells at on-site facilities
are directly connected to the plant
operations and. all totaled, handle at
least five billion gallons of hazardous
waste per year. In order to realistically
meet the treatment requirements for the
Third TMrd 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 *.vhcii
-------
22S4S Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 108 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
capacity is realistically available, EPA
notes that these same logistic factors do
not appear necessary to warrant any
extension for waste sent to off-site
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 under section 3004[h) of RCRA
to provide a six-month extension
beyond the Mav a, 1990 statutory
prohibition di *.e Tor all Third Third
wastes disposed of at on-site infection
facilities directly connected to plant
operations.
Table II!.B.2(cj indicates the amount
of capacity available for treating
underground injected wastes, the
demand from these injected wastes on
each treatability groups, and which
testability groups require capacity
variances. More information on ErA's
procedure for apportioning treatment
capacity in these treatability groups can
be found in the Third Third Background
Document for the treatability groups.
A number of the following treatability
groups account for relatively small (leas
than 100,000 geilons/year) amounts of
underground injected wastes. EPA
believes that these small streams place
little demand on nationwide treatment
capacity.
Presented below are the treatment
technologies EPA used in the capacity
analysis for all deepwell-injected
wastes, EPA selected these technologies
based on the BDATs used for
establishing the concentration and
technology based standards being
promulgated today. For the capacity
analysis, EPA assigned volumes of
wastes mixed with other wastes to the
appropriate treatment such that the
treatment standards for all wastes will
be met. Consequently, some of the
technologies listed below are treatment
trains that include the BDAT used to
determine the standard plus another
technology. Table HI.B.2.(d} summarizes
the wastes for which EPA is granting a
two-year national capacity variance.for
underground .injected wastes.
TABLE IH.B.2.{a).~ WASTES (WttM TREAT-
MENT STANDARDS) THAT ARE NOT UN-
DERQROUND INJECTED
{Prohibited from Underground Injection on August 8,
1990]
first Third Codes
K004, KOC8, K015 (nonwastawaters), K017, KC21
(wastewaters), K022 (wastewatersl, K035, K036
(nortwastewaters), K037 (wastewatsrs),. K044,
K045, K04S (reactive nonwastewalers and all
wastBwaters), K047, KOSO (wastewa'.ars), K061
(wastawaters), K069 (CaSO4 nonwastewatars
and all wastewaters), K073, K084, KQ85, K101
(nonwasiewatersi, K102 (nonwastewaters),
K1C8, POC1, P004, P010, P012, P015, P016,
F013, P03S, P037, POS8, P070, P081, POS2.
P084, P087, P092, P10S, P108, PI10, P11S,
P120, P123, U010, U016, U018, U020, U022,
U023, U03B, U041, U043, U046. U05D, U051,
U3E3, U061, U063, U054, U06S, U067, U077,
U07S, U038, UQ39, U108, U124, U12S, U130,
U137, U1S5, U158, U171, U177, U180, U20i,
U237. U23S, U248, U249.
Second Third Cotias
K025 (Wastewaters), K028 (wastawaters}, K029
(wastewatersj, K041, K042. K09S {wastewaters).
K096 {wastewaters), K098, K105, POOS, P003,
PC07, P008, P013 (wastewaters), P014, P026,
PC27, P049. POS4, P060, P068, P067, P072,
P099, P104, P107, P112, P113, P114, U003,
U005, UOT1. U014, U01S, U021. U023. U025,
UC26, U03S, U047, U049. UOS7, U059, U060,
UQ62, U073, 0083, U092, 'U093, UC94, U09S,
U097, UQ98. U099, U101. U109, U110. U111.
U114, U116. U119. Ut27, U128. U131, U135,
U142, U143, U144, U146, U149, U150, U161,
U163, U164, U16S, U172, U173, U174, U176,
U178, U179, U189. U193, U1S6. U203, U205.
U208, U208, U213. U214, U215, U216, U217,
U218.
Third Third Codes
K003, K005 (wastewaters), KOQ3, K007
(wastewaters), K026. K033, K034, K100
(wastewaters), POOS, POOS, P017, PC22, P023,
P024, P028, P031, P033, P034, P038, P042,
P045, P046, P047, P064, P065, P073, P076,
P077, P078, P088, P093, P09S, P096, P101.
P103, P116, P118, P119. U004. U006, U017,
U024. U027. U030. U033, U038. LTO39. U042.
U048. UC52. U068, U071, U072. U07S, U076,
U079, U081, U062, U084, U085. U090, U091,
U096, U117, U12Q, U121, U123, U125, U126,
U132, U136. U139, U141, U145, U14B, U152,
U153, U1S6. U168, U167, U181, U182, U183.
U184, U186, U187. U191, U201. U202, U204,
U207, U222, U225. U234. U236. U240. U243,
U246, U247.
Newly Listed Wastes
F02S.
TABLE lll.B.2.(b).— REQUIRED ALTERNA-
TIVE COMMERCIAL TREATMENT/RECY-
CUNQ CAPACfTY FOR UNDERGROUND IN-
JECTED WASTES
[m;!lion gallons/year]
Waste code
first Third Cede
F006 .,.._ . ,
F019
K011 . ...
K013..__ _, „
K014
K031
K08S
POOS _
P01 1 „
P020 „
P048 „ ,„ _ „.
POSO
POC8
POS9 _ _
POS9 „
PI 02 .
Pi 22 _._..,
U007 ".
U009 . _. ._«
w? ......... .......
Uf»9 .. ,-„,.,- . , ., , ... ,, „„. „ ,
U031 ,. _
U037 . £ „
0044 ,..„„„,„ „„„,--.- ,,,,,„,
U07d... ..,. ,, .._..rtt ,...
U103.-™™«____. _._._..
U105 _
U11S „ ..... „_ „
U'?2 ,.....,., .-.,„..„.„ .,-,.,„„ -., ,
U133..__._™____ _...
0151 .
U154-, ,„„,.,_ „. -.- „
U157 , , ,,,
U15S _ „,., „„„„ .„,„„,
U18S „
U 1 88 ^, „..
yi9!> ,„... .,..„.,„. ,„„,„
l!?00- -, _,. ,„, . ,
U210
U21 1 ,
M219 „ ^
i"?o - ,,.„
U226
U227
U??B
Second Thiril Code
K097
U002 „ „,_
WOfWo...,.,™ , ,
IIQ32
U070.
U08C .
wms
U13«- .,.,„ ,
U140 „„„,„., ^
U147
IJ1R?
II1SS- - - ,, , „
Il18a ,-- , ,„,„,,
UI7P,^ L1
U239 ,~ _
U?« ,-„,-,-,„,„.,.. , .,.„ ,
Third Third Coda
nn0i
D002.. __, .. _
0003 ...___„..
D004., „..,.
D005. _ ,
0006 „ .„ „..
Capacity
required tor
unaer-
ground
tniected
wastes
5.0
<0.1
433.2
407.2
131.0
1,1
0,2
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
<0.1
0.4
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0,1
<0.1
0.1
0.8
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0,1
<0.1
0.1
8.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
<0.1
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.3
1.0
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
2.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
•'O 1
0.1
2.8
0.1
0.1
1.0
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
<0.1
6.9
1924.S
1745.7
10.0
1.3
1.8
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Waste coda
fW>7
DOG3_ „
GC09
001 1
n^i?
rvi^a ,
00 *5
DO t6 .
Caoacty
required for
uaaer-
ground
iniected
wzsies
201 2
3.3
1 2
952
03
2 3
2.3
2.4
2 3
£.3
Waste code
D017..,,, ,-. ,,„„- ,„-,-, TT1T- „ , ,.„
F039 ' , . .
KOC?
K012
K083
P051
P0g^
Pn7=5
IjOQl
UC34
Capacity
required lor
uncer-
graund
trtteaed
W3S18S
23
1S.1
0 1
<0 1
50
ical preapflRtfon..., ,,, _ ,„,.. .,., •
Wat-Air oxidation followed by carton carbon adsorption followed by cfiecirocaJ precipitation; biological
treatment followed by cnerracal precipitation-.
Wastacode
0009
D0031
0003 »
D0031
0007
0009
0002*
K011
KOI 3
K014
F03i«
Physical form
Low mercury nonwastowator
Wastowater/ nonwastauraiar'
Wastewater/nonwastewater
Wastswater/nonwastawator
Wastewater/noriwastewater
High mercury nonwastewaters
Wastewater/nonwEstewaar
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater/nonwastewatar
Wastewater
i 0003 (Cyanides)
1CC03 {SulMos)
9 D003 (Explosives, water reactives, and ottwr reaches)
* DeeowoH iniacud 0002 Kquios with a pH less man 2.0 must meet tfca California list treatment standards on August S, 1990.
* Multi-source Leacnaia •
(1) Acid Leaching followed by
Chemical Precipitation. EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
for low mercury D009 nonwastewatera
based on acid leaching followed by
chemical precipitation. EPA's data does
not differentiate between iow and high
mercury concentration nonwastewaters.
Consequently, for the capacity analysis
EPA conducted a worst-case analysis
and assigned the volume of deepwell-
tnjected D009 nonwastewaters to both
acid leaching followed by chemical
precipitation and mercury retorting (the'"
BOAT for the high concentration
mercury subcategory).
There is no commercial acid leaching
followed by chemicai precipitation
capacity, therefore, EPA is granting DOOi
low concentration mercury
nonwastewaters a two-year national
capacity variance, restricting this waste
from underground injection on May 8,
1992.
(2) Alkaline Chlorinatim. Treatment
'standards based on alkaline
chlorination are.beirv; promulgated
today for D003 (reactive cyanidef .-(EPA
also determined that the standards may
be met using wet-air oxidation or
electrolytic oxidation.) As shown in
table III.B.2.(c), the less than 1 million
gallons per year of available capacity
are inadequate to address the quantity
of hazardous waste annually deepwell-
injected requiring this type of treatment.
-------
22648
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Therefore, EPA is granting a two-year
national capacity variance to D003
(reactive cyanide) wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. This waste will be
restricted from injection on May 8,1992.
(3) Alkaline Chlorination followed by
Chemical Precipitation. Treatment
standards based on alkaline
chlorination and chemical precipitation
are today being promulgated for F006
cyanide wastewaters and F019
wastewaters. As shown in Table
m.B.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 P020,
P048, U002, U009, U019, U031, U112,
U140, U159, U170. 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 discussed 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 wastewaters:
therefore, EPA is not granting P122
wastewaters a national capacity
variance.
EPA is promulgating deactivation as
the method of treatment for D003
(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 D003 wastes. Therefore.
EPA is granting a two-year national
capacity variance to D003 (sulfide)
wasteivaters and nonwastewaters. This
waste will be restricted from injection
on May 8.1992.
(6) 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 D003
wastes. Therefore, EPA is granting a
two-year national capacity variance to
these wastes, restricting DC03
(explosives/reactives) wastewaters and
nonwastewaters from underground
injection on May 8,1992.
(7) Chemical Precipitation.
Wastewater forms of D004. D005, D008,
D008 (lead-non-battery), D009, D010,
D011. FOOe. K031, P011. P058, U134. and
U151 represent those wastes best
treated by chemical precipitation. As
shown in table m.B.2.(c), the 331 million
gallons per year of available chemical
precipitation are 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).
(8) Chromium Reduction followed by
Chemical Precipitation. Treatment
standards based on chromium reduction
and chemical precipitation are today
being promulgated for wastewater forms
of D007, F006, K002, P011, and UO32. As
shown in Table III.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
remaining wastes. Therefore. EPA is
granting a two-year national capacity
variance to D007 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, prohibiting this waste
from underground injection on May B.
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 D001
(ignitable liquids), D011, D012, D013,
D014. D015, D016. D017, K032. K083.
K088, K097, POOS, P050, P051. P057, P059,
P069. P075, P102, U001. U007, UC08.
U012, U019, U034. U037, U044, U045,
U055, U056, U070, U074. U080. U103,
U105. U106, U112, U113, U115, U118,
U122, U133. U138, U147, U154. U157,
U159, U160. U162, U165, U169, U185,
U192, U194, U197. U200, U210, U211.
U219, U220, U226, U227. U228, U239. and
U244. Although U041, U077, U083. U084,
and U213 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 III.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 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).
(10) Mercury Retorting. Treatment
standards based on mercury retorting
are being promulgated for
nonwastewaters forms of D009 wastes.
As shown in table IlI.B.2.(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
D009, restricting this waste from
underground injection on May 8.1992.
(11) Neutralization. EPA is
promulgating deactivation as the
method of treatment for D002
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. For
the capacity analysis. EPA assigned all
D002 acids and alkaiines 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 D002 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. Therefore. EPA is
granting a two-year national capacity
variance for the D002 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, restricting this waste
from underground injection on May 8,
1992. Deepwell injected D002 liquids
with a pH less than 2.0. which received
a two-year national variance in the
California list rulemaking, are required
-------
MR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22543
to meet the California list treatment
standards on August 8.1990.
(12) Stabilization. For residuals
containing DOOS, D006, D007, D008 (lead-
non-batiery), D011, KOQ2, K083, K0S6,
and U032, stabilization is part of the
treatment train. As shown in Table
ni.B-2,(c), the 235 million gallons 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 or, August
8,1SSO. (For facilities with injection
wells directiy connected to plant
production operations, the effective data
is November 8,1980, as discussed at the
beginning of this section.)
113) Wet-A/r Oxidation. K011, K013,
and K014, represent all of the
underground injected hazardous wastes
addressed in today's rale that are best
treated by wet-air oxidation. As shown
in table ULB.2.(c), the less than 1 million
gallons of available capacity are
inadequate to treat the quantity of K011
wastewaters, K013 wastewaters, and
K014 wastewaters and noawastewaters
annually deepweil-injected requiring
this type of treatment Therefore, EPA is
granting a two-year national capacity
variance to the wastewater forms of
KOll, K013. and K014, and the
nonwastewater form of K014,
prohibiting these wastes from
underground injection on May B. 1992.
(14) Wet-Air Oxidation followed by
Carbon Adsorption. For P053
wastewaters, treatment standards based
on wet-air oxidation and carbon
adsorption are being finalized today. As
shown in Table ULB^-(c), the less than 1
million gallons of available capacity are
adequate to treat the quantity of P058
annually deepweU-injected required this
type of treatment; therefore, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
this waste. (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.)
(IS) Biological Treatment followed by
Chemical Precipitation or Wet Air
Oxidation followed by Carbon
Adsorption fallowed by Chemical
Precipitation. For FQ39 (multi-source
leachate) wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based primarily on biological treatment
followed by chemical precipitation or
wet air oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption followed by chemical
precipitation. As shown in table
IH,B.2.(c), the.approximately 14 million
gallons of available capacity is
insufficient to handle the 15 million
gallons of required capacity. EPA notes
that the 14 million gallons of available
capacity is the maximum available, as a
portion of this volume is contributed by
a facility that was scheduled to come
on-line in 1S88. EPA was unable to
determine whether this facility is
currently operating. Because of the lack
of available capacity, EPA is granting a
national capacity for this waste.
b. Response to Request for Data on
Underground Injected K014
Nonwaste waters.
EPA addressed the underground
injection of KC11 and K013
nonwastewaters in the fune 8,1989,
Second Third final rule. In that rule, a
two-ysar national capacity variance
was granted due to the lack cf
alternative incineration capacity (54 FR
2S642). Action on K014 ncnwastewaters
was deferred so that EFA could evaluate
information en the composition,
characteristics, sad volumes associated
with this waste. EPA has received
information indicating that, by
definition, KD14 nonwastewaters are
being underground injected. Because
inadequate wet-air oxidation capacity
exists to treat K014 nonwastewaters,
EPA is granting a two-year national
capacity variance for the underground
injection of these wastes, restricting
K014 nonwastewaters from underground
injection on May 8,19S2.
c. Deepweil Injected Multi-Source
Leachate.
Commenters supported the proposed
capacity variance for underground
injected multi-source leachate. One
commenter provided data or additional
volumes of multi-source leachate that
are underground injected. Consequently.
EPA is updating its estimate of the
volume of underground injected multi-
source leachate by 1.5 million gallons.
EPA estimates that at least IS million
gallons of multi-source leachate
wastewaters are currently deep-well
injected and will require alternative
treatment capacity. EPA believes-that
most multi-source leachate currently
underground injected contains both
organic and inorganic constituents. EPA
is promulgating concentration standards
for wastewaters primarily based on
biological treatment followed by
chemical precipitation, or wet-air
oxidation followed Ly C&X^OQ
adsorption followed by chemical
precipitation for organic and inorganic
constituents. Because there is
insufficient capacity to treat
wastewaters based on these treatment
technologies, EPA is granting a two-year
national capacity variance for rsaiti-
source leachate that is underground
injected. This waste will be prohibited
from underground injection on May S.
1302.
d. Mixed Radioactive Wastes.
EPA requires radioactive wastes
mixed with RCRA-reguIated solvents
and dioxins to meat LDRs and treatment
standards established for those solvents
and dioxins when mixed wich
radioactive wsstas. EPA currently has
r.o information on mixed radioactive
wastes that are underground injactsd.
EPA requested comrnssts on mixed
radioactive wastes that are being
underground injected. EPA received no
information indicating that mixed
radioactive wastes were being
underground injected; thus, EFA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them. These wastes will be prohibited
from underground injection on August a.
1990.
3. Capacity Variances for CcRtsntlRcted
Soil and Debris
Today, EPA is granting an extension
cf the effective date for certain First
Second, and Third Third contaminated
soil and debris for which the treatment
standards are based on incineration,
vitrification, or mercury retorting; EPA is
also granting a national capacity
variance for inorganic solids debris
contaminated with DOOS through D011
wastes. RCRA section 3004(h}(2) allows
the Administrator to grant an extension
to the effective date based on the
earliest date on which adequate
alternative capacity will be available.
but not to exceed two years ". . , after
the effective date of the prohibition
which would otherwise-apply under
subsection (d), (e), (f). or (g)." For First
third and Second Third wastes that have
heretofore been subject to the "soft
hammer" provisions (see section LB.9)
but for which treatment standards are
being promulgated today, EPA is
interpreting the statutory language "
* * * effective date of the prohibition
that would otherwise apply" to be the
date treatment standards are
promulgated for these wastes (i.e.. May
8,1990), rather than the date on which
the "soft hammer" provisions took effect
(i.e., August 3,1988, and June 8,1989,
respectively). EPA Ends this the best
interpretation for two reasons.
Extensions of the effective date are
based on the available capacity of the
CCAT Jo* dia waste, so it is reasonable
that such an CX>.B,S»«;QH begin on the date
on which treatment standards based u«
performance of the BOAT are
established. Furthermore, EPA does not
intend, in effect to penalize generators
of First Third and Second Third wastes
by allowing less time (i.e., 28 months
and 37 months, respectively) for the
development of needed capacity, whiie
-------
22650 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1S90 / Rules and Regulations
generators of Third Third wastes in the
same testability 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 determining
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
a 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 buried
whole or crushed empty drums,
capacitors, 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
liquids 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 D011 wastes. Wastes in this
treatability group are defined as follows:
nonfriable inorganic solids that are
incapable of passing through a 9.5-mm
standard sieve that require crushing,
grinding, or cutting in mechanical sizing
equipment prior to stabilization, limited
to the following inorganic or metal
materials: (1) Metal slags (either - ross
or scoria); (2) v' jified slag; (3) glass;
f4) concrete ' ding cementitious or
poz2ular>" .zed hazardous
wastes); (5j masonry aaH —'
bricks; (P1 -ratal —•• ,^m?*,
', . a. ;al nuts, bolts,
pipes, piu:.: , valves, appliances, or
industrial equipment; and (8] "scrap
metal" (as defined in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)).
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 1986. However, the Superhmd
remediation program has expanded
significantly since that time. Plans for
remediation 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 1968. Because of the major increase in
the Superfund remediation program,
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 BOAT 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 technologies for which EPA
determines there is insufficient 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 for of technology that EPA has
evaluate being unavailable at
present ever, there is one
except this principle. If the soil
and debns are cen.aEunated with »
prohibited was'" ' ~-z.w ' ^misno
logger »|s- *" aai capacity
.uii, 6; o certain types of
prohibited sc at wastes, then the soil
and debris wouid have to be treated to
meet the treatment standard for that
prohibited waste (or wastes). Any other
interpretation would result in EPA's
extending the date of a prohibition
beyond the dates established by
Congress, and therefore beyond EPA's
legal authority.
C. Ninety Day Capacity Variance for
Third ThM 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 rale 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 comply 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 8,19§0, prohibition
date, most members of the regulated
community are just receiving notice of
the requirements with which they must
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 wastestreams 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 variance, 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* ««**; Uiat
meet the mir'.TSui'Ji t_i^moiogy standards
.t out in § 268.5(h)(2). (See also section
III.D of today's preamble explaining that
a different principle holds for prohibited
wastes that are now nonhazardous.) In
addition, the recordkeeping
requirements of existing 40 CFR 288.7
(a){4) and (b)(6) will apply during this
period. These provisions require a
certification that a restricted waste is
not subject to a prohibition for
enumerated reasons, such as existence
of a national capacity variance. EPA
does not Intend, however, that
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and 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
them. Thus, tracking 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 requirements 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 RCRA, 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 261 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
the future.
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 LDR 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 disposal 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.
rsmain hazardous for all regulatory
purposes unless that waste is
specifically delisted by Agency approval
of a delisting petition under 40 CFR
260.22. 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)(l).
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. Most
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
Elimination System (NPDES) programs,
pursuant to sections 307(b) and 402 of
the CWA, which use surface
impoundments not regulated under
RCRA subtitle C. In addition, there were
many comments concerning the impact
of the proposed rules on the SDWA
program for nonhazardous injection
weUs.
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
-------
22852 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
steps to address problems that could
arise from integration of LDR
prohibitions in the context of the ECRA
Subtitle D, CWA and SDWA programs.
A more detailed discussion of the legal
authority for this approach is provided
below.
b. General Standard for Agency
Construction af Statutes. Chevron
U.S.A, Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 337 (1984)
sets forth a two-step procass for
determining 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 intent cf
Congress is clear, then the agency
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 af Agency Authority for
Treatment Requirements. Several
industry commenters 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." Commenters 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 3004(g), Clearly a waste must
be "hazardous" to fall nnder the
mandate of 3004(g). EPA could assess
whether or not a waste is hazardous at
the point of land disposal to determine
whether the prohibition in 3004(g)
applies. The Agency, however, does Dot
believe this is the only permissible
construction. Although section 3004(g)
clearly authorizes EPA to prohibit the
land disposal of characteristic waste, it
does not specify that the status of the
waste for purposes 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 point or
combination of the two). Indeed, section
3004(g)(5) requires EPA to consider
"* * * the goal of managing hazardous
waste in an appropriate manner in the
first instance," (emphasis added] when
determining the scope of the land
disposal prohibitions. See reference to
section 3004(d)(l)(B) in section
3004(g)(5). This language can be read to
refer to a point of generation approach.
Moreover, the statutory structure
provides for treatment of hazardous
waste under section 30D4(m) treatment
standards before land disposal and not
necessarily at the physical point of land
disposal. Commenters further argue that
the Congressional policy is to limit the
scope of the LDR 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 cne which may better
serve the goals and objectives of the
LDR program.8 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
3904(m), As the Agency noted in the
proposal at 54 PR 48490, the point of
disposal approach could undermine the
Congressional goals of the land disposal
restrictions in critical 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, since waste
diluted below 8 characteristic level prior
to land disposal would not be regulated
by LDR provisions. Such dilution could
be in lieu of treatment or a specified
method and would not fulfill the goals of
* The Agency has previously adopted the point of
generation approach with respect to identification
of waste subject to the California list prohibitions
set out in RCRA section 30CM(d)(l) and (2), 52 Ft
25780 {July 8,1987). Like characteristic wastes.
California list wastes must contain constituents or
exhibit a property above a certain level.Moreover,
as a general matter, to ensure the proper
management of waste in the first instance. EPA has
requited application of several 40 CFR part 298
requirements at the point of generation. See
5 268JCHa)(3) and 52 FR 21012 (June 4.1987} (initial
generator must determine whether solvent wastes
are prohibited); 53 FR 31146-47 (August 17,1988)
and Si FR ZB60S (June 23,1389) (waite code carry*
through principle applies at the point of generation
and determine* both the prohibition and the
treatment standard for listed waste*). All land
disposal restriction tracking requirements likewise
attach *t the point of generation. (268.7(a) and 54 FR
38968 (Sept. S. 1988),
section 3004(m). In many cases, dilution
simply increases the volume of a waste
without redactag or Immobilizing the
mass of hazardous constituents 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
environment Rather, the EP (and TC)
limits ara levels at which wastes clearly
are hazardous. 45 FR 33084 (May 13,
1880); 51 FR 21648 (Jane 13,1966); 55 FR
11738 (March 29,1990).7
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(ai), .i.e.. 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 minimized" (emphasis added]. The
statutory focus on hazardous
constituents beyond the specific
characteristic constituent is also
enunciated in sections 3004(d)-(g] of
ECRA. These provisions authorize EPA
to take into account "* * * the
persistence, toxicity, mobility, and
propensity to bioaccumulate of .such
hazardous wastes and their hazardous
constituents"in establishing hazardous
' In Hazardata Waste Treatment Council v. EPA
(HWTC UI). 886 F.2d 35S (D.C. Or. 1988) the court
noted that it would be inappropriate under section
3C94(m) to require treatment below levels which
there are no longer threats to human health and the
environment Id. at 333. However, the court notsd
that the inquiry under section 3004(m) concerning
the extent of treatment is different than levels
established for other regulatory purposes, and
specifically noted that EPA need not construe
characteristic levels ai levels betew which no
further minimization of threats can occur. Id. at 382,
Hie Agency has recently discussed its rationale for
a technology-baaed approach to treatment
standards under section 3004(m) which does not cap
the treatment requirements at delistings levels. (See
55 FR 6840. (February 28.1990). EPA recognizes that
HWTC III is not dispositive on the issue we address
today whether characteristic levels at the point of
disposal serve as a jurisdictional bar to application
of section 3004(m) treatment standards.
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22653
waste prohibitions. Section 3004(d)(t)(C)
(smphasia added). Thus, 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 is 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—Le.. 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 v/astes
require removal of hazardous
constitutants 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
mandated nor precluded a point of
generation approach. In this case the
"meaning or reach of a statute involve[s]
reconciling conflicting policies."
Chevron, 487 U.S. at 846 (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 agsncy
regulations." Id. Accordingly. EPA
should make choices which represent "a
reasonable accommodation of
conflicting policies that were committed
to the agency's 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 SOW A. 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 Characteristic
Wastes and Integrating them With
Other Regulator/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 cf the LDR
program. Specifically, EPA believes it
has the authority to set treatment levels
below the 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 below characteristic levels
would apply to wastes currently
destined for RCRA 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 D
facilities. In addition, owners and
operators of subtitle D 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 such units would need to
mtet the treatment requirements unless disposal is
(1) into a "no migration" unit approved under 40
CFR part 148 or 288, or (ZJ into a surface
impoundment which meets the requirements of
RCRA section 3005(j)(ll).
facilities.9 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
Elimination System (NPDES) and
pretraataent programs under sections
301, 304, 307, and 402 of the CWA, and
ths Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program under the SOW A. Requiring
treatment below characteristic levels or
imposing a dilution prohibition would
require significant 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, as 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
nilemakings based on further
information and experience with
implementing the LDR program.
The extent to which the treatment
goals of section 3004(m) are furthered by
* As noted below. EPA h»s provided a regulatory
structure to enforce dilution rules which does nor
impact subtitle 0 facilities.
-------
22654 Federal Register / VoL 55. No. IPS / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
treatment beyond removal of the
specific characteristic and by
application of LDR dilution 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
Congressional directive under section
lOOOfb) of RCRA to integrate regulatory
programs. Accordingly, EPA's approach
is to balance both the extent of
additional treatment provided from
treatment beyond removal of a
characteristic and regulatory integration
concerns for LDR standards relating to
characteristic wastes.10
Below, EPA addresses three separate
LDR requirements: treatment levels,
methods of treatment, and dilution
prohibitions. In addition, EPA discusses
exclusions for some ot tnese
requirements for certain practices
regulated under the CVVA and SDWA.
3. Treatment Levels
a. Environmental Considerations.
Section 3004(rr.) states that treatment
standards should substantially diminish
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.
Rept. at 18. EPA's framework for
developing best demonstrated available
technologies helps to ensure that
toxicity and mobility are minimized.
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
10 In determining that some balancing of
competing section 3004(m) and 1006(b}/3004(g)
interests is necessary in establishing prohibitions
for characteristic wastes, the Agency ii further
determining that the framework outlined in the
court's opinion in HV.TC11L 888 F. 2d 355 (D.C. Cir.
1989) and the Agency's response to that opinion (55
FR 8640 (Feb. 26.1990)) is not dispositive in the
differing context of characteristic wastes. Both the
opinion and the Agency's response dealt with
situations where listed hazardous wastes were
being disposed so there were no competing interests
to balance against the Section 3004(m) mandate.
Consequently, the Agency determined that until it
could develop de minimis concentration levels
which establish when threats from prohibited
wastes are minimized, it would opt for the certainty
of technology-based treatment standards to remove
as much of the uncertainty associated with land
disposal of hazardous wastes. 55 FR at 6642.
Characteristic wastes present a different situation.
however, due to the potential disruption of other
programs, see supra, and possible minimal benefits
to treatment below the characteristic levels in some
restrictions program are both relevant
for determining the appropriate level of
minimization 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, EPA's
stabilization data for arsenic
demonstrated untreated EP toxicity from
41 to 6450 mg/1. Treatment of these
wastes to the characteristic level of 5
mg/1 results in a reduction of 88 to
99.9%, The Agency also believes that
further treatment may, in some cases,
continue to minimize threats to human
health and the environment. However,
for other waste treatability groups
addressed in this mlemaking, EPA
believes it only has sufficient data, at
this time, to establish treatment levels at
the characteristic level. See section HI A
above.
This section sets forth EPA's approach
for developing treatment standards for
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)(l). EPA plans to re-examine
these standards as new information
becomes available. In addition, EPA will
develop additional standards for the
newly-identified 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 3004fg)
policies) in some future cases. EPA
intends in the rulemaking for TC wastes
to evaluate more stringent 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 issues. Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council v. EPA , 861 F.2d 277,
287 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (upholding EPA's
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. 2d 981.1039 p.C. Cir.
1987).
(1) Toxic Wastewcters. EP toxic
inorganic wastewaters are primarily
destined for NPDES wastewater
treatment systems, pretreatnent
systems and U1C injection wells. Given
current 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
would need to be met prior to placement
in a subtitle D treatment impoundment.
This would be so even though the
impoundment might treat ths 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
corresponding 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 rulemaking record virtually all
wastewaters are managed in the context
of CWA treatment impoundments or
UIC wells."
(2) Toxic nonwastewaters. 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.
11 If EPA should receive information in the future
indicating that significant volumes of wastewater is
land disposed in another context EPA will
reevaluate the issue of setting treatment levels
lower than the characteristic level for EP toxic
metals. Again EPA is utilizing its considerable
discretion to address issues one at a time. See
HWTCIII. supra. 861 F. 2d at 287.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. IPS / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules end Regulations 22655
Using available data, it is not possible in
this rulemaking, due to lack of time and
data on this diverse univarse, to
subcategorize each characteristic waste
into Scalability groups designed
specifically for certain industries or
processes. Thus, in considering what
treatment standards are achievable for
EP toxic metal nomvastewaters, the
Agency had to develop uniform
standards based on BDAT technology
that constitute all or most of the wastes
idsntified by the characteristic,
As discussed in section 1IIA, of the
preamble, the Agency is confident that
these wastes can be treated at least to
characteristic levels. However, the
Agsncy is unable to treatment standards
below the characteristic levsl 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 wasts code.12
See discussion in section IIIA.
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
testability 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
wocld 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 treatment industry data, for example, was
often deficient in tuch information at to whether
and how concentrated characteristic wattes are
irixed and back calculations for dilution effect*
resulting from preirgatment mixing. See section IHA,
below the characteristic levels in any
case. This is because most 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 implementing 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 IIIA., 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
toxiciry concern, as with high TOG
ignitable wastes, and cyanide-bearing
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 IIIA., this approach
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 nils.
EFA has considered the advantages of
additional treatment, with the
difficulties in (1) implementing a
requirement to teat below
characteristic levels and (2) ths effect of
such a rule on overlapping federal
environmental programs.
The characteristic level evaluated at
the point of disposal servgs to
distinguish certain disposal practices
and facilities from other permitting and
regulatory requirements under Subtitle
C of RCRA. Many comiseaters 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 isany 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 CWA. In
effect, a treatment standard below
characteristic levels would need to be
met prior to placement in a surface
impoundment used in the treatment
process. EPA estimates that up to 2000
nonhazardoua treatment impotinckaents
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 to 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 BOAT incineration
technology is important to destroy these
particularly dangerous pesticides.
Because there is a limited amount of
these pesticides, EPA believes the
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
22656
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / 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 Considsrations. 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 minimizes 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
method can stiil fulfill the purposes of
3004(m) by providing for treatment.
Second, 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 constituents 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 wastestreams simply
by venting these volattles 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
alternatives 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
specifying incineration or fuel
substitution for ignitable characteristic
wastes with high levels of total organic
carbon [TOC). The TOG 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 disposal." 130 Cong. Rec.
S9179 (July 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 minimize
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 industrial 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 impoundments,
with only 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 for disposal of other waste
under subtitle D of RCRA. Subtitle D
establishes a framework for Federal,
State, and local government cooperation
hi 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 actual
planning-and direct implementation of
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June l. 1990 / Rdes end Regulations 22S57
solid waste programs under subtitle D,
however, remain State and local
functions. Most Slates 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) and4004(a) of RCRA, EPA
promulgated the "Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR part
257), and subsequently issued miner
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: fioodplains, 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 simitar to thase
under the CWA-and SDWA which, as
discussed below, the Agency is
excluding from the LDR dilution roles.
Specifically, there are limited federal
regulatory, implementation or
enforcement provisions that would
require integration. (This is not the case,
incidentally 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.
8. Exsmption to DHotioa 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.13
13 Westewaler which contains a iiited hazardous
waste and i» ultimately discharged to wtters of the
United State* under an NPDES permit pursuant to
section 4Q2.of the CWA or to * Publicly Owned
Treatment Work* (PQTW) puriuanl to lection 307
of the CWA is not ordinarily subject to the land
disposal prohibitions for several reasons. First in
many situations, the wastewater is managed in
tanks prior to discharge and. thus, there is no
placement in a land disposal unit. Second, even
where a surface impoundment is used to treat
hazardous waste prior to discharge such surface
impoundments may satisfy the requirements of
section 3005(jJ(ll) 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 characteristic prior to
placement in a subtitle D 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 roles. EPA received many
comments that the proposed ECEA
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.14 This impact would
occur despite die fact that further
treatment would occur in the
impoundment to remove constituents'
from the wastewater prior to discharge
to waters of the United States or to a
POTW. These commenters further
argued that application of such RCRA
rules to wastewaters already required to
be treated tinder CWA requirements
would be unduly confusing and
duplicative.
b. Environmental Considerations. As
discussed below, the NPDES program
has a series cf technology-based
requirements for the treatment of
wastewaterprior 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. Indsed,
many of the LDR treatment standards
are based on data used to set die 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 die land
disposal restrictions.
c. Regulatory Problems. The
regulatory overlap of similar but not
identical dilution rules would create
significant regulatory disruption. Section
lOOefjb) of RCRA provides EPA the
section 3004(m) treatment standards. See 5 258.4.
Section 3QQ5(jJ(ll} requires an impoundment to-meet
certain design reo.uiretneitts set out in tection
30M(oHl) of RCRA and be dredged annually to
remove residues.
14 As noted above, applying LOR requirements at
a point of generation would require a facility either
to (1) treat the waste prior to placement in the
surface impoundment [2] obtain a "co migration
variance, (3) comply with section 300S(j)(ll); or (4)
install tank treatment 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 centrals on
dilution. In addition, NPDES permit
writers can set requirements which
reflect the nature of the trestmsnt
process, including best management
practices, mass limitations in lieu of
concentration based limitations.
adjustments to reflect pollutazts in
ictaks water, and conditions on internal
waste streams. 40 CFR I22.44(k); 1^2.45
(f), (g) and (h). Indirect dischargers are
also subject to specific CV.'A dilation
rules in both the general pretrestmant
rules and the Combined Wasiestreaai
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 under the CWA are generally
consistent with the similar requirements
under RCRA. Relying on Gie 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
application of that method is consistent
with and promotes "the objectives of the
CWA program, then the dihflicm
prohibition should apply to make it
impermissible to dilute these wastss to
avoid treating them by the designated
treatment method. Tnis group includes
the ignitable ncnwastswaters containing
greater than 10% total organic carbon
(TOC). The treatment methods for these
wastes is incineration or, in the case of
the ignitafale waste, fnel substitution.-
Prohibiting dilution to require the
specified method is entirely consistent
with the regulatory framework for the
CWA programs. The high TOC ignitafale
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 remaining pesticide wastes
designated as D012-17. Thus, this
requirement should ha«e 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
-------
226S8
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / 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 "minimum requirements for
effective programs to prevent
underground injection which endangers
drinking water sources." 42 U.S.C.
300h(b)(l). Class I deep wells inject
below the lowermost geologic formation
containing an underground source of
drinking water (USDW). 40 CFR
144.6(a).is 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 4CO such wells currently
injecting only ncnhazardous 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. Environmental Considerations,
LDR dilution rules for wastes currently
disposed of below the characteristic
levels in UIC 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.
(There are a few exceptions discussed in
the specific discussion on treatment
standards.) These general 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 268 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. Thus, 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.
EPA believes that the application of
dilution rules to these wastes 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.18 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 65 of
these facilities have submitted petitions
to obtain "no migration" variances from
the LDR treatment requirements as
provided for to 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
" A USDW is defined to include aquifers
containing waters with up to ItMXXJ milligrams per
liter ("rag/I") of total dissolved solids f'TDS"). 40
CFR 144.3,
11 "Another example of a potentially acceptable
land treatment situation involves wastes containing
heavy metals. Although land treatment does not
render the waste nonhazardous. a prohibition would
not be necessary if there is long-term certainty that
the hazardous constituents would be immobilized"
H. Rep. No. 198 at 34.
and resource intensive. In addition, 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 UIC 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 landfilling 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
regulations could be sufficient to justify
continued operation. Id. Through the
Part 148 petitions, EPA has gained
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
contain 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
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 226E")
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.
£1 Implementation of Requirements for
Characteristic Wastes
In today's final rule, the Agency is
promulgating several new provisions "
concerning implementation of the land
disposal restrictions for characteristic
wastes. Specifically, the Agency is
amending 40 CFR 268.7 and adding 40
CFR 208.9 to incorporate recorakeeping
requirements and special rules for
characteristic wastes, and is revising the
current regulations in parts 261 and 2S2
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 are
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 analytical
methods to verify compliance with the
treatment standards.
1. Overlap of Treatment Standards 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] If a listed waste also exhibits one
or more hazardous characteristics, the
waste mast 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 commenter suggested that EPA
should require treatment in 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
rulemakings 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 2S776 (July 8,1987). At the same
time, when a listed waste exhibits a
characteristic that is not addressed fay
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 rule, 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
minimized. 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
igtiored by removing the characteristic.
EPA is consequently promulgating new
requirements in S 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 25767), 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 generator must
make pursuant to | 262.11. That section
presently 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 (40 CFR 262.11
(b) and (c)). For purposes of compliance
with part 268, however, the generator
would need to know if the waste
exhibits a characteristic, even if the
waste is listed, because further
treatmentof 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 258.
In addition, §| 261.21—261.24 indicate
that wastes that exhibit the respective
characteristics and are not listed have
the designations D001-D017. However.
as discussed above, generators (and
other handlers) will need to know both
the listed waste cods 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 also be
listed wastes.
3. Wastes Subject to a Capacity
Variance
RCRA secticn 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 (B.C. Cir. liSS).
Under the present rule, it is possible
for prohibited characteristic wastes
subject to a national capacity variance
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 in 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
| 26S.5(h)(2), which likewise imposes
minimum technological requirements
only on landfill and impoundment units
that are permitted or that have interim
status. Consequently, EPA dop« not
-------
22660 Federal Register / Vol. 55. Ko. 106 / 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 ons treatment standard, the
Agency is clarifying that 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 a variance
must be met. For example, if a K048
nonwastewater also exhibits the
characteristic for chromium, the waste
has a six-month capacity extension as a
K043 listed waste, but no capacity
extension as a D007 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
rulerr.akings in which it stated that in
setting the treatment standard, the
Agency is making a more waste-specific
determination; however, this
determination is not effective until the
capacity variance ends. Because
capacity exists to treat the characteristic
waste, the characteristic treatment
standards still appty, and the KQ48
waste must meet the prohibitions for
characteristic wastes. The KQ48
treatment standard would then become
applicable wher. the national capacity
variance expires. Sse 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 3004(0); as required for listed
wastes during the period of a national
capacity variance.
4. Use of TCLP v. EP Analytical Methods
for Compliance
Ths Agency proposed two
alternatives in the proposed rale, 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
48430/3. If 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 strongly prefers to use the TCLP
to measure compliance wherever
possible Id. at 43432/3.
As stated in section in.D of today's
preamble, EPA is establishing treatment
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 25,1250
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 repiy 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
dupiicative burden. Accordingly, the
Agency is adopting the TCLP as the
means of measuring compliance with the
metal standards for toxic characteristic
Third Third wastes in this rule, with two
exceptions. For lead characteristic
nonwastewaters and all
nonwastewaters containing arsenic as
the primary hazardous constituent (/.a,
D004, K031, K084, K101, K102. P010,
P011, P012, P036, 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 leachate data. A mere detailed
discussion is provided in section OLA 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 ara newly identified
pursuant to RCRA section 3C04[g](4);
they were identified as hazardous after
November 7,1984.
6. Further Principles Governing
Applicability
a. Other Statutory Exemptions nr
Exclusions. The issues in this
ruleir.aking 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 261.2-
.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
consistent with EPA's existing
regulation at 40 CFR 268.1,
EPA believes that different legal and
policy considerations under exclusions
from the statutory and regulatory
definitions of solid waste and hazardous
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 definition of hazardous or solid
waste under 40 CFR 261.2-.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 Works (POTW) for
treatment is not solid waste. 40 CFR
281.4{a)(l). 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
POTW without meeting treatment
standards under section 3004fm)
(assuming that there is no land disposal
of the waste before it becomes subject
to the domestic sewage exclusion).
b. Restricted Wastes Versus
Prohibited Wastes. Consistent with the
cradle-to-grave mandate of RCRA's land
disposal restrictions, those who 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 under the LDR. Restricted
waste is defined by several conditions.
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22861
See 51 FR at 40819—40632 (November 7,
1986): 54 FR 36967, 36968 (Sept. 0,1989).
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
3C04(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 2B8.4. 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 36987, 36968
(September 6,1989).
c. Changes in Treatability 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 wastewatsr 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
treatability group is defined both in
terms of the applicable waste code and
the form the waste is in.) The specific
problem address'ed here, which occurs
most often with respect to characteristic
wastes, is the effect that changes in
treatability groups have en 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, "wastewaters" are
generally defined to have less than 1%
total organic carbon (TOG) 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 FQ01-FOQ5 solvents, and
K011, K013, and K014 acryionitrile
wastes. See generally § 268.2 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 ell 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 26594, 26824, 26630 (June 23,
li89).1T
A change in treatability 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
following rules are important to
understand this point. First, if a
treatability 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, waste 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 fa 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 NPDES
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 is a restricted
waste, but not prohibited, and so is not
subject to the dilution prohibition in 40
CFR 268.3 or any treatment standard
under part 268. Wastewater residue C
1T A facility i* not allowed to dilute or perform
partial treatment on a waste in order to switch the
applicability of a nonwastewater standard to a
wastewater standard or vice vena. Sea SZ FR 21012
(June 4,1987); but see S2 FR 2S7S7 (June 8.198?)
noting special circumstances when California list
wastes are involved. Dewatenns technologies (such
as filtration and cenUifugation) that are designed to
separate wastewater from nonwastewater are not
prohibited.
also is a restricted waste (due to the
"derived from rule" it carries the same
hazardous waste code under 40 CFR
part 261 as the original waste A), bat it
is not a prohibited waste because the
wastewater treatability group is not
going to prohibited land disposal.
Example 2. 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 and
the ash is land disposed; residue F is
directly reused as a substitute for a
commercial chemical product. In this
case, noawastewaters D ar.d E are
subject to treatment standards and the
dilution prohibition. EPA does not want
impermissible dilution of
nonwastewater D to be the reason that
the nonwastewater residue E meets the
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
treatability 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 268 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 treatability group ia
destined for land disposal. This
approach is necessary to assure that thin
-------
22S62 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 rule.
Example 3. Wastewater J is EP toxic
for lead. It is treated in a tank and
generates a sludge K, that is non-
hazardous. The treated wastewater L,
which no longer exhibits a
characteristic, is then sent to a surface
impoundment for further treatment after
which it is discharged under an 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 L is determined by the special rules
for characteristic wastes managed in
CVVA systems; therefore, they are
prohibited wastes but are not subject to
a dilution prohibition. Since wastewater
I. meets the treatment standard when it
is land disposed, the disposal is legal.
Example 4. Electroplating wastewater
M which exhibits a hazardous
characteristic, is treated in a tank to
yield a treated wastewater N and a
nonwastewater sludge O. 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
nor N is a prohibited waste due to the
special rules for wastes managed in
Class I injection wells subject to the
SDWA. Sludge O is a newly generated
waste that meets the listing description
for EPA Hazardous Waste No. FCG6.
Sludge O is a prohibited waste because
this nonwastewater is destined for
placement in a land disposal unit
Example 5. An EP toxic wastewater
slude P is dewatered to yield a
nonwastewater sludge Q which is EP
toxic and now exceeds the California
list level for lead. Also, a wastewater R
is generated which exhibits a hazardous
characteristic. The sludge Q is sent to a
landfill and the wastewater R is mixed
with domestic sewage and sent through
a sewer system to a POTW.
Both sludges P and Q are prohibited
wastes because Q is sent to land
disposal and P is in the same treatability
group as Q. Note that during a
(hypothetical) national capacity
variance for the lead characteristic
treatment standard, Q must comply with
the California list standard for lead.
Wastewater R is a restricted waste, but
not a prohibited waste because it is
covered by a § 261.4 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. Amended Tracking System for
Characteristic Prohibited Wastes
EPA's decisions concerning
characteristic wastes necessitate certain
modifications of the tracking provisions
contained in § 268.7. See 54 FR 48491
and 48492 (requesting comment on this
point). This section of the preamble
outlines the modifications the Agency is
making to the existing rules, and
clarifies certain points regarding the
rales' 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 impermissible dilution.
A. Applicability of Tracking
Requirements
1. Clarification of and Changes to
Generally Applicable Recordkeeping
Requirements. Section 268.7 applies to
generators, treaters. storers, and
disposers of restricted wastes. Most of
the provisions contemplate that
restricted wastes are being shipped off-
site for treatment or disposal (see 5 268.7
(a)(2) and (a)(3), and § 268.7 (b)(4) and
(b)(5)). The first point the Agency
wishes to address is the existing
requirements that apply when restricted
wastes are managed on-site. At a
minimum, certain recordkeeping
requirements are triggered. Section
258.7(3) states that generators must first
determine whether their waste is
restricted. Section 268.7(a)(6) 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 recordkeeping
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 recordkeeping requirements
at all by virtue of the exemptions from
all of part 263 that are contained in
sections 2C8.1 (b) and (e). (See 54 FR
I
38968 (September 6.1989] discussing
what a "restricted" waste is.)
The Agency is applying the existing
§ 268.7 (a) and (a)(6) requirements to
characteristic wastes that are restricted
under today's final rule. These
requirements apply even when ths
hazardous characteristic is removed
prior to disposal, or when the waste is
excluded from the definition of
hazardous or solid waste under § 261.2-
.6 subsequent to the point of generation.
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 § 261.4 exclusion
should be kept in the facility's operating
record.) The rationale for this is that the
§ 261.4(a)(l) exclusion for domestic
sewage does not attach until the mixture
passes through the sewer system to a
POTW; in the interim, the waste is
restricted. (See also section DI.E.G of
today's final rule.) Finally, this
information should already exist in any
case, to justify the absence of subtitle C
regulation.
B. Tracking (i.e. Notification/
Certification) Provisions Applicable to
Generators Shipping Wastes Off-Site
Under existing § 288.7(a), generators
managing restricted wastes must
determine whether the wastes meat
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 263.7(a) (l), (2).
and (3). In all cases, however, the
generator must prepare a notice for 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 wasta
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 sent
(almost invariably) to subtitle D
facilities. EPA is concerned that sending
part 268 notifications and certifications
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
22683
to subtiile 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) fur manifests and refuse
to accept the shipment Even if the forins
are not mistaken for manifests, the
subtitle D facilities could view the forms
as describing hazardous wastes and
refuse to accspt the wastes. This could
result in a .situation where scarce
subtitle C management capacity is used
for r.sn-hazarC'Oi'.s wastes bersuse
set-title D facilities are refusing the nen-
hr.zardous wastes.
These potential tni£tind2rs:a.ndi:;gs
are probably solvable as subtitle D
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
disposal 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 D facility when they no longer
exhibit a characteristic. Having a
generator certify to an off-site subtitle D
facility that the waste no longer exhibits
a characteristic adds little or nothing to
the information the disposal facility
needs to know to dispose of the waste.
That is, the disposal facility already
must determine that the waste no longer
exhibits a characteristic. Since under the
present rule, sending the tracking forms
to subtitle D facilities could normally
have only the counterproductive effects
discussed in the previous paragraph.
EPA has determined 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 facilities, 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
realizes that some of the treatment
standards in today's rule, notably those
for reactive cyanides 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 D disposal practices, however,
that at this time the Agency believes it
the better decision not to require
tracking documents for this set of
w&sies 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 D facilities, the Agency
is not deciding that notifications and
certifications should not be prepared for
such wastes. Tlie Agency's concern is
where those notifications and
certifications ere sent. EPA believes.
and is requiring, that the notifications
and certifications be sent to thy
appropriate EFA Regional Administrator
or his delegated representative, or to a
state authorized 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 § 268,7(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 record is kept that the characteristic
waste has been treated to meet the
standard and not impermissibly diluted.
Generatois (or treatment facilities, see
below) would also have to certify that
these requirements were satisfied. Thus,
the key objectives of the notification
and certification provisions are
satisfied,
EPA is making some slight
modifications in the notification form
that would be sent to EPA (or to an
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 characteristic have neither
an ID number nor a manifest number.
some small modifications are necessary.
While the notification form would not
contain hazardous waste codes, it must
contain a complete and accurate
description of the waste, including its
former hazardous waste classification.
In addition, although a manifest number
would not be included, tha 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 sen: cff-siie. All of the
normal § 25S.7(a)(.!} notice requirements
fit this situation [i.e. ilia waste has an ID
number, it does save to hsve a manifest,
etc.) and do not require any change. The
tracking document also would be coin"
I.. I—IB.. * ™ ~
counterproductive e'*iec*.s discussed
above with respsct f« subtitle 0
lactUUes vvjuid cr.cur. Thus, nc changes
to existing rules sre required.
The following examples illustrate how
the revised tracking requirements would
apply to generators of characteristic
wastes:
1. Generator A generates a D008
nomvsstewater that is sent off-site to a
treatment facility.
The generator would prepare a
§ 268.7(a)(l) 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 DC08
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
impermissibly. 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 would be
the identity and location of the subtitle
D facility where the waste has been
sent
C. Tracking Provisions Applicable to
Treatera
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
Reproduced from
best available copy.
-------
22664 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / 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 D 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 TOG
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(cJ (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.
E. Changes 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 impermissible dilution. This
requirement, of course, is already
contained in § 268.3 and today's
amendment simply includes a reference
to this requirement in the certification.
(The existing certification for treatment
facilities in fact refers to the dilution
prohibition, but does so in an overbroad
manner by referring to all dilution,
rather than only impermissible 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 impermissible 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 268.3. »• The rules
also generally discourage aggregation of
wastes not amenable to cotreatment 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 impermissible dilution.
See eg., 52 FR 25766 (July 8, 1987) and
other notices there cited. However, the
Agency noted that centralized treatment
of incompatible wastes treams was not
legitimate treatment and constitutes
impermissible 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
concentrated solvent streams for whic-h
biological treatment 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 commenters, 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, and
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 non-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
" Although section 2S8.3 is written in terms of
"restricted" hazardous wastes, it applies equally to
the narrower class of prohibited hazardous wastes.
See 54 FR 38966 [Sept 6.1989) explaining the
applicability of the dilution prohibition.
11 EPA notes that its authority to promulgate a
dilution prohibition rests not only on the land
disposal restriction statutory provisions and
Congressional directives (tee in particular section
3004(m) and related statutory requirements for EPA
to establish pretreatment standards as a condition
to land disposal; see also H. Rep. No. 198.98th
Cong. 1st Seas, 38 (1983) and & Rep. No. 284.98th
Cong. 1st Sess. 17}, but in addition, the more general
authority in section 3004(a)(3) to eswbliih treatment
standards "as may be satisfactory to the
Administrator" and "as may be necessary iu protect
human health and the environment".
• O.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Fedsral Register / Vol. 55, No, 106 / Friday, Jane 1. / Rules and Regulations
226S3
treatment systems that include !and-
bassd treatment (often biological
treatment ponds) or storage (for
example, holding ponds for corrosive
wastes that have bean neutralized by
dilution), Commenters also correctly
viewed this issue as being intertwined
(at proposal) with the implications of
requiring treatment of characteristic
wastes .below the characteristic levels.
More broadly still the issue presents
another aspect cf 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: (1)
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 which are
aggregated are not diluted
impermissibly if they are treated
legitimately in centralized 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 impermissibly.
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 meaningful way. In section
IILD above, we have already discussed
the potential difficulties of integrating a
full-scale dilution prohibition with the
Clean Water Act's NPDES and
pretreatment regulations, and the Safe
Drinking Water Act's UIC program. We
explain below the attempts EPA made
to quantify the proposed standard, and
the obstacles the Agency encountered.
The Agency's proposal to require
reduction of a BOAT constituent as a
means of evaluating if impermissible
dilution has occurred did not indicate
how much reduction would be deemed
adequate, and thus without further
elaboration not only fails to provide
clear guidance but also potentially fails
to achieve the objective of assuring that
wastes are treated by an appropriate
treatment method. More importantly,
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 treatment train
configurations.
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 f 288.3, and to explain more fully how
those rules would apply in specific
situations. We aho explain again how
we have determined to deal with the
interface between RCRA and oihar
wastewater regulatory programs,
a. The existing dilution prohibition
ordinarily would not apply to prohibited
characteristic wastes generated and
managed in treatment systems regulated
by ihe CIV A orSDWA. As explained in
a previous section, EPA has determined
in most cases not to apply a dilution
prohibition to characteristic wastes that
are generated and managed in treatment
systems regulated under the CWA or
SOW A. EPA believes, however, that
where the Agency has established a
method as the treatment standard for a
characteristic waste, and that where
application of that method is consistent
with and promoting of the objectives 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 treatability 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% TOG and the EP toxic pesticide
wastewaters (DO12-17) if these wastes
are managed in wastewater treatment
systems regulated under the Clean
JWster Act The treatment method for
these wastes is incineration, fuel
substitution, or some type of wastewater
treatment technology that destroys
organics. Not only are these wastes
amenable to conbustioa treatment (or
other treatment that destroys organics), .
but they typically contain high
concentrations of toxic organic
constituents whose destruction furthers
the RCRA goal of decreasing waste
toxicity and minimizing 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 NPDES/pretreatment
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
D001 treatment standards, EPA in fact
developed the 10S5 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
manner.
The logic that fcrces this decision for
these wastes in a NFDES/pretreatesnt
Clean Water Act system is act equally
persuasive in the casa of wastes
disposed cf by injection. As noted in
section IILD, Class I deep wells inject
below the lowermost geological
formation containing an underground
source of drinking water. Deep wells are
not currently injecting wastes that
contain any of the pesticide constituents
found in D012-17 characteristic wastes.
Additionally, there is not a design
concern of overwhelming the biological
treatment system in the deep well
scenario. In this instance, it is illogical
to force deep wells to utilize a specified
method as there is little concomitment
environmental or technical benefit
through its utilization. Therefore, in
today's final rule, the Agency is
exempting deep wells from specified
methods and the dilution prohibition as
long as the characteristic is removed
before disposal.
b. Dilution is considered to be an
acceptable 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 tost 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
minimization or recovery of non-toxic
characteristic hazardous wastes. EPA
has determined that these potential
problems should be addressed, if at all.
-------
22666
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 /'Rules and Regulations
in other rulemakings (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 toxicants.
Reactive cyanide and sulfide wastes
obviously contain toxic constituents.
Thus, dilution would not be an
appropriate method of treatment for any
of these.
c. Determining when types of
treatment (including centralized
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 combustion 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 TOC
ignitable wastes with ignitable
wastswaters 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 BOAT
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 wastewater—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)(ll) and 1268.4 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
268.4 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 characteristic.
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 exhibit
characteristics—the issue arises most
often with respect to characteristic
prohibited wastes.
EPA is finalizing this approach in the
final rale, 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 § 268.3 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
impennissibly diluting a prohibited
waste so that it no longer exhibits a
characteristic (or is rendered delistabie)
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 not a
prohibited waste; it is not being land
disposed. In addition, the Agency has
determined not to apply the dilution
prohibition rules to characteristic
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 IUIC 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
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 35, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22667
biological treatment to be an
appropriate mode of treating metal-,
bearing toxic wastes (j,e., wastes 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 or other fonns of
westewatsr treatment. Thus, in the
example, dilution would be used &a a
substitute for treatment of the listed
waste and would therefore be illegal
dilation and not treatment (See 54 FR
3SSS8 [Sept 6,1989) (dilution prohibition
applies to wastes managed in section
2S8.4 impoundments}.)
d. Facility D generates an EP toxic
nonwastewater that it stabilizes to meet
the treatment standard. The waste's
volume increases 400 per cant 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 Final Rule
to Mineral Processing Wastes
Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii} of RCRA
excludes from the hazardous waste
regulations (pending completion of
studies by the Agency) solid wastes
from the extraction, beneficiation 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 exclusion pending collection
of further volume and hazard data. All
previously excluded mineral processing
wastes, other than these 25 specified
wastes, that exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste will
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 Subtide C system after the
November fl, 19S4 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
prioritization 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 the 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 the
technical analyses necessary to
determine if the treatment standards
promulgated today as BOAT 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
BOAT standards promulgated today for
characteristic hazardous wastes. The
Agency plans to study the mineral
processing wastes in the future to
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 (La., 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 III.F 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 fron 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 in unauthorized States as soon
as the role 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 SDAT
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 commenter
stated that since EPA has extensive
information available from the listing
process, that should be sufficient to
develop BDAT 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 analyses
-------
26CS
Feeerai Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
performed have been to detennine if the
mineral processing wastes fail within
the scope of the Bevill Amendment (i.e.,
high volume/low hazard). Thus, the
Agency does not agree that it has
sufficient data to determine BOAT
standards for mineral processing
wastes.
Another commenter argued that these
wastes were improperly excluded from
regulation in the first place by an illegal
interpretation of the BevUl Amendment
in 1980, so should not be considered
newly identified at this time. The
Agency disagrees with the comrcsnter
that mineral processing wastes cannot
be considered newly identified wastes.
These wastea have become subject to
the subtitle C regulations subsequent to
the enactment of HSWA, and thus need
not be subject to the hard hammer, nor
must frsatrnent standards for
characteristic hazardous wastes be
applied to them ia this rulemaking.
Certainly, there is no indication in either
the statute or the legislative history that
in creating a 66-month deadline for
characteristic wastes. Congress
sxpectsd the Agency to address wastes
within the scope of the Bevill
Amendments! the time of HSWA's
promulgation.
/. Generator Notification Requirements
The generator notification
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 253.7
specify that when the generator has
determined, either through testing or
through knowledge of the waste, 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
writing of the applicable treatment
standards and prohibition levels. This
notice must include the EPA Hazardous
Waste Number, the corresponding
treatment standards and all applicable
prohibitions set forth in 40 CFR 268.32 or
RCRA section 3004(d). the manifest
number associated with the shipment of
waste, and waste analysis data, where
available (40 CFR 2S8.7(a}fl]}. If the
generator has determined thai the waste
being shipped is restricted, but can be
land disposed without farther 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 26&7(a}(2)J, {EPA
reiterates that such determination must.
of course, be accurate. Thus, failure to
accurately determine a waste's status as
restricted is a violation of § 268.7 (a)(l)
or (a)(2), as well as a potential violation
of other provisions.}
The Agency had received, prior to the
Third Third proposed rule, a nnmber of
questions on whether the actual
treatment standards (i.e., the actual
number or method) must be placed on
the generator notification form, or if it is
sufficient to reference the appropriate
treatment standards by citation of the
applicable part of 40 CFR 268.41, .42, or
.43. EPA's interpretation has been that
all applicable treatment standards must
be listed completely on the generator
notification form sent to the treatment,
storage or disposal facility. A number of
these pre-proposal commenters had
indicated that they believe the current
regulations can be interpreted to allow
referencing, rather than listing the
specific treatment standards as part of
the generator notification. The
eommenters argued that referencing the
standards serves the same purpose as
listing the specific treatment standards.
Furthermore, they .stated that the
notification forms are becoming longer,
more complicated, and unwieldy as new
wastes and corresponding treatment
standards are added to the list of wastes
restricted from land disposal, and thus
listing each treatment standard on the
notification Form imposes an
unnecessary burden on generators.
As proposed in the Third Third notice
on November 22,1989 (54 FR 48496), the
Agency today is amending 40 CFR 2G&7
to allow referencing the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) rather than listing
each treatment standard. EPA solicited
comment in the Third Third proposed
rule on this action to detennine if the
regulated community anticipated any
problems with referencing of the CFR,
and to determine the effect this action
would have on hazardous waste
generators. The comments EPA received
on the proposal were overwhelmingly in
favor of allowing referencing the CFR,
Commenters stated that this action will
significantly reduce the paperwork
involved in handling the waste
shipments, reduce transcription errors,
and in no way cause harm to the
environment
Although EPA today is allowing such
references to the CFR, the following
information also must be Included in the
reference: the EPA Hazardous Waste
No., the sttbeategory of the waste code
(3.$., C003, reactive cyanide
subcategory), the treatability group(s) of
the waste(s) [e.g., wastewater or non-
wastewater), and the CFR sections and
paragraphs where the applicable
treatment standards appear. In addition,
where treatment standards are
expressed as specified technologies in
§ 268.42, the 5-letter treatment code
found in Table I of 1268.42 (e.g., 1NCIN.
WETOX) mast 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 CFR 268.7 allows
referencing of the CFR in lieu of only the
individual treatment standards; all other
5 288.7 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, or treatment or
storage facilities that ship spent solvents
(F001-F005), multi-source leachate
(F039) or California list wastes off-site to
a disposal facility. These waate
categories each contain a number of
individual constituents or waste groups
[e.g.. the waste code for multi-source
leachate (F039) contains 230
constituents). Therefore, rsfeencing
only the CFR section in lieu of the
treatment standards wo'iid not provide
the disposal facility, with meaningful
information regarding which
constituents might reasonably be
expected to be present in the waste. The
same is true for California list wastes
and spent solvents. For each of these
wastes, therefore, all applicable waste
groups and individual constituents
actually must be listed on the
notification.
In addition, some pre-proposal
commenters raised concerns about
notification requirements with regard to
shipments subject to the March 24.1386
small quantity generator (SQG) ruie.
This rule, specifically 40 CFR 262.2t)|e),
exempts SQGs (100-lCCO kg/mo.) with
recycling tolling agreements (as denned
in 40 CFR 282.20(e)] from the full Part
262 manifesting requirements. EPA
received a number of comments
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 wei! as
the one-time notifications and
certifications, must be maintained by
the generator for three years after
termination or expiration of the
agreement in keeping with the
provisions of 40 CFR 282.2C(e)(2).
The Agency is promulgating this
amendment because it believes the
subsequent handler of the waste under
the contractual tolling arrangement has
sufficient notification and knowledge of
the nature of the wastes being handled.
Tolling agreements provide for the
collection and reclamation cf a specified
waste and for redelivery of regenerated
material at a specified frequency. The
Agency believes that since the same
waste is picked up at reguar intervals,
one notice will suffice for the duration of
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 /Rules and Regulations 22869
the agreement to apprise the subsequent
handler of the land disposal restrictions
applicable to the waste.
/. Waste Analysis Plans and Treatment/
Disposal Facility Testing Requirements
In the proposed rule, 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 §§ 2S4.13 and 265.13 require
that waste analyses contain enough
information to allow the owner/operator
to comply with the 40 CFR 268
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
the (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 LDR 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 LJDR requirements are met prior to
disposal. The Agency also noted that
such corroborative testing provides
records that may be useful in
ascertaining compliance with LOR
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-site
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 commenters 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
invovled) is 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 expressed 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 B.C.
Circuit, in upholding EPA's § 258.7
testing framework, has expressed its
support for treatment and disposal
facility corroborative testing
requirements:
(I]t is the treatment facility'* job to
transform waste otherwise deemed too
dangerous to permit into landfills into
acceptable form. It is therefore not irrational
for tie EPA to introduce a backup, arguably
"redundant" testing stage for these wastes
requiring treatment and even to consider this
a "critical" stage in the process.
886 F.2d at 370.
The court also noted that such
corroborative testing is necessary for
dispoasl facilities:
[J]ust prior to land disposal waste must be
vigorously tested to confirm that it i* what
others have represented it to be and that it
may permissibly be Sand 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 | § 284.13 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 wasts.
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 §| 264.13 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, f 264.13 more clearly specifies
. that EPA nay, 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.
-------
22S70 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 1C6 / Friday, juce 1, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
Interim status facilities are subject to
the testing requirement for restricted
wastes. Interim status waste analysis
plans are developed by the facility and
maintained on-site, in accordance with
self-implementing procedures of
§ 265.13. Therefore, interim status
facility owners or operators should
ensure that their plan conforms with
today's new requirement For example,
if the facility's plan specifies total
reliance on generator or treater-
provided information, then the plan will
likely need to change to require
appropriate testing (See discussion
below regarding general Agency waste
testing considerations). Also, interim
status facilities should update their
pending permit applications promptly to
ensure that the applications reflect the
most current information and today's
revised regulatory requirements.
If a permitted facility wants to amend
its WAP to better address restricted
waste testing requirements, then it
would follow the permit modification
procedures in § 270.42. Under those
modification procedures, a change to
indicate a different testing frequency
would most likely be a Class 2
modification (see appendix I to 5 270.42,
item 3(1}}.
EPA believes that there will be
sufficient time to incorporata
appropriate waste analysis
requirements into the development of
permits for the approximately 1000
interim status treatment and storage
facilities expected to receive RCRA
permits ia the next several years. WAPs
for permitted storage and treatment
facilities (including incinerators) will be
examined no later than at permit
reissuance. Revaluation of land
disposal facility permits will occur no
later than the five year permit review
required by § 270.5G(d), so WAP changes
can be accomplished at that time. It
should also be noted that for permitted
facilities, EPA 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
(5270.4l(aK3)].
Far both 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, including.
but not limited to, terminating or
mcdifiying a facility's permit or pursuing
an enforcement action.
In order to aid permit writers and the
regulated community in determining ths
appropriate testing frequencies at both
stages in time, the Agency expects to
issue guidance soon which will further
address these issues.
K. Testing of Wastes Treated in 90-Day
Tanks or CantainefS
As noted in the November 22, 1989
proposal, treatment of prohibited wastes
conducted in so-called 90-day tanks (or
containers) regulated under f -82.34 is
not presently subject to a waste analysis
plan requirement 54 FR 48497. Thus,
there is no regulatory vehicle for
determining testing frequency in such
circumstances. In contrast, under
§ 268.7(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. All
treatment facilities operating pursuant
to interim status or a full permit must
have a waste analysis plan.
Therefore, in order to close this
regulatory gap, EPA proposed that
generators treating prohibited wastes la
5 26244 tanks and containers must
prepare a plan justifying the frequency
of testing they choose to adopt [54 FR
48497). EPA disagrees with several
commenters who contended that
sufficient regulatory mechanisms are
already in place for these units. Most
importantly, there is no regulation at all
addressing testing frequency. Since a
substantial volume of hazardous waste
is treated in these units, the issue of
testing frequency is viewed by the
Agency as important for ensuring the
integrity of the section 3004(m)
treatment standards. Furthermore,
today's imposition of a waste analysis
plan requirement—addressing, among
other issues, testing frequency—on
persons treating in 90-day tanks is
consistent with the Agency's
determination in the Solvents and
Dioxins final rule that generators who
also treat must assume the same
responsibilities as off-site treaters. See
51 FR 40597), Put another way, EPA
believes that persons treating prohibited
wastes should ordinarily have the same
recordkeeping and documentation
responsibilities whether the treatment
occurs off-site or in 90-day tanks.
Therefore, in today's final rule, the
Agency is promulgating the proposed
action with several modifications in
i 268.7[a)(4). In addition to the
modifications (and in accordance with
majority of comments), the Agency is
clarifying that only generators treating
wastes to comply with the applicable
BOAT treatment standards (as opposed.
to wastes treated partially but receiving
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 in § 262.34
tanks and containers to meet the
applicable EDAT 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 representative sample of the
prohibited waste(s) being treated, and
must contain all information necessary
to treat the waste;s) in accordance wiih
requirements of part 268 (see |§ 2&4.13
and 285.13, from which these
substantive requirements are drawn),
including the selected testing frequency.
Examples of factors EPA would expect
to be included in the plan arc:
discussion of the number of prohibited
wastes treated, their variability, ar.d ths
variability of the treatment process. See
section Ui-I 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 plans
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
requirement that EPA is adopting today
is meant to close an outright regulatory
gap which exists only when the 90-day
generator is the sole 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 Ae 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
suggested by several commenters, 'Jus
plan should be filed with the EPA
Regional office or State within 30 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 an opportunity to
review the testing plan established. EPA
notes, however, that it reserves the right
at any subsequent time to disapprove of
the testing plan. This review mechanism
should ease one conunenter's concerns
about these plans being self-
implementing and not subject to
regulatory review.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22G71
I. Clarification of "P" and "U" Solid
Wastes
1. Residues Remaining in Containers or
Inner Liners
In the November 22,1939 proposal,
EPA proposed several amendments to
clarify the existing language of 40 CFR
261.33. The first amendment involved 40
CFR 261.33(c), a provision that lists
residues remaining in containers or in
an inner liner that 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
contami-ated with the 40 CFR 261.33{f)
materials. Ail of the other provisions in
40 CFR 261.33 refer to both 40 CFR
261.33 (e) and (f) wastes, and there is no
reason that 40 CFR 261.33(c) should not
as well. The omission results in fact
from an oversight, and is not based on
any choice by the Agency.
Many commenters 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
2S1.33(c), there is not a corresponding
reference, however, that residues
remaining in containers or in an inner
liner contaminated with "U" wastes are
subject to regulation, unless empty as
defined in 40 CFR 261.7(b)(l). This
omission couid 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.
2. Spill Residues
In addition. EPA proposed a clarifying
amendment to 40 CFR 261.33(d) to be
codified in 40 CFR 261.2 (b) and (c) to
state that residues of spills of
commercial chemical products listed in
40 CFR 261.33 (e) and (f) will be
considered solid wastes if they are not
recycled within 90 days of the spill. 54
FR 43493-94. 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.
In these instances, not only are spill
residues of commercial chemical
products unlike other 40 CFR 281.33
material (e.g., off-specification
products], but the Agency believes that
marginal claims of recyclability could be
asserted to avoid proper cleanup of
spills. 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 mlemaking because it is not
directly related to the Land Disposal
Restrictions program. Given that these
comments have merit and considering
the number of issues that must be
decided 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 261.33, mere assertion of
intent to recycle a spill 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 waste,
and a generalized assertion does not
satisfy the burden. See 40 CFR 281.2(f).
Objective considerations that could be
pointed to to satisfy this burden include
whether the generator 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 recycle 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. Rather, 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 Minimis 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 CFR
281.3(a)(2)(iv). This provision exempts
mixtures which contain small amounts
of listed spent solvents ("F-Iisted
solvents") or other de minimi's losses of
commercial chemical wastes ("P and U
wastes") from manufacturing operations
when these listed wastes are mixed with
other wastewater "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 wastiewater)." 20
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. RCRA 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 "consist[] of
wastewater the discharge of which is
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 minimis
losses of discarded chemical products]."
40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv). This exception to
the mixture rule was established by
regulation on November 17,1981. See 46
FR 55582. A specific level for spent
solvents is established by the regulation
(either 1 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 minimis
loss levels of P and U wastes that are
listed in 40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f).
In the 1981 interim final rule, EPA did
not exempt all de minimis 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
[CWA]. 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
10 The exemption also coven mixtures of small
amounts of listed hazardous wastes in wastewatera
resulting from laboratory operations. 40 CFR
261 J(a j(2)(iv)(E). Also, there is similar, but not
identical, language contained in a final rule that
provided interpretations of certain terms and
provisions of standards for hazardous waste tank
systems (53 FR 34079. September 2.1988). Today's
notice is not changing the applicability of the
September 2.1988 final rule with respect to
hazardous waste tank systems.
-------
22872 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
means to include all facilities which
generate wastewater which is
discharged into surface water or into a
POTWf.) The Agency also means to
include those facilities (known as 'zero
dischargers') that have eliminated the
discharge of wastewater as a result of,
or by exceeding (i.e., doing better than),
NPOBS or pretreatment program
requirements.' 48 FR 56584 (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 wastewaters "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 S6586.
Certain commenters assert that the
mixture rule exemption currently applies
to wastewater disposed of in a UIC 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 UIC
wells perse constitute a method for
facilities to "eliminate * * * the
discharge of wastewater." Commenters
further suggest that wastewater disposal
via UIC wells should be exempted as
consistent with the purposes for the
exemption expressed by EPA, Le,, that
such wastewater mixed with de minimi's
levels of listed wastes are adequately
regulated by another statute. These
commenters express their belief that
disposal of such mixtures down UIC
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
infection 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 basis. 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 UIC 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.
UIC wells may, however, be "zero
discharge" facilities, i.e., those which
have eliminated their discharge. To
qualify as such a facility, it must satisfy
the definition of a "zero discharge"
facility outlined in the November 17,
1981 regulation. To repeat die language
fr .•;* ie 1981 preamble discussing that
provision, "{t)he Agency * * * means
to include those facilities (known as
'zero dischargers') that have eliminated
the discharge of wastewater as a result
of, or by exceeding. NPDES or
pretreatment program requirements. "48
FR 56564 (Nov. 17,1981) [emphasis
added]. Thus, a UIC 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
[CWAJ 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 de
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 exemption 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
56584. EPA clearly did not assume that
facilities 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," Principa1 mcerns are that
some storage may be prohibited even
where it is not being used with the
intent to ciroumvent 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
have 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
denning 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—
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 f Friday, Jane 1. 1980 / 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 instsad retaining its
longstanding1 interpretation of the
storage prohibition and is not finalising
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 the
accumulation of snch 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 (i.e.. tanks and containers).
since land-based storage is a type of
land disposal.
Two major principles underlie the
storage prohibition: (I) the need to
reduce the risks created by long-term
storage; aad (2} the goal of the Land
Disposal Restrictions, and HSWA
generally, to encourage the expeditious
use of alternative treatment
technologies, Cfc Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council v, EPA, 886 F.2d. 353
(D.C. Cir. Sept. 15,1989) ("fnVTClin
where the court saidr
Congress believed that permitting storage
of large quantities of waste as a means cf
forestalling treatment would involve- health
threat] equally serious to those posed by
land disposal and therefore opted in large
part for a "treat »a you go" regulatory regime.
88&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 firm time limit is established
pursuant to § 283.50. Generators and
owners oroperatorscan store as long as
necessary. The legislative history makes
it clear that the intent of RCRA 3004Q)
and § 268.50 is to prohibit use of long-
term storage to circsmvent treatment
reqnirernents imposed by the Land
Disposal Restrictions. 129 Cong. Rec.
H8139 (daily ed. October 8,1983).
However, if prohibited wastes are
stored beyond one year, the owner/
operator has the burden of proving (in
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 reemphasfees that intent
is not a critical factor fa 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 ia
storage and the time in storage still may
bs relied upon as the key factors in
interpreting this provision. In
determining whether storage is lawful,
the Agency will continue ta evaluate
these factors in light of its "treat as you
go" approach noted in ffWTCIIL EPA
notes, however, that the intent of these
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{j) 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 commentcrs
asserted that there is little or no
available permitted treatment or
disposal capacity for commercially
generated mixed waste, -and that many
of these mixed wastes contain spent
solvents or California list wastes that
are not eligible for 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
ths availability of treatment and
disposal capacity. The commenters
stated that the Agency should not
interpret such storage as- "surrogate
disposal" that violates section 3004{f),
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
inconsistency with the AEA, within the
meaning of RCRA section 1003(a).
EPA is aware of the difficulties posed
by the applicability of the section 3004(1)
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, an
-------
22674 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 /Rales and Regulations
(3) A detailed schedule for obtaining
required operating and constructing
permits, 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.
After an applicant has been granted a
case-by-case extension, the applicant
muat notify the Administrator 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 (f) 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 treatment
recovery, or disposal capacity." If so,
and if the Agency were to grant a case-
by-case extension, this could provide
petitioners with additional tune while
their no-migration petition or treatability
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
demonstrations 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
point. In addition, the Agency's action in
proposing to grant the variance petition
serves as a partial imprimatur 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 cannot
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 addition, when the no-
migration or 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
denied, EPA will sot review the case-by-
case petition, and the petitioner will be
notified at the same time he or she is
notified of the status of the other
petition.
O. Applicability of California List
Prohibitions after May 8,1990
In the November 22,1989 proposal,
EPA discussed two issues relating to
California list wastes. 54 FR 48468. The
first 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 after the date of the HSWA
amendments. 54 FR 48498-49.
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 commenters 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 enunciations 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
-------
QSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22S73
wastes. For example, if wastes
identified by the new Toxicity
Characteristic were HOCs, thus
triggering immediate California list
prohibitions, there would be immediate
prohibitions of these wastes rather than
the more phased schedule specified in
section 30C4(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 22 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 rale, almost all
of the California list prohibitions will be
superseded by more specific
prohibitions and treatment standards.2*
The California list prohibitions remain
applicable for (1) liquid hazardous
wastes that contain over 50 ppin PCBs;
(2) HQC-contai^-o wastes identified as
hazardous ky a characteristic property
that does not involve HOCs, as, ror
example, an igxiitable 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/1 of nickel
and/or 130 mg/1 of thallium.
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 | 288.42(a)(2)) because
there are virtually no situations to which
the provision cculd apply. 54 FR 48499.
There was virtually no comment on this
point, and EPA is finalizing this action
as proposed for the reasons stated at
proposal.
13 Newly identified means either newly subject to
an existing characteristic (eg., such as those wastes
removed from the Bevill exclusion] or subject to a
new characteristic. Newly listed wastes may still be
subject to any preexisting applicable characteristic
standards or California list prohibitions stemming
- from she charaetiriMie,
" See 52 FR 29993 (August 12. IS87) and S2 FR
25773 (July 8.19B7J; see also « CFR 268j2[h) (HOC
prohibition superseded by treatment standard ind
effective date for a particular HOC).
IV. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3008 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified Statas 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 administered its
hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State,
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities that the State was authorized
to permit. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified time frames. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law.
In contrast, under RCRA section
3Q06(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
3totoo at tko eaznc time tttat they take
effect in nonauthorized States. EPA is
directed to carry out these requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adopt
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization, HSWA
applies in authorized States in 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 1 in
40 CFR 271.1 Q), 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 271.1Q) will
also be modified to indicate that this
rule is a self-implementing provision of
HSWA.
The exception is the clarifying
amendment to i 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 Stats 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 rale is
promulgated pursuant to HSWA. a State
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive either interim or final
authorization under RCRA section
3006(g}(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on the
basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's. The procedures and schedule for
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 271.24 (c}}.
Section 27l.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 27l.21(e). These
deadlines can be extended in certain
cases (see section 27l.2l{e}(3)). Once
EPA approves the modification, the
State requirements become subtitle C
RCRA requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
• requirements similar to those in today's
rule. These State regulations have not
been assessed against the Federal
regulations being promulgated today to
determine whether they meet the testa
for authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to implement these
requirements to lieu of EPA until the
State program modification is approved.
Of course, Statas 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
for final authorization less than 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations are not required to include
-------
2267S Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
standards equivalent to these
regulations in their application.
However, the State must modify its
program by the deadline set forth in
§ 271.2l(e). States feat submit official
applications for final authorization 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations must include standards
equivalent to these regulations in their
application. The requirements a state
must meet when submitting its final
authorization application are set forth in
40 CFR 271.3.
The regulations being promulgated
today need not affect the State's
Underground Injection Control (L1C)
primacy status. A State currently
authorized to administer the U1C
program under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) could continue to do so
without seeking authority to administer
these amendments. However, a State
which wished to implement Part 148 and
receive authorization to grant
exemptions from the land disposal
restrictions would have to demonstrate
that it had the requisite authority to
administer sections 3004(f) and (g) of
RCRA. The conditions under which such
as authorization may take place are
summarized below and are discussed in
a July 15,1985 final rule (50 FR 28728).
C, Slate Implementation
The following four aspects of the
framework established in the November
7,1986. rule (51 FR 4O57?) affect State
implementation of today's rule and
impact State actions on the regulated
community:
1. Under part 268, subpart C, EPA is
promulgating land disposal restrictions
for all generators, treaters, storers, and
disposers of certain types of hazardous
waste. In order to retain authorization.
States must adopt the regulations under
this Subpart since State requirements
can be no less stringent than Federal'
requirements.
2. Also under part 268, EPA is granting
two-year national variances from the
effective dates of the land disposal
restrictions based on an analysis of
available alternative treatment
recovery, or disposal capacity. Under
§ 283.5, case-by-case extensions of up to
one year (renewable for one additional
year) may be granted for specific
applicants lacking adequate capacity.
The Administrator of ERA is solely
responsible for granting variances to the
effective dates because these
determinations must be made on a
national basis. In addition, it is clear
that RCRA section 3004(b)(3) intends for
the Administrator to grant case-by-case
extensions after consulting the affected
States, on the basis of national concerns
which only the Administrator can
evaluate. Therefore, States cannot be
authorized lor this aspect of the
program.
3. Under § 268.44, the Agency may
pant waste-specific variances from
treatment standards in cases where it
can be demonstrated tht the physical
and/or chemical properties of the
wastes differ significantly from wastes
analyzed in developing the treatment
standards, and the wastes cannot be
treated to specified levels or treated by
specified methods.
The Agency is solely responsible for
granting such variances since the result
of such an action may be the
establishment of a new waste
testability group. All wastes meeting
the criteria of these new waste
treatability groups may also be subject
to the treatment standard established by
the variance. Granting such variances
may have national impacts; therefore,
this aspect of the program is not
delegated to the States at this time.
4. Under § aeB.e^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
restrictions may be authorized under
RCRA section 3006 to grant petitions for
exemptions from the restrictions.
D^csaioas on site-eps***^**' pctiti*,**** »•*
not require the national perspective
required to restrict wastes or grant
extensions. EPA will be handling "no
migration" petitions for surface disposal
facilities at Headquarters, though the
States may be authorized to grant these
petitions in the future. The Agency
expects to gain valuable experience and
information from review of "no
migration" petitions which may affect
future land disposal restrictions
rulemakings. In accordance with RCRA
section 3004(i), EPA will publish notice
of the Agency's final decision on
petitions in the Federal Register,
V. Effect Of the Land Disposal
Restrictions Program on Other
Environmental Programs
A. Discharges Regulated Under the
Clean Water Act
As a result 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 alternative
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 restrictions, 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 dkect exposure or
bioaccumulalion.
Some generators might treat their
wastes prior to discharging to a POTW,
but the treatment step itself could
increase risks to the environment. For
example, if 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 Third waste shifted to PGTWs
would be limited by such factors as the
physical form of the waste, the degree of
pretreatoent 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's 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, ifci" option could seem to
be an attractive aiusrnauve. m addnion.
uocoii-Dased disposal Could seem
attractive to the regulated community if
land-based treatment were not
available.
However, the Ocean Dumping Ban
Act of 1S88 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. Wellhead Protection Regulated under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Section 1428 of the SDWA contains
requirements for the development and
implementation of state Wellhead
Protection (WHP) Programs to protect
wells and wellfields which are used, or
may be used to provide drinking water
to public water systems. Under section
1428, each state must adopt and submit
to EPA for approval a WHP program
that, at a minimum:
(1) Specifies the duties of state agencies,
local governments, and public water systems
-------
OSKER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22G77
in the development and implementation of
the WHP program;"
(2) For each wellhead, determines the
wellhead 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
V.'HPAs 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 wellfieid
contamination by such contaminants;
(S) Requires that state and local
governments and public water systems
consider all potential sources of human
contamination within the expected wellhead
area of a new water well which serves a
public water system; 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 tha
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 Wellhead Protection
Program under the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
D, Air Emissions Regulated Under the
Clean Air Ac£ (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
treatment 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 \vastes, 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 (SO2). The Agency has
promulgated a National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAF] for mercury emissions under
section 112 of the CAA (40 CFR part 61,
subpart E). There are no industry-
specific national CAA contel standards
for S02 emissions from retorting
mercury sulfide wastes. There are,
however, regulations for ths 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
ceil chior-alkali plants, and plants that
incinerate and/or dry wastewater
treatment plant sludges. In ail 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 chlor-alkali 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 I65(a) of the CAA, all
new major stationary sources and major
modifications to existing sources of air
pollution must obtain a PSD permit. If
the mercury of SO2 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 SO2), then such emissions would
be subject to best available control
technology (BACT) requirements. An air
quality analysis for mercury and SO2
would also be required under PSD.
Moreover, an air quality analysis must
be conducted to demonstrate that the
SO2 emissions would neither cause nor
contribute to violations of any national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
or PSD increment for SO2. Facilities that
are located in areas that have failed to
meet any NAAQS for SO2 (i.e.,
designated nonattachment areas) and
emit more than 100 tons per year of SO2,
must not only apply emission controls
that meet the lowest achievable
emission rate but also offset their
remaining SO2 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 brominated
organics is contained in section HI.A.S.b
of today's preamble. A discussion of
potential nitrogen oxide emissions from
organo-nitrogen wastes is contained in
section 1ILA.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 managsment 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
RCRA 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{nJ standards development, the
Agency will develop additional
standards for the sources addressed in
-------
22678 Federal Register / Vol.'55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
the first two phases as necessary to -
address residual risks.
In addition to the section 3004(n)
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 permits.
Guidance for the control of air emissions
from these sources, -such as exempt
biological treatment tanks and recycling
units, is being developed under the
CAA.
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 because the Agency
presently presumes that these units will
only receive wastes that have been
treated to meet the BDAT requirements.
The Agency is considering whether to
propose regulations in a separate
rulemaking to limit air emissions from
land disposal units seeking to iand
dispose of wastes under a no migration
variance.
E. Clean Up Actions Under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
The land disposal restrictions may
have significant effects on the selection
and implementation of response actions
that are taken under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). There are three primary
areas in which these effects may occur.
One area that may be affected by the
land disposal restrictions 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 criteria,
and vice versa. Another matter that may
be affected is the treatment of soil and
debris contaminated with wastes
restricted from land disposal.
Contaminated soil and debris are a
primary type of waste that must be
remediated 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 standard (§ 268.44) or a
"no-migration" variance (§ 288.6).
Finally, even though the hazardous
substances at a CERCLA remediation
site may have been disposed prior to the
effective date of RCRA, if the action
involves removal of restricted wastes
after the prohibition effective date, the
land disposal restrictions are legally
applicable (51FR 40577, November 7,
1986). See also Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA, 869 F. 2d at 1535-
37 (D.C. Cir. 1989). For example, if a
waste is excavated from a unit treated,
and redisposed, EPA has indicated that
"placement" (see RCRA section 3004(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, December 21,1988).
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 from 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 may 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 restrictions.
Generators of significant quantities of
pesticide P and U wastes are fanners
and commercial pesticide applicators.
The provisions of 40 CFR 262.70 and
268.1 exempt farmers .from regulation
under the land disposal restrictions
program; 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. Regulatory Overlap of
Palychlorinated Biphenyls fPCBs)
Under the Toxic Substance Control Act
(TSCAJ and RCRA.
Certain P and U listed wastes contain
PCBs. The PCB component of such a
waste mixture 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 under both TSCA
and RCRA. Any ash residual from
incineration must meet the treatment
standard for the listed waste component
prior to land disposal.
VI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis—Surface
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 today's final
rule constitutes a "major regulation"
because it results in an annual cost to
the economy in excess of Si DO million.
As a result of this determination, the
Agency has conducted a regulatory
impact analysis (RIA) in support of
today's final rale. 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 in the RIA document as well as
comments received on the regulatory
impact analysis for the proposed rule.
Section VI.A.1 below describes the
universe of wastes and facilities
affected by today's rale. Section VI.A.2
below summarizes the analysis of
human health and environmental
benefits attributable to today's rule.
Section VI-A..3 summarizes the economic
cost and impact analysts performed for
today's rule.
The Agency analyzed benefits, costs.
and economic impacts using the same
approach and methodology that was
used for the August 17,1988, First Third
final rule (53 FR 31138).2* The effects of
the final rule were estimated by
comparing 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 units. The baseline was
14 For detailed information on the cost
methodology, see Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Land Dispoial Restrictions an Fiat Third Wastes:
Final Report, August 1988, ICF Incorporated.
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1§90 / Rules and Regulations 22679
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
dioxins, California list wastes, and First
and Second Third scheduled wastes. In
making these adjustments, EPA
assumed that facilities would comply
with these other roles by the least costly
methods allowable. However, though
First Third soft hammer wastes were
examined under the First Third rale
Second Third soft hammer wastes are
included in today's analysis. Thus, ail
First Third, Second Third, and Third
Third wastes have been addressed in
the land disposal restrictions rales
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 Generators 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 analysts reflect
this updated data base and are
consistent %vith 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 facility, and the current practice
or method of treatment. The adjusted
information contained in the two
surveys is accepted as the baseline (Le.,
pre-Third Third rule) practice for this
RIA.
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
rale, however, the Agency is allowing
facilities that discharge their
characteristic wastes under a MPDES
permit or dispose of it in a UIC well to
dilute. The Agency is also allowing
facilities that generate non-toxic
characteristic wastes (with th«
exception of high TOG ignitable
nonwastewaters, reactive cyanide
wastes, and reactive suifide wastes) to
diiuts their wastes in order to achieve
treatment standards. However,
characteristic wastes discharged
pursuant to an NPDES permit, with a
specified method, cannot be rendered
nonhazardous through dilution alone.
The Agsncy believes, therefore, that it
has accurately analyzed the impact of
today's rule.
Quantity of Affected Waste. Today's
rule affscts approximately 277 million
gaHons of waste per year 2S shown in
Table VI-l. An additional 44 million
gallons [per year] of multiscurca
leachate may also be affected by today's
rale.
TABLE Vi-1.—THIRD THSRD RULE
QUANTITY BY WASTE TYPE
(in million gallons par year]
tgnitabrt SCOQ1), eorroswa (0002),
a^d rfltctiva was'fis {OQQ3},. ..™™.
EP ton; wastes (0004-C016) ttut
rrjxfufi^ „ „«.».— ,,»... ...... .„„!.— IIUI.IIHIIII,
t.FStWt VftSteff ,».„..,.. _.....»«„....
Mixture Qf wift^fll „,,„...
r.flt «»! ,. , ,„-
Mixtures of 0006 and DOCS. _ .-
rjOOfi (CiMmttim) ,„„„ ,, „
0003 (SnacSMfl) ,,,,,,.,,
S3
41
17
17
9
a
7
Affected Facilities. A total of 110
waste management facilities and nearly
1.700 waste generators are affected by
today's final rule. Table VI-3 provides a
breakdown of affected facilities and
their volumes managed.
TABI F. Vi-3.—THIRD THIRD RULE
VOLUMES BY FACILITY TYPE
tin rr.'lhon gallons par year]
Facilities
Commercial Facilities
Non-Commercal
Faculties
Generators . ™...
Tjtal
Vol-
ume
212
65
NA
277
Per-
cent
77
23
NA
Mo. of
37
73
1.6S6
130 j 1.736
The affectsd facilities repraseru a
wide variety of industries in 22 major
indusirial groups. A further examination
of the TSDR survey data raveals 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}~~_ 43 percent
* Services Mot Elsewhere Gassified
(SIC 29)—, 8 percent
* Chemicals & Allied Products (SIC
28). 7 percent
• CBI FacUities—
-32 percent
The volume of noncommercial process
waste, which accounts for 23 percent of
the total waste volume, is distributed
across the following Standard Industrial
Code (SIC) groups:
* Non-classifiable Establishments (SIC
99).. 1. T. ....--:::::::::: 1:: I • n . .. r r-•-VVT.t t ! ! 52 pCtCC.^
• Primary Metals Industries (SIC 33J...13 per-
cent
* Petroleum Kenning & Related
Industries (SIC 23) 10 percent
* Chemicals & Allied Products (SIC
2A).»»«. ............,.i,,..................... 8 percent
• CBI Facilities 18 percent
Waste Management Practices. Based
on the TSDR survey, the RIA examined
five land disposal baseline management
practices: disposal in landfills, disposal
by land treatment, disposal in surface
impoundments, treatment in waste piles,
and storage in waste piles. Table VI—i
provides a breakdown of these baseline
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.
-------
22680 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE Vl-4.—THIRD THIRD RULE
. BASELINE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
[in million gallons per year]
Baseline practice
Facilities:
Landfill _..„.„,,
Storage waste piles
Treatment waste piles
Disposal surface impound-
ments „ ~ —
Total * ,
Volume
212
8
28
27
3
277
Percent
77
2
10
10
1
100
•Excludes estimated 44 million .gallons of muW-
source leachate.
The quantity of multisource leachate
is not well characterized at present
However, the RIA estimates that over
150 million gallons of leachate are
generated (annually) creating up to 44
million gallons of leachate residue
subject to the land disposal restrictions.
Treatment practices in cocipliar.ee
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 landfilled),
206 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
26 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 0
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 rale would result in several
benefits including reduced human health
risks, imroved safety at facilities, and
reduced.ecological effects. As with
previous land disposal restrictions, the
Agency quantified the human health
benefits and conducted a qualitative
analysis of the other benefits.
Human Health Benefits. The
quantitative benefits analysis estimated
that over a 70-year lifetime, the final rule
reduces cancer cases by 316 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 is due to reduced
inhalation exposure to benzene,
acrylonitrile, phenanthrene,
fluroanthene, dichlorcmethane and
other carcinogenic constituents in D001
ignitable wastes and mixtures of
ignitable and reactive wastes. The
majority noncarcinogenic benefits is due
to reduced ingestion of cadmium (D006),
chromium (D007), lead (D008), as well as
mixtures with these metals or mercury
and D001 ignitable waste containing
pentaclorobenzene and raethanol.
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
faciiities. For example, over 4,000 of the
non-cancsr "benefits" result from the
reduction of a highly concentrated
chromium waste that leaches to ground
water used as a drinking water source
for a populous Northeastern community.
And nearly 1,000 non-cancer"benefits"
are attributable to reducing high
concentration air releases of
pentachlorobenzene and rr-.ethanol 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 may 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 \vith
polluted rivers, lakes, or streams, and
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 (D001)
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 D001 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 to an overall reduction in toxic
releases to the environment, thereby
reducing adverse effects to ecosystems.
The resulting improvement in ecological
health 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 at
least two orders of magnitude more
sensitive than humans to arsenic ID004).
mercury (DQQ9), silver (D011), lindane
(D013J, methoxychlor (D014), and
toxaphene (D015). Therefore, aquatic
ecosystems may be at some risk even
when there is no human health risk.
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 105 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22831
Another way to look at the potential
for ecologies: effects is to consider the
proximity of land disposal facilities to
waterbodies, A recent Agency study on
ecological risks showed that for a
sample of 52 National Priorities List
sites, almost 90 percent of the sites
posed a threat to freshwater ecosystems
due to their proximity to waterbodies.23
Wastes removed from some of these
sites may be subject to the treatment
standards promulgated in this rale.
Thus, the final rule reduces ecological
risk associated with Third Third wastes
rr.ar.agsd at these sitss.
3. Costs
The final rule results in an annual
incremental cost of approximately S353
million under the Subtitle D scenario
and $440 million under the Subtitle C
scenario, and affects over 1,700 facilities
in 22 industrial sectors. Table VI-5
summarizes the estimated incremental
costs associated with today's final rule
by waste type.
TABLE VI-5.—THIRD THIRD Ruts
VOLUMES AND INCREMENTAL COST
(Million gailons/yr «nO miMon $/yr]
Wasta type
0001, 0002. C003
OOQ4-0Q1C
Listed wasta —
Mixtures.. ,
rat husiitiM
Total
Vol-
ume
42
122
Z
32
79
277
Cost fsn dotes)
Subtitle
O
S61
123
15
93
61
S353
SuttJtte
C
S67
166
1S
102
90
$440
As expected, based on voluir.es, the
largest incremental cost is attributed to
the management of D008 (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
cost 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 role as shown in tabla VI-6. EP
toxic wastes for lead (D008) and
ignitable wastes (DM1) are the two .
single wastes that incur the most
incremental cost.
TABLE VI-6.—WASTES INCURRING THE
MOST INCREMENTAL, COST
tin million donors/year]
Wa&a stream
GOC3 _____
r^oi
C007 „
0009
D004/OOC6/C007/ D008 ___-
0003 ,,.
D007/OQ08._.
DCC VC.O2/OOC7/CXW8
PCQ2,,. ,
Costs
Subtitla
D
57
4S
34
»8
18
9
12
"
Subtle
G
85
47
38
17
16
12
12
11
9
The cost of treating D002 corrosive
wastes attributed to the final ruls may
be overestimated by as much as S3
million because some of these wastes
cay be treated due to the California List
Land Disposal Restrictions rule (52 FP.
25760). That rule established a
performance standard prohibiting land
disposal of wastes with a pH less than 2,
while the final rule establishes a
technology-based standard of
deactivation (i.e.. 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 VI-7 and VI-3 summarize the
cost and economic impact of the final
rule under subtitle D 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 psrcent
of their cash from operations.
TABLE VI-7.—SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC
IMPACT BY TYPE OF FACILITY—SUB-
TITLE D
*• Summary of Eualogicat {Usia. Assessment
Mttttods. and Risk Map.ag*atenl Decision in
Soperfund ar.ri RCRA (EPA-«M»-89-n4e] June
IfiBS '
Economic
impact
Compliance
cost
(SMil)
Affects*
lacs.
Significantly
affected-
Estimated.
closures
A"8CMd
industry
groups
Noncom-
mercial
24
' ' 73
• 3
0
ta
Com
329
37
NA
NA
9
Gener-
ator
235
1,696
429
14
16
Total
2S9
1,796
432
14
22
TABLE Vl-8.—SUMMARY OF
IMPACT BY TYPE OF FACILITY—Sus-
TTTL£ C
Economic
impact
cost
(SMu;
Affected
facs.
Significantly
affactsd
Esamasad
closures
Atfaciad
inCustr/
gra-*.
Noncom-
rewreal
30
73
4
0
12
Com
410
37
NA
IA
9
Gener-
ator
299
1,685
552
14
16
Total
323
1,798
556
14
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 of industries in 22 major industrial
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 D scenarios. Also, 33 percent of
the affected generators are significantly
affected under subtitle C scenario, and
25 percent are significantly affected
under subtitle D scenario.
The analysis estimates that 14
facilities would dose as a result of the
final rule. By comparison, the First Third
rale was estimated to result in almost
200 closures. These 14 potential closures
represent less than 4 percent of the 429
significantly affected generators under
subtitle 0 scenario and less than 3
per cent 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.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis—
Surface D/aposed Waste
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq,, whenever an
Agency is required to publish a notice of
ruk'snaking, it must prepare and make
av.~i! jhle for public comment a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA)
that describes the effect of the rule on
small entities (La., 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
cr.tiiies.
-------
22032 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
EPA evaluated the economic effect of
the final rule on small entities, here
defined as firms employing fewer than
50 persons. Because of data limitations,
the Agency was unable to include
generators of large quantities 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 change 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 businesses affected by the final
rule. Neither of the 2 would be
significantly affected. The Administrator
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
net prepared a formal RFA.
C. Regulatory Impact Analysis—
Underground Injected Wastes
The Agency has completed a separate
regulatory impact analysis for
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 85 injection facilities, of the
total number of Class I injection
facilities, injecting approximately 0
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
used for the July 26,1988 final rule (53
FR 28118) and subsequent rulemaking.
An analysis was performed to assess
the economic effect of associated
compliance costs for the additional
volumes of injected wastes attributable
to today's final rule.
Total compliance costs for injected
wastes are estimated at $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 RIA are generally
defined as the reduced human health
risk resulting from fewer instances of
ground-water contamination. 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 I
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 Flexibility Analysis—
Underground Injection 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 268 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.
E. 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 (OMB) at that
time. Since there are no new information
collection requirements being
promulgated today, an Information
Collection Request has not been
prepared.
F. Review of Supporting Documents
The primary source of information on
current land disposal practices and
industries affected by this rule was
EPA's 1986 "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 Treatment Storage, and Disposal
Facilities Regulated under RCRA in
1981" (April 1984).
Waste stream characterization data
and engineering costs of waste
management were based on the
following EPA documents;
* "Characterization of Waste Streams
Listed in 40 CFR Section 261 Waste
Profiles," Vols. I and II (August 1985J;
• "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
hi 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 of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 148,261,
262,264,265,268,270,271, and 302
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information. Designated facility.
Environmental protection. Hazardous
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / 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 recordkeeping
requirements. Waste treatment and
disposal. Water pollution control, Water
supply.
Dated: May 8,1900.
F. Henry Habtcht,
Acting Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 148—HAZARDOUS WASTE
INJECTION RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 148
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 3004, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.
2. Section 148,1 is amended by adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 148,1 Purpose, scope, and 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 144.8(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 (j): by
revising the introductory text of newly
redesignated paragraph (j); and by
adding new paragraphs (d), (f). and (i) to
read as follows:
§ 148.14 Waste specific prohibitions—first
third wastes.
*****
(d) Effective August 8,19SO, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Number F008
(wastewaters) and F019: the wastes
specified in 40 CFE 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers K004, K008.
KOlS^nonwastewaters), K017, K021
(wastewaters}, K022 (wastewaters),
K031, K035, K046 (reactive
nonwastewaters and all wastewaters),
K060 (wastewaters), K061
(wasttwaters), KQ69 (calcium sulfate
nonwastewaters and ail wastewaters),
K073, K083, K084, K085, K086 (all but
solvent washes), K1Q1 (high arsenic
nonwastewaters), K102 (high arsenic
nonwastewaters), and K106; and the
wastes specified in 40 CFR part 261.33
as EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers
POOL P004, POOS, P010, P011, POI2. P015,
P016, P018, P020. P036, P037, P048, FOSO.
P058. P059, P068, PQ69, P070, P081, P082,
P084, P087, P092. P102. P105, P108. P110.
PUS. P120, P122, P123. U007, U009, U010,
UC12, U016, U018, U019, U022, U029,
U031. U036, U037, U041, U043, U044,
U046. U050, U051, UOS3. U061. U063,
U064, U066, U067, U074. U077, U078,
U086, U089, U103, UlOS, U108, U115,
U122, U124, U129, U130. U133, U134,
U137. U131, U134, U155, U157, U158.
U153, U171, U177, U180, U135. U188,
U192, U200. U209, U210, U211, U219,
U220, U229, U227. U228, L'237, U238,
U243, and U249 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 injection facilities.
*****
(i) Effective May 8,1992, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 and 261.33 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers KOll
(wastawaters), K013 (wastewaters), and
K014 are prohibited from underground
injection.
(j) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (i) of this section do not apply:
*****
4. Section 148.15 is amended by
redesignating 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 (f) to read as
.follows:
§ 148.15 Waste specific prohibitions-
second third wastes.
*****
(d) Effective August 8.1990, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Number K025
(wastewaters), K029 (wastewaters),
K041, K042, K095 (wastewaters), K096
(wastewaters), K097, K098. and K105;
and the wastes specified in 40 CFR part
261.33 as P002, P003. P007, PQ08, P014,
P026, P027, P049, P054, P057, P060. P068,
P067, P072, P107, P112, P113. P114, U002,
U003. U005. U008, U011, U014. U015,
U020, U021, U023, U025, U026. U032,
U035, U047, U049, U057, U059, U060,
U082, U070, U073, U080, U083, U092,
U093, U094, U095, U097, U098, U099,
U101, U106, U1C9, UllO. Ulll, U114,
U116, U119, U127, U128, U131, U135,
U138, U140, U142, U143. U144, U146,
U147, U149, U150. U161, UI62. U163,
U164, U16S, U168, U169, U170, U172,
U173, U174. U17B, U178, U179, U1S9,
U193, U196, U203. U205, U206. U203,
U213, U214, U215, U216, U217. U218,
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 injection facilities.
(g) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (f) of this section do not apply:
*****
5. Section 148.16 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (g); by revising the
introductory text of newly redesignated
paragraph (g); and by adding new
paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) to read as
follows:
§ 148.16 Waste specific prohibitions-
third third wastes..
* * . * *, *
(c) Effective August 8,1990. the
wastes identified in 40 CFR 261.31 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Number FC29
(multi-source leachate); the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers K002, KC03,
K005 (wastewaters), KOQ6, K007
(wastewaters), K023, KQ28, K032, K033,
K034, K093, K094 and KlOO
(wastewaters); the wates specified in 40
CFR 261.33 as P006, POOS, P017. P022.
P023, P024, P028. P031. P033. P034, P033,
P042, P045, P046, P047, P051. P056. PC64.
P06S, P073, P07S, P078, P077, P073, P088.
P093, P095, P096, P099, P101. P103. F109.
P116, P118, P119, U001, U004, UOOG.
U017. U024, U027, U030, U033, U038.
U034, U038, U039, U042, U045, U048,
U052, UOS5, U056, U068, U071. U072.
U07S, U076, U079, U081, U082, U084,
U085, U087, U088, U090, U091, U096,
U112. U113, U117, U118, U120, U121.
U123, U12S, U126, U132, U136. U139,
U141, U14S. U148. U152, UlS3. U156.
U160, U168,'U167, U181, U182, U183,
U184. U188, U187. U191, U194, U197.
U201. U202, U204, U207, U222. U225,
U234, U236, U240, U243, and U247; and
the wastes identified in 40 CFR 261.21,
261.23 or 2S1.24 as hazardous based on a
characteristic alone, designated as DOOl.
0004, D005, D006. D008,
(wastewaters), D010, D011, D012. D013,
D014, D015, D016, 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 268.12, 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
-------
22684 Federal Register / Vol. 55, Na_106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
injection at on-si te injection facilities.
These effective dates do not apply to the
wastes listed in 40 CFR 148.12(b) which
are prohibited from underground
injection on August 8,1990.
(f) Effective May 8,1992, the wastes
identified in 40 CFR 281,22,261.23 or
231.24 as hazardous based on a
characteristic alone, designated as D002
(wastewaters and nonwastewaters),
D003 [wastewaters and
ncnwastewaters), D007 {wastewaters
and nonwastewaters), and D009
(nonwastewaters) are prohibited from
underground injection. These effective
dates do no apply to the wastes listed in
40 CFR 148.12(b) which are prohibited
from underground injection on August 8,
1990.
(g) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (f) of this section do not applyr
PART 2f 1—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
1. The authority citation for part 281
continues to read as follows:
Authority; 42 U.S.C. 6905,6312(a). 6921.
6922, and 6938.
Subpart C—Characteristics of
Hazardous Waste
2. In § 261,20. paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
§261.20 General.
« « * * *
(b) A hazardous waste which is
identified by a characteristic in this
subpart is assigned every EPA
Hazardous Waste Number that is
applicable as set forth in this subpart.
This number must be 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 270 of this chapter.
*****
3, In § 261,21, paragraph [b] is revised
to read as follows:
§ 261.21 Characteristic of Ignttabiiity.
« * * * «
(b) A solid waste that exhibits the
characteristic of ignitability has the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number of D001.
4. In 1281,22, paragraph [b) is revised
to read as follows;
§261.22 Characteristic of corrosMty.
*****
(b) A solid waste that exhibits the
characteristic of corrosivity has the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number of D002.
5. In § 261.23, paragraph (b] is revised
to read as follows;
§ 261.23 Characteristic of reactivity.
*****
(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:
§261.24 Toxtctty characteristic.
*****
(b) A solid waste that exhibits the
characteristic of toxicity has the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number specified in
Table I which corresponds to the toxic
contaminant causing it to be hazardous.
Subpart D—Lists of Hazardous Wastes
7. Section 261.31 is amended by
adding the following waste code in
alphanumeric order.
§ 261.31 Hazardous wastas from non-
specific sources.
Industry
,sg*
waste No.
F039 ... Leachate resulting from (T).
IfM treatment, storage.
or disposal of wastes
classified by more than
on* waste cod» under
Subpart D, or from «
mixture of wastes clas-
sified under Subpvts C
and D of this psft,
(Leadiat* resulting from
OM management of one
or more of 9M fallowing ;
EPA Hazardous Wastes
and no other hazardous
wastas retain* its haz-
ardous wastB code
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22683
Subpart B—General Facility Standards Subpart N—Landfills
2. In § 264.13. the comment following
Paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as
follows:
§ 264.13 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)(l) 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)(l) 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 section.]
Subpart K—Surface Impoundments
3. The introductory text of § 264.229 is
revised to read as follows:
§ 264.229 Special requirements tor
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
4. The introductory text of § 264.256 is
revised to read as follows:
§ 264.256 Special requirements tor
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 268, and:
Subpart M—Land Treatment
5. The introductory text of § 264.281 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
treatment zone unless the waste and the
treatment zone meet all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 268, and:
6. In § 264.312, paragraphs (a)
introductory text and (b) are revised to
read as follows:
§254.312 Special requirements tor
Ignitable or reactive waste.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, and in § 264.316,
ignitable or reactive waste must not be
placed in a landfill, unless the waste
and landfill meet all applicable
requirements of part 268, and:
* * » • •
(b) Except for prohibited wastes
which remain subject to treatment
standards in subpart D of part 268,
ignitable wastes in containers may be
landfilled 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 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-
cornbustible 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 § 264.316, paragraph (f) is added
to read as follows:
§ 264.316 Disposal ot small containers of
hazardous waste In overpacked drums (lab
packs).
t » * * »
(f) Such disposal is in compliance with
the requirements of Part 268. Persons -
who incinerate lab packs according to
the requirements in 40 CFR 268.42(c)(l)
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 FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924.
692S, and 6935.
Subpart A—General
2. Section 265.1(e) is revised to read as
follows:
§ 26S.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 268, and the 40 CFR part 268
standards are considered material
conditions or requirements of the part
265 interim status standards.
Subpart B—General Facility Standards
3. The comment at the end of
paragraph (a) of § 205.13 is revised to
read as follows:
§ 285.13 General waste analysts.
(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)(l) 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](l] of
this section, except as otherwise 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 section.)
Subpart K—Surface Impoundments
4. The introductory text of § 265.229 is
revised to read as follows:
§ 265.229 Special requirements tor
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
§ 265.256 is revised to read as follows:
§ 265.256 Special requirements tor
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, and:
Subpart M—Land Treatment
6. The introductory text of i 265.231 is
revised to read as follows:
-------
22636
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
§ 265.281 Special requirements for
Ignitable or reactive waste.
The owner or operator must not apply
ignitable or reactive waste to the
treatment zone unless the waste and
treatment zone meet ail applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 268, and:
Subpart N—Landfills
7. Paragraphs (a) Introductory text
and (b) of § 265.312 are revised to read
as follows:
§ 2S5.312 Special requirement* for
ignitable 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 ail applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 263, and:
*****
(b) Except for prohibited wastes
which remain subject to treatment
standards in subpart D of part 268.
ignitable wastes in containers may be
landfilled 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 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.
8. In 1265.316. paragraph (f) is added
to read as follows:
§ 26 5.316 Disposal of small containers of
hazardous waste in overpaeked drums (lab
packs).
*****
(f) Such disposal is in compliance with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 268.
Persons who incinerate lab packs
according to the requirements in 40 CFR
268.42(c)(l) 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 overpaeked
according to the requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section.
PART 258—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905r 6912(a), 6921, and
6924.
Subpart A—General
2. In §268.1, paragraph (c)(3) is added.
and paragraph (c)(5) is removed, to read
as follows:
§ 268.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
(c) • * •
(3) Wastes that are hazardous only
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 nonhazardous
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 258.2 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 2684! Definitions applicable In this part.
When used in this part the following
terms have the meanings given below:
fa) Halogenated organic compounds
or HOCs means those compounds
having a carbon-halogen bond which are
listed under appendix TTI to this part.
(b) Hazardous constituent or
constituents means those constituents
listed in appendix VIII to part 261 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) Nonwastewaters are wastes that
do not meet the criteria for wastewaters
in paragraph (g)(6) of this section.
(e) Polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs
are halogenated organic compounds
defined in accordance with 40 CFR
781.3.
(f] Wastewaters are wastes that
contain less than 1% by weight total
organic carbon [TOG] and less than 1%
by weight total suspended solids (TSS),
with the following exceptions:
(1) FOOl F002, F003, F004. FOO5
solvent-water mixtures that contain less
than 1% by weight TOO or less than 1%
by weight total F001, F002, F003, FQ04,
F005 solvent constituents listed in
§ 268.41, Table CCWE.
(2) K.QU, K013, K014 wastewaters (a*
generated) that contain less than 5% by
weight TOC and less than 1% by weight
TSS.
(3) K1O3 aadKlOt wastewaters
contain less than 4% by weight TOC and
less than 195 by weight TSS.
(g) Inorganic Solid Debris are
nonfriable inorganic solids that are
incapable of passing through a 9.S 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 slags (either dross or scoria).
(2) Classified 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.
(8) Scrap metal as defined in 40 CFR
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
impermissible dilution for purposes of
this section unless a method has been
specified as the treatment standard in
§268.42,
5. In §268.7, paragraphs (a)(l)(ii),
(a)(2)(i)(B), (a)(3)(ii). and (a)(4) are
revised; new paragraphs (a)(7), (a)(8),
and (a)(9) are added; paragraph (b)(4](ii)
is revised; the certification in paragraph
(b)(i)(i) is revised; new paragraph
(b)(5)[iii) is added: paragraph (b)(7) is
removed and paragraph (b)(8) is
redesigns ted as paragraph (b)(7); the
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 I Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22687
introductory text to paragraph (c) is
revised; and paragraphs (c)(3J and (c)(4)
are removed, to read as follows:
§ 268.7 Waste analysis and reeordkeeping.
(a) * * *•
(1j . . .
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes F001-F005, F039.
and wastes prohibited pursuant to
1268.32 or RCRA Section 3004(d).
Treatment standards for all other
restricted wastes may be referenced by
including on the notification the
scbcategory 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 are expressed as specified
technologies in § 268,42, the applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
I of §263.42 (e.g., INCIN. WETOX) also
must be listed on the notification,
* * * » *
(2) * * *
w • • •
(B) The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes F001-FOOS, F039,
and wastes prohibited pursuant to
§ 268.32 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 are expressed as specified
technologies in § 268.4Z the applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
1 1258.42 (e.g.. INCIN, WETOX) also
must be listed on the notification.
* * * * *
(3) * * '
(Si) The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes F001-F005, F039. •
and wastes prohibited pursuant to
§ 288.32 or RCRA section 3004(d).
Treatment standards for all other
restricted wastes 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 are expressed as specified
technologies in § 268.42. the applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
1 of §263.42 (e.g., INCIN. WETOX} also
must be listed on- the notification.
(4) If a generator is managing a
prohibited waste in tanks or containers
regulated under 40 CFR 262.34, and is
treating such waste in such tanks or
containers to meet applicable treatment
standards under Subpart D of this part.
the generator must develop and follow a
written waste analysis plan which
describes the procedures the generator
will carry out to comply with the
treatment standards. The plan must be
kept on-site in the generator's records.
and the following requirements must be
met;
(i) The waste analysis plan must be
based on a detailed chemical and
physical analysis of a representative
sample of the prohibited waste(s) being
treated, and contain all information
necessary to treat the waste(s) in
accordance with the requirements of
this Part, including the selected testing
frequency.
(ii) Such plan must be filed with the
iPA Regional Administrator (or his
designated representative) or State
authorized to implement Part 268
requirements a minimum of 30 days
prior to the treatment activity, with
delivery verified.
(iii) Wastes shipped off-site pursuant
to this paragraph must comply with the
notification requirements of §268.7(a)(2).
* • » * *
(7] If a generator is managing a lab
pack that contains wastes identified in
Appendix IV of this part and wishes to
use the alternative treatment standard
under § 261.42, with each shipment of
waste the generator must submit a
notice to the treatment facility in
accordance with paragraph (a)(l) of this
section. The generator must also comply
with the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(5) and (a)(6) £>f 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 and that the lab pack contains
only the wastes specified in appendix IV to
pan 268 or solid wastes not subject to
regulation under 40 CFR part 281.1 am aware
that there are significant penalties for
submitting a false certification, including the
possibility of Hue 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
submit a notice to the treatment facility
in accordance with paragraph (a](l) of
this section. The generator also must
comply 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 representative:
I certify under penalty of law that 1
personally have examined and am familiar
with the waste through analysis and testing
or through knowledge of the waste and that
the lab pack contains only organic waste
specified in Appendix V to Part 288 or solid
wastes not subject to regulation under 40
CFR Part 281.1 am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting a false
certification, including the possibility o! fine
or imprisonment.
(9) Small quantity generators with.
tolling agreements pursuant to 40 CFR
262.20(e) must comply with the
applicable notification and certification
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section for the initial shipment of the
waste subject to the agreement. Such
generators must retain on-si!e a copy of
the notification and certification.
together with the tolling 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) • • •
« * * •
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes F001-F005, F039,
and wastes prohibited pursuant to
§ 268.32 or RCRA Section 3004(d).
Treatment standards for all other
restricted wastes may be referenced by
including on the notification the
subcategory of the waste, the
treatabUity 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 § 268.42, the applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
1 of § 288.42 (e.g., INCIN, WETOX) also
must be listed on the notification.
(5) * • *
(i) * • *
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 the
performance levels specified in 40 CFR part
268. subpart D, and all applicable
prohibitions set forth in 40 CFR 268.32 or
RCRA section 3004(d) without impermissible
dilution of the prohibited waste, i am aware
that there are significant penalties for
submitting a false certification, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment.
* • * * *
(iii) For 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 pai t is
-------
22888 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
based in part or in whole on the
analytical detection limit alternative
specified in |268.43(c), the certification
also must state the following:
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
nanwastewater organic constituents have
been treated by incineration in units operated
in accordance with 40 CFR part 204, subpart
O) or 40 CFR part 285, subpart O, or by
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 disposing of any waste that
is a recyclable material used in a
manner constituting disposal pursuant
to 40 CFR 266.20(b)t the owner or
operator of any land disposal facility
disposing any waste subject to
restrictions under this part must:
*****
6. 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 |268,33(f) 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:
§ 2S3.9 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
standards under subpart D of this part
For purposes of part 268, the waste will
carry a waste code designation for any
applicable listing under 40 CFR part 261,
subpart O, 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 261, subpart O
and exhibits a characteristic under 40
CFR part 261, subpart C, the treatment
standard for the waste code listed hi 40
CFR part 261, 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 meet the
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 261, 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 i 268,7
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
§ 268.7 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 implement part 268
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 treatability group(s);
(iii) 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)(i).
Subpart C—Prohibitions on Land
Disposal
8. Section 268.33 is added to read as
follows:
§268.35 Waste specif!c prohibitions—
Third Third wastes.
(a) Effective August 8,1990, the
following wastes specified in 40 CFR
281.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers F006 (wastewaters), F019, and
F039 (wastewaters}; the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers K002; K003;
K004 (wastewaters); K005
(wastewaters); K006; K008
(wastewaters); K011 (wastewaters);
K013 (wastewaters), K014
(wastewaters); K017; K021
(wastewaters); K022 (wastewaters);
K025 (wastewaters); K026; K029
(wastewaters); K031 (wastewaters);
K032; K033; K034; K035; K041; K042;
K046 (wastewaters); K048
(wastewaters): K049 (wastewaters);
K050 (wastewaters); K051
(\vastewaters); K052 (wastewaters);
K060 (wastewaters); K061
(wastewaters); K069 (wastewaters);
K073; K083 (wastewaters); K084
(wastewaters); K085; K095
(wastewaters); K096 (wastewaters);
K097; K098; KlOO (wastewaters); K101
(wastewaters); K102 (wastewaters);
K105; and K106 (wastewaters); the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.33(e) as
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers P001;
P002; P003; P004; POOS; P006: P007; P008;
POOS; P010 (wastewaters); P011
(wastewaters); P012 (wastewaters);
P014; P01S; P016; P017; P018
{wastewaters); P020; P022; P023; P024;
P027; P028; P031; P033; P034; P036
(wastewaters); P037; P038
(wastewaters); P042; P045; P046: P047;
P048; P049; P050; P051; P054; POS6; P057;
P058; P059; P060; P064; P065
{wastewaters); P066; P067; P068; P069;
P070; P072: P073; P075; P076; P077; P078;
P081; P082: POM; P088; P092
(wastewaters): P093; P095; P096: P101;
P102; P103; PlOS; P108; P109; P110; P112;
P113; P114; P115; P116; P118; P119: P120;
Pi 22; and P123; and the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.33(f) as EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers UOOl; U002; U003; UOQ4:
U005; U008; U007; U008: U009; U010:
U011; U012; U014; U015; U016: U017;
U018; U019; U020; U021; U022; U023;
U024; 11025; U026; U027; U029; U030;
U031: U032; U033; U034: U035; U036;
U037; U038; U039; U041; U042; U043;
U044; U04S; U046; U047; U048; U049;
U050; U051; UOS2; U053; U055; U056;
U057; U059; U060; U061; U082; U063;
U064; U066; U067; U068; U070: U071;
U07£ U073; U074; U075; U076; U077;
U078; U079; U080; U081; U082; U083:
U084; U085; U086; U089; U090; U091;
U092; U093; U094; U095; U096: U097;
U098; U099; UlOl; U103; U105; U106;
U108; U109: UllO; Ulll; U112; U113;
U114; U115; U116; U117; U118; U119;
U120 (wastewaters); U121; U122; U123;
U124; U125; U126; U127; U128; U129;
U130; U131; U132; U133; U134: U135;
U136 (wastewaters); U137; U138; U140;
U141; U142; U143; U144; U145; U148;
U147; U148; U149; U150; Ulol
(wastewaters); U152; U153; U154; U155;
U156; U157; U158; U159; U160; U161;
U162; U163; U184; U165; U166; U167;
U188; U169; U170; U171; U172; U173;
U174; U176; U177; U178; U179; U180;
U181: U182; U183; U184; U185; U186;
U187: U188: U189: U191; U192; U193;
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 1C6 / Friday, June 1, 1S30 / Rules and Regulations
22889
U194; U196; U197; U2CO: U201; U202;
U203; U204; U205; U206; U207; U203;
U209; U210; U211; U213: U214; U215;
U218; U217; U218; U219: U220; U222:
U223; L'226; U227; U228; U234; U236;
U237; U238; U239; U240; U243: U244:
U246; U247; U248; U249: and the
following wastes identified as
hazardous based on a characteristic
alone: D001: D002, D003, DQ04
(waste-waters), D005, DOOO: D007: DOGS
(except for lead materials stored before
secondary smelting), D009
(wastewaters), B010, D011, DO!2, D013,
D014. D015, D016, and D017 are
prohibited from land disposal.
(b) Effective November 8,1S9& the
following wastes specified in 40 CFR
231.32 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers K048 (nonwastewaters), K043
(nonwastewaters), K050
(nonwastawaters), K051
(nonwastewaters), and K052
(nonwastewaters) are prohibited from
land disposal.
(c) Effective May 8,1992, the following
waste specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers F039
(nonwastewaters); the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers K031 (nonwastewaters);
KC84 (nonwastewaters); K1C1
(nonwastewaters); K102
(nonwastewaters); K106
(nonwastewaters); the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.33(e) as EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers P010 (nonwastewaters);
P011 (nonwastewaters); P012
(nonwastewaters); P038
(nonwastewaters-); P038
(nonwastewaters); PQ65
(nonwastewaters); PCS7
{nonwastewaters); and P092
(nonwastewaters); the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.33(f) as EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers U136
(nonwastewaters); and UlSl
(nonwastewaters); and the following
wastes identified as hazardous based on
a characteristic alone: D004
(nonwastewaters); D008 (lead materials
stored before secondary smelting); and
D009 (nonwastewaters); inorganic solids
debris as defined in 40 CFR 2SB.2(a)(7)
(which also applies to chromium
refractory bricks carrying the EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers K048-K052);
and RCRA hazardous wastes that
contsia naturally occurring radioactive
materials are prohibited from land
disposal.
(d) Effective May 8,1992, hazardous
wastes listed in 40 CFR 28B.12 that are'
mixed radioactive/hazardous wastes
are prohibited from land disposal.
(e) Effective May 8,1992. the wastes
specified in this section having a
treatment standard in subpart D of this
part based on incineration, mercury
retorting, or vitrification, and which are
contaminated soil or debris, are
prohibited from land disposal.
(f) Between May 8.1990 and August 8,
1990, the wastes included in paragraph
(a) may be disposed of in a landfill or
surface impoundment only if such unit is
in compliance with the requirements
specified in § 258.5(h)(2).
" (g) Between May 8,1990 and
November 8,1990. wastes included in
paragraph fb) of this section may be
disposed of in a landfill or surface
impoundment only if such unit is in
compliance with the requirements
specified in § 25S.5(h)(2).
(h) Between May 8,1990, and May 8.
1992, wastes included in paragraphs (c),
(d), and (e) of this section may be
disposed of in a landfill or surface
impoundment only if such unit is in
compliance with the requirements
specified in § 288.5(h)(2),
(i) The requirements of paragraphs (a),
(b), (c), (d), and (e) of this section do not
apply if:
(1) Tne wastes meet the applicable
standards specified in subpart D of this
part;
(2) Persons have been granted an
exemption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under § 288.8, with respect
to those wastes and units covered by
the petition;
(3) The wastes meet the applicable
alternate standards established
pursuant to a petition granted under
I 268.44;
(4) Persons have been granted an
extension to the effective date of a
prohibition pursuant to 5 258.5, with
respect to these wastes covered by the
extension.
(j) To determine whether a hazardous
waste listed in § 268.10, 268.11, and
288.12 exceeds the applicable treatment
standards specified in § § 268.41 and
238.43, the initial generator must test a
representative sample of the waste
extract or the entire waste, depending
on whether the treatment standards are
expressed as concentrations in the
waste extract or the waste, or the
generator may use knowledge of the
waste. If the waste contains constituents
in excess of the applicable subpart O •
levels, the waste is prohibited from land
disposal, and all requirements of part
288 are applicable, except as otherwise
specified.
9. Section 283.40 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read
as follows:
§ 263.40 Applicability of treatment
standards.
(a) A restricted waste identified in
§ 268.41 may be land disposed only if an
extract of the waste or of the treatment-
residue of the waste developed using the
test method in appendix ! 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: DC04, DOC8, K031, K084.
KlOl". K102, P010. Pull, FQ12. P036. P038,
and U135. Wastes DG04. DOO& K031.
KC34. KlOl. K102. P010. P011, P012. P036,
P038, and U136 may be land dispcssd
only if an extract of the waste or of ths
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 ir. Table
CCvV of § 268.41 for any hazardous
constituent listed in Table CCWE for
that waste.
« * * * *
(c) Except as otherwise specified in
§ 268.43(c), a restricted waste identified
in § 258.43 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 5 288.43 for any hazardous
constituents listed in Table CCW for
that waste.
10. Section 268,41 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and Table
CCWE—Constituent Concentrations in
Waste Extract, to read as follows:
§ 268.41 Treatment standards expressed
8? concentrations in waste extract
(a) Table CCWE identifies the
restricted wastes 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 for the allowable
land disposal of such wastes, with the
exception of wastes D004, D008, K031,
K084, KlOl, K102, P010, P011. PC12. F03S,
P038, and U136. Table CCWE identifies
the restricted wastes D004, DOOS, K031,
KOB4. KlOl, K102, P010, P011. P012, P036,
P038, and U136 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 II of
40 CFR part 261 for the allowable land
disposal of such wastes. (Appendix II of.
this part provides Agency guidance on
treatment methods that have been
shown to achieve the Table CCWE
levels for the respective wastes.
Appendix n of mis part is not a
regulatory requirement but is provided
to assist generators and owners/
operators in their selection of
appropriate treatment methods.)
Compliance with these concentrations is
required based upon grab samples.
-------
22S90 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No.106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE CCWE.—CONSTITUEMT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
Waste code
00Q4-... „ ~ . -.
0005 „.„__„ „___„.-__,.„
D006._____™__. ...~ ™~ ,.
D007 - . ... —. -.-.
[W1H , , , L1 „,„„ ,._..r_,T „
0009 (Low Mercusy Subcategory—
less than 260 mg/kg Mercury).
OQ10..,., __™.™._____™_..
001 1 _.., ....... .........
F001-F005 spent solvents „
F006 „
FOOT _. .
POOH,., „.., ,. , , „, „ a
FOBS ,, , , , , ,
FO11, IMII11I1I L,lrn „ ,„,,,„„,-,„„,-„„ ,
FQ12,,,,, ,„. ,„ ,„,„„„„„ .„„
F0i<» ,.,. , ,
F02O-F023 md F026-F028 dk»in
containing wastas.*.
Saealso
Table CCW in 268.43 . _.
Table CCW in 268.43 „__ —
Table CCW in 268.43...
Table CCW in 263.43 ._.._„„_ ._,
Table CCW In 263.43 _
Table 2 In 268.42 and Table CCW in
266.43.
Table CCW in 268.43__™ .
Table CCW in 268.43 .
Tafiie 2 in 268.42 and Table CCW in
268.43.
Tabte CCW in 26&43._
Table CCW in 263.43.. . „
Tatya new in 3?a dg,,.,,,,,,,,. .„„....,,„ .,
Tahto CCW in Jf^R 4g, , ,
TaMe CCW 'm 268.43.
Tabte CCW in 268,43 , , ,
Table CCA in 268.43
Regulated hazardous constituent
Arsenic . .... ..-. -....«, ...
Barium....-..—. — ™.«.™.™«..«
C3dmKjm..~M...... .......
Chromium (Total) ...,«-......—. . ....
Lead.-.-. ... .....
Mercury. «—« —...,.. .... „.. ..
S0ientyfnH»«.—M.— »»«»..—„.„.„,.«„..,„..-.
Silver. .___._,_„. .
Acetone _«-«..« ^.....-,-^M. „.„„ ...
n-Butyl alcohol ....,...««.—...
Carbon disulflde „,„._..„. ...„„...„
Carbon tetrachloride —.......,..- «
Chlorobenztn8™._™_™.
Cresols (and cresylic acid) — , ....
Cyctohwtanone™ L_ — .
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene .. _. ..
Ethyl acetate .......... .„...„..._„........„..
Ethyibanzena., . , „
Fthyl aXnar ,..„, „., „, 1M
Isobutanol —____.„__„.„_..____„.
Metbanol..™.™.™.-....-™™ ...™,..™ ,„„...
Methylene chtortde
Methyl «thy) ketone „ .
Methyl isooutyl ketone .-__.__.. ......
NitfobefizeRe™^™™*.-.^-™*^™™-™™.
Pyridln^ _,_...,„_..,„...,„.,.„„ ,„.,,.,„„ ,„„
Tatticfiloroetriytena ...„____._„_„_
Toiiwnw,,. .,„.,„„„ „„, ,u i^,,,,,,--,,,,,,,-,,.
1 ,1,1-Tiich^roe^iane ..-«»—.»—. ™.«
1,t^Trichkin>1£.2-Tetrifluorithan«
Tn/-Wnnvitftytix»9 ..gl , „„, llyljil „, , ,,.,
T«?^ofofluof0ro«thanfl. ....„„..—,„-.„.„.,.„
Xyl*^ ,, „ u. ^
CadPMyfR,. ,..^,t.......... ..,...,.„»»„„, rol, "»»»„, ..
Chnjmivm (Tottl),,,., ..„,..„.„.. „„„., „„.,,
(sail .. ,,r ,.„„. ml „, ,,,.„„„„, „. „„
Nickel ..
Silvar _. ...
Cadmium. ...» ..,,„....„„ ULI , .
Chmmi^m (Tntfll) .„,„„,„ „„. UJ ,, „„, ,
L«lf}-,, , ,„ ^.ul ^ , !
N"**( ..,...„. , „,„„„.,„„.. .
SiNw _,„„„„., „.„ „„_.,.,,..
CadffHum
ChramiMm (TI* -„,„—„, -„.., „„. ,,,- „, , ,
Niriat .....,.....„....,,..,. ,,.. ,., , 1IM ,
Siluijr „,. „ ,
CadfUivn!,,,..™,,. „. .,,
ChlViMW (TotfM), „.,..,„„.., „- ,-,-,—„„--,
lufd „,...,„, „,,, lllul
NiHMl ,, „ ,,, .„__, ,„-,„.-,„„,,
ja«if ,.....,.,...„. „,..,. ,„„,
Ca
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22691
TABLE CCWE.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS »N WASTE EXTRACT—Continued
Waste coda
pn?d
F039
KC01 . . „_
KCX)2 _ _ .
K>"X"
K004
xr.as '.
KROfi (anhyrtrnuft)
KfXW ffcyrt'iiwfl,,,, L ,,,,.,,,„,..„.....'.,.._,,..,
KOO7 .„.,., ,,.,„,.. „,„ ...,„.,„„...,. .
KOM ... , ,„„ ....„„.
KO15 , ,...,.„ , ,,„„.,_.„_,
KQP1 .,. .„, „ „ MTI. .,..
Kf>?9 rll „„
KttTH .. r , ... .
tcaai
Ktv-R ,
KO-"? ,,,„ ,„ , ,,, ,„,„„„„„ ,
Kn-9 „„,,,„ , „,,,, , „,„._..,......
KOS1 , ,., , „,.. ,
KO.SI .
\tasf ,, ,,,, , , . . ,
K061 (Low Zi/ic Sutocategory — tess
than 15% Total Zinc).
Kf)S3 ' , ...„ ,„•„
KCS3 (Calcium SulftSa Suteaiegofy!
K071 (Lev* Mefcuty Su-ca tBgofy""-
-less than 16 mg/kg Mercury).
KfWtt , , ,..„,, „ . .
Ko«4 , i, , , i , , ;, - ,- ,,,- -
K096
K0«7 , , r , , ,
K100 " ^ulu,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,, .,„,..,
K101
K102 _, .
K106 (Low Mercury Subcategory—
less man 260 mg/kg Msrcufy— resi-
dues from RMERC). -
K106 (Low Mweury By-category —
less Own 26C mg/kg Mercury — that
are not restd-as Irwn RMERC).
See also
TaWe CCW in 268.43
Table CCVV in 268.43 _
Taste CCW in 268 43 .. ,
Table CCW in 268 43. .
Table CCW In 268.43.- __ _
Tab'e CCW in 268.43
Tabla CCW In 268 43
Tabia CCW in 268 43
Tabla CCW in 263 43 .. .-. .-,
TaMfl COW -o 7PB 4fl
TaN« CCW m JIM 43 „
Table CCW in 2P94guum ,.,„,„„ ,„„„„„,
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW In 263.43..
Table CCW in 258 43 . __
Tabjfl CCW i« P&& *®
Table CCW in 2§8,43
Tagi* CCW in 268,43 , „ ,.„...
Table CCW in 268.43... _
Tflhi^ COW in ?RJ» 43
Tatdo C^>V in ^8 ^ ,.,
Tab!» CCW m a9S,43..._ „„
Tabl» CCW in jpa *g ^
Tabia CCW in 288.43.. _
TaMe 2 in 268.42 and Table CCW in
26843.
Tap* ty~W in ?W 43, ,
TgiMe CCw »? Z6i,43,,,_, , ,„„.„„.„
T9tfo nrw in ?«,B 4.1 ,
Tat>4» CCW in «8,43 „,
Table CCW hi 268.43...
Table CCW in 268.43 _
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43 ..„
Teble 2 in 263.42 and Table CCW in
258.43.
Table 2 in 268.42 and Table CCW in
268.43.
Regu&tad hazardous consffiuenl
2,3,4,6-Tetracnloraphencl „_.
PnntarJllixnpt"»nnl j
CJv-onu^jm (TotSi) „„.„„, L^
I taut.' ,,, ,
N&cel
Antfiuxiy _ ™. ._
Afsenic , ,
Barium _™__ __.____„
Cadmkjm ,m .___
Owomiuni (Total) ,
Lead .
^I^CUfV,. ........„,,,,„„ ,,. .
NWtiil
Saianium _.
Silver
Lead.. _
Chmmium (Total) _._ ,. „.. ,,
Lead .
Chmmiuni (Total) , , ,--,„,-,
1 o_rt
C2won:iuin (Total) , ,, .. .m,..
ln;¥l
'"«f
C?vw-um (T>>tal).,. ,...„..,...,.»»„ ,
Lsad „„_«____
fthmmhira (Tnfan , lm
f^tf^tfOt,}!^ {fnfafilillluiujjuuj.l^lllllllllllllllllllllllu 1...U ,
|JBK( „ ,
Ctwonwm (Total)...—- rlll™rn,--
lB*lf „ , J
C^IViy™ (TOt-l)"— •*• •-r-1lrr,,,-
l»arf ,„., , „
Anlimnny „,„„„„,.„„,„,„ ,, ,, ,,„,
Cfvomiym (Total)....- nr n..-,,!...,.
NMMl. ,„, „,, .., .
OvofrMym (Total) ..rm-...™,™™.^—.,
lo««l „ , lu
NWiol- . ., ,, ,, „,, ,
1 0*1
C?^o***vm (To^iJ) .......__....-
Nirkel , ,,., ,„.,.,.,.
C^"!XP»ym fTOtal) ..»,.... MN-- mnmmnrrrn-nT
Nir*_l ,
CtiHjmiiim (Total) „,„„„.,„..„ ,,-,, -
Nirirnl.. ..._ .
Chmmtum (TQtll) ,..,„_..„.„,„ .,„ ,,,,„,.
Nirkiy,,..,,. . , , ,„,,„,. ,,,,,,„,„,
Chnwnium (Total) _..
Nirttai ... , 4illlll
C4-m*um jjj. j ujj NJ
CfWTywT! (Tplai),,, .„.„,,„,„., ,«™^»»« ,
leari , 1UI
!JW'fJ
Chnj"^^ fOtal) „,„„,,,..„, „„ -
Inart „,., -
Garirciiyvfi .. .....n.......,.^..,,,..^.,....™!,™,,.!
Lmirt ,„, „ , , „, .
MftfOJn/ ,,,, ...........nnrnr., -- --- II
Nifk-l, , u
Afwoio. .......... - I,, mi
0JtfG*t*Wm (TOtaOi'.ninn..' ..^..Mil.m ,
1 auri lr ,. . ll; , 1;I1 „„„,,,,,„ llu
le^. .-,„,„,„„ „ 1I1L „
Cadimim ,,,„ ,..,„„,.,,„„„„,.,.,„,„„„.,„,„
Chronuufn (Total) ...1.Mn.1.411Mludl,..^,1.4, ,..„,„,.,.,.,
1 "rt .
AFrWflfC . ,........„.»....,.....«,
Air-fftni^ „„,,„„ ,11,1,1,1, nr,,, ,,,i,.,....., ^ .«,,,.„,
Mefcu/y tl ........ .........................
Mercuiy ^ , J „. ^^ t „. , ._ „ a „ t „.„ ;u
CAS number
lor regulated
hazardous
constituent
53-90-2
87-S6-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7MO-3S 0
7440-38-2
74-0-39-3
7440-43 ..9
7440-47-32
7433-32-t
7439-37-5
7440-C2— 0
7732-»9-2
7440-22U
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7«Q-^<7-32
7439-92-1
7««Q-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-38-0
7440-47-32
7440-02-ZO
7440-47-52
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-38-2
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
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
7439-92-1
7440-43-9
7439-82-1
7439-S7-S
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
7440-3S-2
7438-97-6
7439-97-8
Wastewstsm
concentra-
tion (mg/l)
<0.05 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
NA
Norv
wastewaters
coneantra-
ten (mg/l)
-------
22692:
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, funs 1, 19SO / Rules and Regulations
TABLE CCWE.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT—Continued"
Waste cocte
K1-15 _u ,. .,
See also
Table GGW
Regulated hazardous constituent
Ntckal... „ . ,
CAS number
for regulated
hazardous
constituent
7440-02-0
Wasiewaters
concentra-
tion (mg/l)
NA
Non-
wastewaters
concentra-
tion
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22693
wastes that are prohibited under
§ 268.32(e)(l) of this part must be
incinerated in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart
O or 40 CFR part 265, subpart O. These
treatment standards do not apply where
the waste is subject to a part 268,
subpart C treatment standard for
specific HOC (such as a hazardous
waste chlorinated solvent for which a
treatment standard is established under
§ 268.41(a)J.
TABLE 1.—TECHNOLOGY CODES AND DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS
Technology
coda
Description at lechnoiogy-fcased standard
ADGAS
AMLQM
BIODG
CAR 8*1
CHOXD
CHRED
DEACT
FSUBS
HLVTT
IMERC:
IfJClN
UJEXT
MACRO
NEUTH
NLDBR
PRECP
RBERY
HCGAS
RCCHR
RLEAD
RMERC
•RMETL
RORGS
RTHRK
Venting ot compressed gases into an absorbing or reacting media (le-, solid or liquid)—venting can be accomplished through physical release utilizing
values/piping; pfrysical penetration of (he container, and/or penetration through detonation.
Amalgamation of liquid, elemental mercury contaminated with radioactive materials utilizing inorganic reagents such as copper, zinc, nickel, gold, and
sulfur that result in a norfiquid, semi-solid amalgam and thereby reducing potential emissions of elemental mercury vapors to a>e air.
Btodegradarkjn of organics or rxxvnetatUc inorganics (Le.. degradable inorgafs process must then comply with the
corresponding treatment standards oaf waste code with consideration of any applicable subcategones (e.g., H-gh or Low Merory Subeateaonas).
Incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical operating requirements ol 40 CFR part 264, subpart 0 and 40 CFR part 265. subpart O.
Liquid-liquid extraction (often referred to as solvent extraction) of organ** from liquid wastes into an immiscible solvent for wnicn the hazardous
constituents have a greater solvent affinity, resulting in an extract high in organics that must undergo either incineration, reuse as • fuel, or otner
recovery/reuse and a raJfinata (extracted liquid wast*! proportionately low in organics that must undergo further treatment as specified in tha
standard.
Macroencassulatien with surface coating materials such, as polymeric organic* (e.g. resins and plastics) or with a jackal of inert inorganic materials to
substantially reduce sunace exposure to potential leaching media. .Vacroar-capsulation specifically does not include any material that would be
classified as a tank or container according to 40 CFR 260.10.
Neutralization with the following reagents (or waste reagents) or combinations of reagents: (1) Acids; (2) bases; or (3) water (including wastawaters)
resulting in a pH greater than 2 but lass than 12,5 as measured in the aqueous residuals.
No land disposal based on racycHnQ.
Chemical precipitation of metals and other inorganics M insoluble preciottataa o) oxides, hydroxides, carbonates, sulftjes. suifatas, chlorides, ftoundes,
or phosphates. Trie following reagents (or waste reagents) are typically usad alone or In combination: (1) Lima (La,, containing oxides and/or
hydroxides of calcium and/or magnesium; (2) caustic (i.e., sodium and/or potassium hydroxides; (3) soda ash (i.e., sodium carbonate); (4) scoium
surfide; (5) ferric sulfate or (ante chloride; (6) alum; or (7) sodium sutfata. Additional fioculating, coagulation, or similar reagents/processes that
enhance sludge dewatering characteristics are not precluded from usa.
Thermal recovery of Beryllium.
Recovery/reuse of compressed gases including techniques such as reprocessing of the gases for reuse/resale; Wtering/adsorpttoa ol irnpun1
-------
228S4 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. Jnng 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 .—TECHNOLOGY COOES AND DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS—Continued-
Technology
code
Description of teehrwlogy-oased standard
RZINC
STABI.
SSTRB
WETOX
WTRRX
ResmeWng in for She purpose at recovery of zinc high temperature metal recovery units.
Stabilization with the Slewing reagents (or waste reagents) or combinations of reagents: (1) Portland cement; or (2) lime/pozzelans (eg., fly aan and
cement kiln dust)—this does not preclude ttw addition of reagents (e.g.. Iron salts, silicates, and clays) designed to enhance the sat/cure time ana/
or compressM strength, or to overall reduce trie teachability ct the metal or inorganic.
Steam strnping of organtes from liquid wastes utilizing direct application of steam to tfte wastes operated sucrt that liquid and vapor flow rates, as wen
as, temrwature and pressure ranges have been optimized, monitored, and maintained. "Phase operating parameters are dependent upon the design
parameters of the unit such as, the numSei of separation stages1 and- the internal column design. Thus, resulting, in a condensed extract high- in-
organics that must undergo either incinsration, reuse as a fuel, or other recovery/reuse and an extracted wastewater that must undergo further
treatment as specified in the standard.
Wet air oxisaSon performed tn units operated such that a surrogate compound or indicator parameter has been substantially reduced in concentration
in the residuals (e.g., Total Organic Carbon can often be used as an indicator parameter for the oxidation of many organic constituents that cannot
be wecthr analyzed in wastewater residues).
Controlled reaction with water for highly reactive inorganic or organic chemicals with precautionary controls for protection of workers from potential
violent reactions as well as preeautJonajy controls for potential emissions of to>cc/igretafrt8 levels of gases released during the reaction.
Ks*f 1. Whsn s combination s? »." (an abbrevaiion tor "followed by"), then the five
tetter tcyir.c:ooy ssOa ter the technology that must be applied next, and so on.
NOTE 2: When more ttmn one ;ecnnc!egy (or treawmt train) ar» sp*afiecf as altetngtoe watrnent slanaards, fte S«e letter technology codas (or Wa treatment
trains) ara separated by s ssrnicvicn (;) w>tn aw iast technology precedea by the word "CR". This indicates that any one of these BOAT technologies or treatment
iritis car, ba usea for compiianca w.ih trte sandsra.
TABLE 2.—TecHNOLGGY-8AS=D STANDARDS BY RGRA WASTE CODE
Wast*
code
COOT
DQ01
0001
D001
C«1
KWt
C002
0002
D002
C003
D003
coca
D003
D006
DOM
DQOS
0009
0012
DOIf
C014
DOtS
0016
D017
F005
See also
..__.._ . — .
Table CCWE in 268.41
and Tabte CCW trv
268.43.
TaWeCaVE in 268.41
and Tail* CCW in
268.43.
Tabte CCW in 268.43
Tabto CCW in 288.43
Table CCW in 263.43
Tabie CCW in 263.43
Table CCW la 268.43
Tabte CCW in 268.43
Table CCWE !n 268.41
and Taola CCW in
233.43.
Waste descriptions ar d/or treatment subcategory
Ignrtabla Liqukte based on 26T.2T(a)(ij—
Wastewatens.
IgntaM* Liquids- based on 26t^1(a)(1J— Low
TOC tgnitabto Liquids Subcategory— Loss man
10% total organic car&on.
rgmtabM Liqwds based on 2S1^t(a)(T>— Hgh
TOC kptact« Liauids Subcategory— Greater
than or equal to 10% total organic carbon.
igr-tatw comptessed gases based on
26l.2l(a)(C).
Ig-i»ti?« mrcriiMf ?pt 2t{4)(2)
OMCtars based on 261 .21 (a)f4) _ __™J
Acid sufccctegofy based on 26i.22fa)0>
AlkaHne subcategory based on 261^2(a){1)
Other corrosives based on 261.22OM2)
Reacttva sutftdes based on 261.23(a)(S)
Erosive* based on261^3(a) (S), (7). and (8)
Wasar raactivas based on 26l.23ia) (Z), (3^ and
(4).
Cttiar n-ieflxnB ha^art n\ !>?1,23(aKt) ...,„.
Cadmium oontainiriQ battari^i ,.„„..„„„„,, ,,^,,,, ,,M1
Lead acid battens* (Not*: This, standard oMy>
appiiss to lead add batteries that are identified
as HCRA hazodous wastes- and that am not
land disposal restrictions of 40 CF3 2S8 or
exempted under other EPA regulations (see 40
CFR26&80).).
Mercury: (High Mercury Subcategory— greater
than or equai to 260 mgv kg total Mercury —
corttains mercury and organtcs (and- tra not
incinerator residues)).
Mercury: (High Mercury Subcategory— greater
than, or •qua! to 260 mg/kg total Mercury—
' Inorganics (Including incinerator residue* and
residuos from RMERQ).
B^rin ... ...
iffWftimfn rl-lurrnmllllllT Jll.ln
MuthoxytfMOf.. .... - -„,--,- ,,„---
TOMChef*^ „„. ,,..„ I,,,,,LIIMI..II.IL Hill- JLI..I
•tun
Sf*,5-iP ,„, ,.„ , , ,, - „ „, .. , j
?-PJrfmpropflrm „ rp,m,,, ,..,.,, ,,,,„, ,. . .. ......
CAS No. for
regulated
rnzardoes
cansctuents
NA
NA
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA.
NA
NA
NA
MA-
MA
NA
7440-W-9
7*39-92-1
7439-97-«
743»-97-fl
72-20-8
58-89-9
72-43-S
S001-3S-1
W-75-7
93-72-T
79-46-9
Technology coda
Wastewatars
DEACT
HA
NA
NA
NA
OEACT
DEACT
OEACT
OEACT
OEACT
DEACT
NA
DEACT
NA
NA
NA
NA
3!OOG; or INCIN
CARBN;orlNCN
WETOX: or INC1N
ilOOQror IMCIN
CHOXO; BIODG: or INCIN
CHOXD; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CAflBN;
or INCIN
Nonwsstewaters
NA.
DEACT.
FSUBS; RCaGS; or
INCIN.
OEACT".
DEACT.
C6ACT.
OEACT.
DEACT,
DEACT.
DEACT,
DEACT.
DEACT.
DEACT.
RTHRK.
RLEAD.
IUERC; or 3MERC.
RMEFIC.
•NA.
NA.
NA.
NA.
'NA.
NA.
INCIN.
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, pane 1. 1990 /- Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE—Continued
22695
waste
code
FOGS
F024
KQ25
K026
:0 ?*).... ,,„.,„„„ „,„.,„„„„„,.,-,-,
^^RatyU?.ttiiWMuulI .. , , , ,,, ,„ ,,„,,,„,,,„,
Acroteirt , _ „ „. ,„..,„„,„»,,„,„„,„„. TT..,n
Mtyl flvthvl _„,„„„„ , .... , ,
Aluminum phosphide^.™.. t.VT T,-,,^.^,,^,
S-Aminoflttryl S-isoxazolol.,..,..^.......™,,.. *.-....»,,,.,
4-Aminopyrtdin6 ™— ««..-—_ rTTrr- -.— -.—
Thicpfwrxjl (Benzene thJoQ,,.,^.......,....,.,,.,,.,.,.,,....,...
m»*yjiiurr* rtust ,
Bif(r^ilnrnm4>tnyl)«th4f 1M , IL , „„„,„„, ,
8romoacstofw «.-
3rucine.»».r».H__».«.»«H.. --.i^iunruu ^un-i-
Garhon disulfirift .
Cf!tofoac^tai(<3«r*yde ..,..„.... .,.,,.......
Ho-Chloropri«nyl> thiourea, _ . .
3-Chtoroprapiorttrile „ .,
Sonsyl chic-rids . ,. ...» ™.. ....
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituents
110-80-5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
NA
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
81-81-2
SS1-08-?
107-02-8
107-18-6
20859-73-8
2763-96-4
504-24-5
131-74-8
108-98-5
7440-41-7
542-88-1
598-31-2
357-57-3
75-15-0
107-20-0
5344-82-1
542-76-7
100-44-7
Technology code
Wastewaters
8IODG; or INCJN
INCIN
LLEXT & SSTHP fb CAR8N; or
INCIN
INCIN
CAR8N; or INCIN
CAR3N; or INCIN
OEACT
OEACT
DEACT
NA
NA
NA
CAR8N; or INCIN
CAHBN; or I.NCIN
CAfiSN; or INCIN
CAR8N; or INCIN
f«ETOX or CHCXD) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CABEN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) tb CAHBN;
orlNCiN
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; or INCIN
(WETQX Of CHQXD) fb CAR3N;
Of INCIN
rWETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN:
or INCIN
CHOXD-. CHRED: CAHBN;
8IOOG; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) Si CARBN;
or INCIN
NA
fWETOX or CHOXD) ft CAHSN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARSN;
Of INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb-CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
fWETOX or CHQXD) ft CARSN
or INCIN
Nonwastewa'.ars
NCIN.
NCIN.
NCN,
NCiN.
FSU3S; or INCN.
FSUBS; or IWCIN.
DEACT.
DEACT.
OEACT.
NUOBR.
RLEAO.
BMEBC.
FSUBS; or INQN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUiS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSiraS; or INCIN.
iriciM.
FSU8S; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
CHOXO; CHRED; or
INCiN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD:
CHRED; or INCIN.
INCIN.
RMETU or RTHRM.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCiN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCiN.
INGN.
-------
2269C
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE—Continued
Waste
C00»
P031
P033
P034
P040
PQ41
P042
P043
P044
P045
P046
P047
P049
P054
P056
PQ57
pose
P062
P064
P065
P065
P068
P067
P068
P069
P070
P072
P075
P076
P078
PQ81
P082
P084
P085
P087
P033
P092
P092
P093
P095
P096
Sea also
—
, ...
— —
Table CCW in 268.43.
Tabte CCWE in 2S8.41
and Table CCW in
263.43.
Table CCWE in 268.41
and Table CCW in
268.43.
„ — ....
Table CCW in 268.43 —
Table CCWE in 268.41
and Table CCW in
268.43.
Table CCWE in 268.41
and Tabte CCW in
268.43.
Waste descriptions and/or treatment subcategory
Cyanogen chloride ............ . .......
2«Cyc!ohexyM,6-
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22S97
TABLE 2.—TECHNOLOGY-SASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE—Continued
Waste
cade
P102
Pi 05
P103
P109
P112
P113
FI15
F116
P118
P119
P120
P122
U001
U003
UC06
U007
U008
U010
U011
U014
U015
U016
U017
U020
U021
U023
U026
U033
U0.34
U035
U038
U041
U042
U046
UG49
U053
U05S
U056
UC57
U058
U059
U062
U061
See also
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 258.43
Table CCW in 268.43.......
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 238.43......
•
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43.
;
Table CCW in 268.43
Waste descriptions and/or treatment subcalegory
Scium aride — ..- .................. ......
TetraetnyJditfiiopyroptospnaie -
Tetraniro me thane - -
Traffic oxide
TpcnlGfcmetnanettiiol
Vanadium pentoxide „......„....„.....„..»..
Zinc Phosphide (<10%)
Acctaldehyde »_ ..«.
Acetonrtrile .„„...„ «...«...„..».«««.«..»«..»»»
Acetyl Chloride « .. - «..«... —-«.
Aery lamide ...._.—...- »...«..«..».»«.»«.....».»....
Acrylic acid .».»«.«»..._ »..«..«...HW .—
Amitrofo • .
Auran>i«<* ,. ..«..._..,..... ._...._._
A7HS0r*R4?
R*nr(r)arrirttnfl , n ,,,,,,,,, , ,
8oOZa' chforvto .,..., _
BenzenesoWony1 cftlonde...- »..._
Senzirtine _._ _
Chtornaphazin — -"<< ^- •-••^---•-—••" *•••
OaitX>r»yl fly^rirte , „ MU, ..»,,! i .,.,.,.0 , n-
Tricfilofoacetaldenyde (Cntoral)..... -
Chtorambucit .... ...................... ,-,.-, „
Chtofobflnzilate ,,,
1 -Otloro-2.3 -epoxypropane (Epicnlor ohydrin)
Chloromflthyl meihy* ethv ...
4-Oiloroo-toluidine hydroctiloridfl
Cfotonaldehyde....- _...._........_.....,........,
Cumcno .
Cycfon^xano n t™« •» t , . „•,,-, ,
Cydohexanonfl .„„„„._ „ ,.,
Diallate ._^IL _^ __^^,^J. — , ...».._.... » „
1 ,2.7.8-Dibenzopyrene
CAS No. for
hazardous
constituents
107-19-7
26322-22-8
57-24-3*
3SS9-24-5
509-14-8
1314-32-5
7446-18-5
79-19-6
75-70-7
7SC3-55-S
1314-62-1
1314-64-7
75-07-0
75-05-8
75-35-5
79-06-1
79-10-7
SO-07-7
61-82-5
492-80-fl
115-02-6
225-51-4
98-87-3
98-09-9
92-87-5
98-07-7
494-03-1
353-50-4
75-87-6
305-03-3
510-15-6
106-89-8
110-75-8
107-30-2
31S5-93-3
4170-30-3
98-82-8
110-82-7
108-94-1
50-18-0
20830-81-3
2303-16-4
189-55-9
Technology code
Wastewaters
(WETCX or CHOXO) it CAREN;
or INCIN
CHQXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIOOG; Of INCtN
(WETOX or CHOXD) !b CAR5N;
or INCIN
CAnBN: or INCIN
CHOXD: CHRED; CARBN:
BIODG: or INCiN
NA
NA
(WETOX or CHCXO; fb CAR8N;
cr INC:N
(\VETOX or CHCXuj fc CARBN;
or INCiN
NA
NA
CHOXD: CHRED: or INCIN
fWETOX or CHOXO) fb CARS.N;
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCSN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHCXD) fb CARBN;
orlNQN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCiN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCtN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
or INC'N
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CAHBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN:
BIODG; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN;
or INCiN
(WETOX or CHOXO) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARSN;
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN:
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN;
ortNCiN
NA
CARBN; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARSN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN
or IftCN
Nonwastewaters
FSU33; or INCIN.
FSUBS. CHOXD;
CURED: or INCTN.
INCiN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXO:
CHRED; or INCIN.
n~HRW: or STABL
RTHRM; or STABL
INCIN.
NGN.
STABL
STABL
CHOXO' CHRCD or
INCIN.
FSUES; or INCiN.
NCiN.
NC1N.
NCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
NCIN.
NCIN.
NCIN.
NCIN.
FSUBS: or INCIN.
NCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED: or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
iNCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; Of INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
-------
22893 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 108 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE—Continued
Waste
code
U073
U074
U085
U086
U087
U039
U09Q
U091
U092
U093
U094
U095
U096
U087
uofls
U099
U103
U109
U110
U113
U114
U11S
U116
U119
U122
U123
U124
U125
U126
U132
U133
U134
U13S
U143
U147
U14B
U149
U1SO
Sea also
___
Table CCW in 268.43
, — , , .__
Table CCW in 268.43
, ™
Waste descriptions and/or treatment subcategory
3,3'-Dlchlorobenzi(Jine „ ..„,
cis-1 4-Oicitioro*2~butefte., . . .. ™ ... _ „.„,„ -
ttans-1 ,4-DicWofo-2-butene. „.»««..».. ..
1 ,2:3,4-Di6poxybutan6 „„....„ ...«. „„...„«..........,
N,N-Diethylhydraiine _,._.„ „ .
0,0-Diethyl S-ntethyldithiophosprats ~~._.
Diethyt stilbastrot.. .._ ,...— ..».-„. ..
3 S'-Cirfiethoxybenzkiine ».««.
p-DimethylarninoazQbenzene — . .._....._......_.
7, 1 2-Dimstftyl berafaiantfcracene. .„,„
3,3'-DinietiTylben2idine™™».«.. «... ~™
a,a-Cimethyl benzyl hydroperoxide ............_..._.„.....
Diinetftyicarbomyl chloride . ..... «»»...~.»~«,«»««.
I.l-Dimettiylhydrazma. ._„„.
1,2-Cimethylrlydrazine....
Dimethyl sulfate. ............... ___„_.___
1,2-Dipftenylhydrazirie „„__„,„.,.„.___,..„,.__.„..__.,
CiprooylarrHrie .««»«»««»*.„. , «««« ™~_™0.~.~~— .
Ethyl acrytate ..™«. «... ^^M,.,^^^™™^^™™.™.
Etrtylene bis-ditrjiocarbarnjc acid ,»»»_«««— »».«»»«.
E-thyigfig Qxjde,.,,.n,,.,.......,..,.,..,,r..,., ,„,.. „..„„. ™..,,.
Fttiy^flf1^ t**jowea- ,t, ...» .. .. . *• • ,. » . •«
Ethyl fn^thane sulfonate...
Pfx*i?t3Ma*1y*> —,„„,-.„-,, ,„ -,-,„„„-,,„„„„„„„,,.,,,„,
P<>mvcfri(j „,,„„„,„,„,, „ L -,—„-,„-„,.,-„-„-,
PWS^. „,..,...,...,..,.., , i , ,„.,.,... ,, ,„,„,„, ,
Fuffural.«.«.............,D..,....i..,lr.,f.^,,.M« •. . ,. ,,. ... ,.
Glycidatdehyde . ,. ,
Hexachloroph«neiw.^___~~™_~_,___.
Hyrtr^lTl™ nT-m,,T-r,,, , „ , ,u
Hydrogen Flouride._______» „
Hydrogen SulfkJe... ... . .
Lasiocarpine. ............_.„.„...„.......„
Malaic anhydride „..„_.,_.___....___..._.________„
Maleic hydfazkfe.,n , ,„ ,„
MakxiORHrile.»-«^.,«....™.«..««.«.~« ,...«..«»««..»«»«
Mefpte!&n „...««,„.,„...»....»«. «..».»«»..»».«««.»».»..
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituents
31-94-1
1476-11-5
1464-53-5
1615-a(M
3289-58-2
56-53-1
94-58-3
11 £-9O-*
124-40-3
621-9&-9
57-97-6
119-93-7
80-15-9
79-44-7
57-14-7
540-73-8
77-78-1
122-66-7
142-84-7
140-38-5
111-54-S
75-21-8
96-45-7
62-50-0
50-00-0
64-18-6
110-00-9
98-0.1-1
765-34-4
70-30-4
302-01-2
7664-39-3
77S3-06-4
303-34-4
108-31-6
123-33-1
109-77-3
148-82-3
Technology code
Wastewaters
(WETOX Of CHOXD) (to CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) (b CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
{WETOX or CHOXD) fb CAHBN;
or iNCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) «b CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX Of CHOXO) ft CAHBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) Ib CARBN;
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX Of CHOXD) ft CARBN:
Of INCIN
(WETOX or CHQXD) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED: CAHBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) (b CARBN;
or INCIN
CHOXD: CHHED; CARSN;
BIODG; or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARSN;
BIOOG; or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CAHBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CAR8N;
orlNCN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXDJ fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft) CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
Of INCIN
CHOXD: CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN
NA
CHOXD; CHHED, or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) to CARSN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
Of INCIN
flWETOX or CHOXO) ft CARBN;
Of INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
Nonwastewaters
INCIN.
INCIN
INCIN,
FSUBS; or INC1N.
FSUBS; CHOXD:
CHRED; or INCN.
FSUSS; or INC1N.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; cr 1NCIN.
INCIN.
INCiN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXO:
CHRED; or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS: CHOXO:
CHRED; or INCiN.
FSUBS; CHOXD:
CHRED; or INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD:
CHRED: or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INC'.N.
INCIN,
CHOXD; or INCIN.
INCIN,
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN,
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or INCIN.
ADGAS fb MEUTFt; or
NEUTR.
CHOXD; CHRSO; or
INCIN,
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCSN.
INCIN.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rales and Regulations
22699
TABLE 2.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BV RCRA WASTE CODE—Continued
Wasta
coca
U15t
U1S3
U1S4
U1S6
UI60
1)163
U154
U163
in 67
U168
U171
U173
U17S
U178
U182
U184
U186
U189
U191
U193
U194
U197
U2CO
U201
U202
U206
U213
U214
U215
U216
U217
U218
U219
U221
U222
U223
U234
U236
U237
U238
See also
TaSto CCWi In 268.41
ami Table CCW in
268.43.
•-- •
Waste descriptions and/or treatment sybcategory
Mercury: (High Mercury Suecategory— greater
than or equal to £80 .-rig/kg total Mercury).
Methyl cMorocarbonate — ___.
Meiiiyl otByf ketons peroxide... -.. — _
?-4.li'i»ff"afnine «„.._-_....,.„„. .....•.„.„•..,.
N-NitrtwtO" CARBN;
or INCiN
(WCTOX or CHOXD) fls CARBN;
or INCIN
NA
(WCTOX or CHOXO) fb CARSN;
or INCiN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fc CARSN;
or INCIN
(WETOX Of CHCXD) ft CARSN;
Of INCSN
(WCTOX of CHOXO) ft CARSN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARSN;
or INCiN
(WETOX or CHOXO) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
{WETOX Of CHOXD) ft CARBN;
Of INQN
(WCTOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
Of INCN
CHOXD: CHRED; or INCiN
(WCTOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INQN
(WETOX or CHOXD) (b CARBN;
or INCSN
(WETOX or CHOXO) Ib CARBN;
or INCiN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CAHBN;
ortNQN
(WCTOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
Of INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) (b CARBN;
Of INCIN
(WCTOX or CHOXD) ft CARSN;
or INCIN
(WCTOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
orlNQN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN
NA
NA
NA
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
(WCTOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;.
or INON
CARBN: or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
(WCTOX or CHOXD) ft CAHBN;
OfiNCtN
.(WCTOX or CHOXO) ft CARBN;
Of INCIN
(WCTOX or CHCXD) ft CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN
Of INCIN
Nonwasttwaters
HMEP.C.
INCiN.
FSU3S; ar INCN.
iNCiN.
FS'JSS; CHOXD;
CHSiO; Of INON.
INCIN.
NCIN.
FSU3S; or INCIN.
NCIN,
NCIN.
NC:N.
NCIN.
1NCIN.
NCiN.
NCIN.
FSUBS; or INCN.
NCIN.
FSUBS; or INQN.
CHOXD; CHREft or
INCIN,
NCiN.
NCIN.
INCiN.
FSUBS; or iNCiN.
INCiN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCiN.
FSUBS; or INC1N.
RTHRM; Of STABL.
RTHRM; or STABL
RTHRM; or STABL
RTHRM; or STABL.
INON.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUSS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCiN.
INCIN.
-------
22700 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules ar.d Regulations
TABLE 2.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE—Continued
Waste
coda
U240
U244
U2-»6
U248'
U249
See also
— .
•
Waste descriptions and/or treatment subcategory
2,4-Dictilocopf.efioxyacetic (sa)!s and esters).
Cyanogen brontids . ™. ....... ................. ~ -..
Warfarin (greater tttan or eo.uai to 3%) -, - «
Zinc Phosphide <<10%) „, „, .„
CAS No. for
reguiated
hazardous
'constituents
94-75-7*
137-26-8
506-68-3
et-ai-2
1314-84-7
Technology code
Wastewaters
(WETOX or CHOXD} tb CARBN;
orlNCiN
(WETOX or CHOXD) to CAR8N;
Of INCIN
CHOXD; WETOX; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD} ft CARBN;
OftNCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; or INCIN
Nonwastewaters
INCIN.
INCSN.
CHOXO; WETOX; or
iNCIN,
FSUBS; Of INCIN.
CHOXD; CHRED; or
INGN.
* CAS Number given for mrertt compound only.
" This waste code exists in gaseous form and * not categorized as wastewater or nonwastewater terms.
NA—Not Applicable.
TABLE 3.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS FOR SPECSFC RADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS MIXED WASTE
I
Waste cods Waste descriptions and/or treatment subcategoty
D002
DQQ4
coos _
DOCG . .
OC07 „..,..
0Q08
DOOS ._
D009
D009 .
DQ09
0010...-
0011
U151 . . .
Radioactive High Level Wastes Generated Curing the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
Sory.
Radioactive High Level Wastes Generated During We Reprocessing ct Fuei Rods Subcate-
gory.
fiaaioacSva High Level Wastes Generated During the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
go-y.
Radioactive High Level Wastes Generated Curing the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
gory.
Radioactive High Level Wastes Generated During the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
90«Y-
Radioactive Lead Solids Subcategory (Note: these lead solids include, but are not limited to.
all terms oi teed snieJding, and other elemental forms of toad. These lead sottds do not
include treatment residuals such a> hydroxide sludges, other wastewater treatment
residuals, or moderator ashes *at can undergo convomoo* ponoWfxc staowiauoa nor
do they include or^aro-'ead materials mat can be incinerated and stabilized as ash.).
Radioactive High Level Wastes Generated During tn* Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
gory.
Clanumt^l iwwpury pjnfameiHert mitti rartkvjrtrja mBtm-sil* ,-,.,-,-„,-,.,-, .,. .„-.,. ,. - ., , ..,.,
Hydraute oil contaminated with Mwcuty Radioactive .Materials Subcategory,
Racicactrva High Lavel Wastes Qenersted During the Reprocessing oi Fuel Rods Sybcate-
gory.
Raoioactiva High Level Wastes Generated During the Reprocessirtg c4 Fuel Rods SUx^'.a-
gory.
Radioactiva High Leva! Wastes Generated During tt» Reprocessing of Fuel Rocs Subcato-
gory.
Mwwry FJ«w*Hal 'nerrsiry otmtftt'iiftatwl wilfi '*imi(rtl"a Tst^riflils. ,.,„„.., , ,, „„ ,,-,, „ „
CAS Number
NA „„..
MA
NA
NA ._
NA
7439-92-1
NA
7439-97-6
7439-97-€
NA ___„.__..
NA . _.
NA ___„....._..
7439-97-6..
Technology code
Wastewaters
NA ,
NA
NA
NA __
NA
f)A ..,._...,.,. ...
NA
NA
NA ,„.
NA
NA _ .
NA ___._.
NA. . .
Nofiwasiewaters
HLV1T
KLVIT
HLVIT
HLVIT
HLVIT
MACRO
HLvrr
AMLQM
INCIN
HLvrr
HLVIT
HLvrr
AMLGM
NA—Not AppUcebie.
[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. On the basis of such
information and any other available
information, the Administrator may '
approve the use of the alternative
treatment method if he finds that the
alternative treatment method provides a
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:
[l] The lab packs comply with the
applicable provisions of 40 CFH 2134.318
and 40 CFR 265.316;
(2) All hazardous wastes contained in
such lab packs are specified in appendix
FV or appendix V to part 28ft
(3} The lab packs are incinerated in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR part 284, subpart O or 40 CFR part
265, subpart O; and
(4) Any incinerator residues from lab
packs containing DOC4. DOGS. D006,
D007, D008, Mm and D011 are treated
in compliance with the- applicable
treatment standards specified for such
wastes in subpart D of this part.
(d) Radioactive hazardous mixed
wastes with treatment standards
specified in Table 3 of this section are
not subject to any treatment standards
specifsed to § 268.41, § 268.43, or Table 2
of this section. Radioactive hazardous
mixed wastes not subject to treatment
standards in Table 3 of this section
remain subject to all applicable
treatment standards specified in
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22701
§ 268.41, § 268.43, and Table 2 of this
section.
12. Section 268.43 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and Table
CCW—Constituent Concentrations in
Wastes, and by adding paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
§ 268.43 Treatment standards expressed
as waste concentrations.
(a) Table CCW identifies the
restricted wastes and the concentrations
of their associated hazardous
constituents which may not be exceeded
by the waste or treatment residual (not
an extract of such waste or residual) for
the allowable land disposal of such
waste or residual. Compliance with
these concentrations is required based
upon grab samples, unless other.vise
noted in the following Table CCW.
TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES
Waste eooe
CCC3 ,P.ea.ove cyanides su&catego-
ry— Sasad on 26l.23(a)(5)|.
roC4
*•*,'•*
00^
0008
D009 ...._ _._ __ .,.,-
PCir> , .
POM
nai? ..... ... , , , „ ,
Oni3-, ,-
Qni4 , , „- - . ,
nnt =
D0 1 6
0017 , , .. I
FOOi-FOOS spent solvents
FC01-F005 spent solvents (Pharma-
ceuScal industry wasiewater sub-
category).
POOR
P007
FQ08
moo
(=010 ., ......
FC11
CQ1J ,'., ,,
F019 V . ...
FQ24 .
See also
Table CCWE in 268.41
Taoie CCWE in 268 *1
Regulated hazardous constituent
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable) _ . ._
Arsenic _
BAri:m i
Taoie CCWE in 268.*1 Cadmium I
Table CCWE in 268.41 .
Taoie CCWE in 268 41
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE in 268.41 _.. .
Tatxe CCWE in 268 41
Table 2 in 268 42
Taole 2 in 268.42.™. _-._.._
Table 2 in 268.42 ..._.....
Taole 2 in 268 42
Table 2 in 268.42
Taole 2 in 268.42
Taoie CCWE in 268.41 and Table 2
in 268.42.
Taole CCWE in 268.41 ..
1>hte«?.VF in JfiS.I , .......
T^IA fiTvVP in JR} _1
Ta&Si CCWF in ?W.4i
Tahla CCWg in 2$S 41 , ,„„.
Table CCWE in 268.41. "
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE in 268.41 and Table 2
in 2S8.42 (Note: F024 organic
standards must be treated via in-
cineration (iNON)).
Chromium (Total) .. _ . 1
Lead ....
Mercury ,
Selenium . .,,,,, _. _.
SiK/flf ..,..„..,.„., .„
Endnn
Undane
Ivlethoxychlor —,--,-,--,,-,, ,...,JL....,
Tiiyppnana , , ,
2.4-0
2.4.5-TP Silvex
1,1.2-Trichloroettvinfl..,,,.., „
Benzene *-. ______._«_
Metnylene chloride
Cyanide? (Totaiy -
Cy^r~HAj (Am*yiat>le) .,„- ,,, ,
rjrtmmm
Chromiyov,
1 aart
Nirkol
Cyani^a; (Total)
Cyan»des (Amenable) -
C^QTiwr" (Total) ..- ..-.. ..:.
(.flfK) _
Nirkol „ „,„.,..
Cy^ni^s (T(j(a()
Cyanides (Amenable)
Owryruvm .,,...,.,
1 Ban
Nirkal
Cyanides (Total) .L, ,^1 ,
Cyanides (Amenable)
Ffareimtim , ,,, ,, ,, , - :1 ,^ , .,,,,,.,,,,..
1 ctsvUti?<1inne . .
3-Chloropropene
1 . 1 -Oichloroethane
1 ,2-Oicnloroethane
1.2-Dichloropropane
cis-1.3-Dicnloroprooene
trans- 1 ,3-Oichkxoprooen«. _. ..
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
conjduent
57-12-5
S7-12-5
7,40-38-2
74^0-39-3
7440-40-9 '
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7439-97-8
7782-49-2
7440-22-t
720-20-8
58-89-9
7i43-5
8001-35-1
94-75-7
93-76-5
71-55-6
71-43-2
75-09-2
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-*7-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-47-32
126-99-8
107-05-1
75-34-3
107-06-2
78-87-5
10061-01-5
10061-02-8
Wastewaters
concentration !
(rntj/l)
Reserved
C.S6
5.0
100
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.20
1.0
5.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.030
0.070
0.44
1_J
0.86
1.6
0.32
0.040
0.44
1.9
0.1
0.32
0.04
0.44
1.9
0.1
0.32
0.04
0.44
1.9
0.1
0.32
0.04
0.44
1.9
0.1
1.9
0.1
0.32
0.04
0.44
1.9
0.1
0.32
0.04
0.44
1.2
0.86
0.32
•0.23
•0.28
•0.014
•0.014
•0.014
•0.014
•0.014
Non-
wastewatsrs
concentrabon
(.•ng/kg)
,»S90
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.13
0.066
0.18
1.3
10.0
7.9
•7.6
•3.7
NA
590
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
590
30
NA
NA
NA
590
30
NA
NA
NA
530
30
NA
NA
NA
1.5
NA
110
9.1
NA
NA
NA
110
9.1
NA
NA
NA
•530
•30
NA
•0.28
*0.23
•0.014
•0.014
•O.C14
• 0.014
*O.OH
-------
22702
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTSS—Continued
Waslacode
FQ25 (Light ends sufecategofy) .
cants subcaiegor/}.
F039 _ _..
Sea also
Table CCA'E in 2S3.41 _
Regulated hazaidaus eortstHuetrt
e*s(2-«ttrylrie>cyt)prtthalata ,
HexacWoroethsnfl. .... „„.
Gr*forftwro (Total ,,,.„.„»..„,,.„•
Nickel.. _..„ _..__
CMofofoiffi .... ~ «™
1,2-Dichtoroethane — ™
1 .l-Ofcntoroethylerte
Mattiytera chloride.-.. — , .
Carton tetrachtoride .,_.....
1,1,2-TricMofoothane
TricMwoethyieiie . ,
Vinyl chloride .... .. .. — .~~.... .
CWOfQfOfrrt _-...,-, «.«...,.™.™
Metftyfene c^lcKba -~. ......
Carbon 'etfaeMoode .— ...
1 ,1 t2-Trichtoroetri8fte — ~~..™.»—, ....
Trierftjroetfiylefis.™ , _.
Vinyl chtefsde ,.,,,., t. .,.-..,. ...
Hexacniorobenzena
HexscMorobutacSefte.-. .__.
Hexacfjlofosifcafw.™™—™.... -™
ACfttOWJ ..»„... .»„.,„
Acenaphteiefie .., ;,vr-TIIV,0-TV,VT-
Acenapfcthefle -~~.~~....~M.._,
ACatOfHtfite r- — T-.r-r.^.--;v^. l:::u..l:::: vv
ACfltOO^WO^**'""".™-'""— 0 ..... ..,, .,
2-AceMaminofluorerw._______ — _„.
AcrylOfiitril* ._._______„__..._„.
Al**i,,. „..,.,„„.,......„„..„,„,.„„...„„...,,„„.,
4-Af?wx?t>*pNfftyl...... ...... , i , , i i .
AflfBnff.™,,,, „ ,
,4f»f&>rac*?f>^ ...n..,,^. ....„„»,. ..,„..,..
Aroefort016
Aroctor 1221 _^___.™ _.___
Arctior 1232 — ,
AnxSor "242 — . .-;,-..:-. ~~
Amrlijj -?i« „ „ ,.„ , „., „,„ .. ,
Arccior 1254._ ._ ___„ „.
Aroctor 1260.... . . ......
a!p*»a^Mfi.,., ..-,.,...,...,..., „„„.,„;-..,.„--.,..,
beta-3HC .. . .
d9«a-3HC .
B^fggftfr................^........-..^ .............. ......
B«|t»?^(9)flBt«ra(>>n^ . ,. , „ , , „ „
Benzo(b)tluoranthefle
flwffoftjh.Opwyhifw...,,. ..-.......,....,,,.,...
Bwirrtalpyfoftft - _....«.
Rmn»ij«*irhl<»omBIh<|im ... , .„„,, , „
iremomeman* (meinyl bfofnxle)__._..
4-8romopl)«nyl phenyl etter . ______
Bulyt benzyl s*tlwnns™ .„_.
2-sac-3utyl-4,6-dirKtrcpnenol
Carbon tetracrilondB
Carijon disutfide_._
CMOft^fflB, „, ullll „ „ mill n
p^Wofoariline_— ™«...™«m™...™ ,_
CtilofobefizefTe T1— T-T,— T.».,T,OJI .;,,, ..
CtttorotMfi£ilate....M«...».»n.H...M.M.*raw
ChtoroaftromometJiana .;. ....... ..... vl .,
Chlcfoetharw ...-„__.___.._______
bwa-ChloroetTKixy) methane ._
6is(2^Woroemyl) ether ___________
2-Oitoroetnyt vinyl «tnor_
CWorofofw I, ........
!»s(2^JhlofoisooropyO «ther____™_..
p-CMmnjn-rvrtffil ,. „ „.., , ,„ „ ,
QMorometnana {Methyl cntoncie).-.
2-Crtloronaphthatene ™,.™___
3-CHntrjphonnl. .--., ..,„ .. ,, , 1 , „
3-Ch!oroorop9ne _^_-™____ .
CrWyS*f10 • :::::--l::,^Wr-, T.T......» . «..
^Of9SOtT.....n...l.lll...«. >.«ll.
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constitiMnt
117-81-7
67-72-1
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
S7-6S-3
107-06-2
75-3S-*
75-9-2
56-23-5
79-00-5
73-01-6
75-01-4
67-66-3
I
75-9-2
56-23-5
T9-CO-5
79-01-6
75-01-4
118-74-1
87-68-3
37-72-1
37-64-1
2CS-S&-8
83-32-9
75-05-9
96-83-2
53-96-3
107-13-1
309-00-2
92-67-1
62-53-3
120-12-7
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-S
53469-21-3
12672-29-8
11097-*9-1
11Q96-S2-5
319-&4-6
319-65-7
319-86-4
58-89-9
71-43-2
56-55-3
205-99-2
207-08-9
191-24-2
50-32-8
75-27-4
75-25-2
74-83-9
101-55-3
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-35-7
56-23-5
75-15-0
57_74_9
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-8
124-48-1
75-00-3
111-31-1
111_i4-4
87-66-3
33638-32-9
59-50-7
74-87-3
91-8-7
95-57-8
107-05-1
218-01-9
95-48-7
Was tews4**.
concentration
(mg/t)
• 0.036
* 0.036
0.35
0.47
* 0.046
"0.21
'0.025
* o.oaa
'0.057
'0.054
* 0.054
'027
"0,046 I
'0089
* 0.057
'0.054
'0.054
'0.27
* 0.055
" 0.055
"O.C55
'028
'0.059
• 0.059
'0.17
'0010
'0.059
'0.24
*0021
"0.13
*0.8T
'0.059
"0.013
"0.014
'0.013
* 0.01 7
"0013
'0.014
'0.014
'0.00014
"0.00014
"OC23
* 0.0017
'0.14
* 0.059
"0055
*Q059
"0,0055
"0061
"0.35
"0.83
•0.11
"0.055
"0.017
"0.066
'0.057
" 0.014
"00033
"0.46
"O.OS7
"0.10
"0.057
"0.27
* 0.036
"0.033
"0057
"0.046
1 0.C55
'0018
"0,19
" O.C55
*0044
'0.036
"0.059
'0.11
N'on-
wastewarefs
concentration
(mo/kg)
•1.8
•1 8
MA
NA
"6.2
•6.2
"6.2
•31
•6.2
•6.2
•5.8
• 33
*52
•31
"6.2
*Z2.
"5.5
"33
•37
•=3
• 30
• ISO
•3.4
•4.0
MA
"97
•1*0
"84
•OCS6
NA
•14
"40
"0.92
"0.92
•0.92
•0.32
•0.92
•1.8
•1.B
• 0.066
•OOS6
•0066
"0.066
•35
"8,2
"3.4
•34
•1.5
•82
•15
•15
•15
•15
* y R
•7.9
•2.5
"5.5
NA
*0 13
"16
"5.7
•NA
•16
•5.0
•7.2
•7.2
NA
•5.6
•7.2
•14
•33
•5.6
•57
•28
"8.2
•*fi
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22703
TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS if* WASTES—Continued
Wast* coda
See also
Regulated hazardous constituent
Cresot (m- and p-isomers)
1,2-D*ramoethana (Etnylene dibro-
mide),
Dfbroiromethana..
Z,*-Oic!il0ropnenoxyacetic acid (2,4-
D).
o p'-DDD.. .... ..m.,.fc.,w»«...»«™.™.«..."
o o'-DDE «_.«..™..™».™...,..««....
0,p'-DDT.._ _ _
DIb*nzo(a.h)anthracena
nvQicfttorobdnzene ____,.....
o-CicMofobeozene, ....
p-Otehtorobenzens .
DicfricfodHtuoFomathane „.__„
1,1-Didiloro«tftane — —
1,2-Oiefitoroethane. , __.,
1 , 1 -Otehloroethyiena ....
trsna-1 2-Dic*loroetftefiQ,.._ ._-._,
2,4-DJcnJofcpftenol
2.6-DtenlofOphanol .
ei»-1 ,3-Dtehioropropene ..._...._„ ....
trans-1 ,3-Diehloroprapen«,. — .„_
DiaMrin
Dtethyl phthalate — _._
p-Ohnetnylaminoazobentene
2,4-D*m6lny1 phenol .—_-._—-___„
Dimethyl pmnalate.
Oi-n-butyt phtfcalata
1 ,4-Ulnilrobenien8 _______
4,6-Dmrtro-ocresol
2,4-Qinitrophenol „____ _.
2,4-Oinitrotolu8n£ -„.„......„.„..,... ...........
2,6-Dtnttrotolijena __ _„ _ ,_
K-n-ocfyl phttiatata ,
DM-propylnrtrosoamin9.__,
1,2-Oiphenyi N^fasne „.,_.,_ .«.„
1 ,4-0»oxar>6 _..™«v_..i
DtSU(IO83l1 i, M.,,..,-^..,. ...„...,....„.„,,.
Efxjosulfan 1 ... ...,.„. .-.-j-:^--.,..... ........
FnrtnKiilfiln 11 ... .,, „ , JMII, „,.„
FrwVKjiHan -ailf^m ..,,,. „ . ,,,,,
S"(fnn n«JBhy^ ...„„ .,.„,.. ,
^(tiy» »<;etste ,,,,„„„.„,.„„„.„,.„.,.„„„.,„„.„
gtlyj CyaRi
-------
22704 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
Waste code
C001 , —
See also
lattfe CCWE in 268.41.. __.
Regulated hazardous constituent
Methoxychtaf „
3-Methyteholanthrene ..„.„___
4,4-Memylene-&iH2-chloroamline) „,
Methyiene chteride,.,___,___^_..___.
Methyl ethyl ketone , -„.-.„--,...,„...
Methyl isobutyt ketone ..
Methyl methacrylate .......„.„__...„__..„
Methyl rnetttansulfonate ____._™
Methyl partthion
Naphthalene -...„.,....,.„„,
2-NapMyl3niine «.»»...«».«««..«..„«».
p-Nitroanifine.»««.»— «.—«—.....— «.».«.
Nitrobenzene ....«..««......— ...«*..«. «...™
5-Nitro-o-toiukline._._ .__
4-Nitrooheno( . .................................. .
N-NitrosodJettiyiamine .................. ...
N-Nltrosodimethyiamine .......„.„___ —
N-Nltroso-di-n-toitylamifle
N-NltrosomethylefhylaininB .._____„..„.
N-Nitrosomoiptiaiine ___,,„_„
N-Nitrosopipertdine _..____.__„_„_,_..
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine ~
Parattiion.. „„.„..._,__...__.„..„.. _.
Fentachlorobertzene .,..„»«.» ,„_—..._,
Peffiachlorodibenzo-furans ._.„„„„„„.
PenttCfllorodibenzo-p-dkmns — ___.....
PentachlOf onitrobenzene .„.__„__.„.
Pentachtorophenol __™_™~__™
ftianiypan) .., ..„ _„._„,.,„.,,„. „, ,,„„,„„„
PhAnanthntfUi , nl_ „ ,,„ „ , 41UU11 u , ,
Ptwni?! ..,„„-„„.„ „„,. „
Phorate™ _._ „ „
Propanentthta (ethyl cyan (2 4,5-TP) ,„„ „.. .„..,
&4.5-T „, „.„.....„..„.„ „..,
1 .S^.S.-Tetrachlofofrwizene .»
TtwscwofiixfflbwiTo-dffans
TiMrm*ih>»?xW'BnT-a>o»n._._.
t.1.1,2-Tetracf>loroemane
1 ,1^2-Tetmchloroethana __
Tetfachlow>ethflnfl. ............ „„.„„..„.«....
2>3A8-TMrach'Ofop(woal .„„„..„...
Toiu«nB ..,....,.„.„« ,.»..,„. ,.......,,u^. »...„,.
Tn«np»v»o« .„„„„ „„ ,„ „„,„„„„ ,„„ ,„ „
1 9 A-TnrhtnnVwwTTono
i,t,i.Ti^hi«wwth«mf.,.,,.,..,.,, ,„.
1,1,?-Trichlor^«mn» _
Trichtamethykma , „ ,„ „ , ,
2,415-Trictitonjphflno4 -
2,4,8-Trichkxophanol-,,,,,,,,,,.,,,, „,„„., „
1 ,2,3-TnchlQfDpfopafw .....,..........! ^ UJ
1.U-Tncntoro-l^2-tnftuoro-emane_-
Vinyl chtori*
Xytan^s) ,..,„. ,„.„„., ,„,„.,„, „., ,
Rytni^Bf (Ti>fil)1T, .„„..,„...,..,.....„....,..,...
Cyfmftat (AmOnsM) .,......,....,..., ...
Plunnda „. r „ lln „
SuHito „,- ,-- ,,- -,„„,„ „„,-,,-
An|aoit_T _,„_ ,„,
B^riM"" -„-„..,..,......„-,„-„„-., ,.,„,.; „ 4,
Bmylliuni,.^,,,,,, „.„,„.„.,.,..., ..„ ,,„,,., ,„, .
Catfinmt „ . , ,• --, , ,., „„„„.
Chmnum (Tnl(it} ,
CnpfMr . , , , , , ,..,, ., ,
Land , L 44
Manury „_,....,
NirJtni
Setan"«l -„,-, ,., , - .. „ ...
Stiver, .--,..„,„,.„..,„„„ .
VanatlHini ,„„.„„.„,.,, „.
Nacntttalene. _ _
CAS No. tor
regulated
hazardous
constituent
72-43-5
56-J9-5
101-14-4
75-09-2
78-93-3
108-10-1
80-«2-6
298-00-0
91-20-3
91-59-8
100-01-6
98-95-3
99-55-e
100-02-7
55-18-5
62-75-8
924-16-3
10595-95-6
S9-8&-2
100-75-4
930-55-2
56-38-2
608-93-5
.„„„.„..
82-ijMB"
87-86-S
g2-44-2
85-01-8
108-95-2
298-02-2
107-12-0
2395O-58-5
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
93-72-1
93-76-5
95-94-3
63*5IS^8
79-34-6
127-1B-4
58-90-2
108-88-3
8001-35-1
120-82-1
71-55-8
79-00-5
79-01-6
95-95-4
88-OS-2
96-18-4
76-13-1
75-01-4
57-12-5
57-12-5
16964-46-8
6496-25-8
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
744O-41-7
TMO-13-9
7440-47-32
7440-SO-8
7439-82-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7792-49-2
7440-22-*
7440-62-2
91-20-3
Wasiewaters
concentratxxi
(mg/l)
* .0.25
* 0.0055
•0.50
* 0.089
"0.28
"0.14
"0.14
"0018
" 0.014
"0.059
"0.52
"0.028
"0.068
'0.32
"0.12
"0.40
"0.40
"0.40
"0.40
"0.40
"0.013
"0.013
" 0.017
"0.055
"0.000035
"0.000063
" 0.055
* 0.089
"0.081
" 0.059
"0.039
"0021
"0.24
* 0.093
"0.067
"0.014
"0.081
"0.72
"072
"005S
"0.000063
"0000063
"0.000063
* 0.057
"0.057
"0056
"0030
"0080
* 00095
* n ncc
"0054
"0054
"0.054
"018
*003S
"085
" O.OS7
"027
"032
"1.2
"086
"35
"14
*1 a
"50
"1.2
*082
"020
"037
"13
"028
"015
"OSS
'082
"0.29
"0042
•O.OT1
Noo-
wastewatais
concentration
(mg/kg)
•0.18
"15
•35
•33
•36
•33
•160
NA
•4.6
•3.1
NA
•28
•14
•28
•29
•28
NA
"17
•2.3
•2.3
•35
•35
•4.6
•37
•0.001
• 0.001
•43
•7.4
•16
•31
"6,2
•46
•380
•1 5
•8.2
•16
•22
•79
•79
• 19-
•0001
•0001
NA
•42
•42
•56
• 37
•26
• 1 3
* 1Q
•56
"* 56
« 56
•37
•37
*28
•28
* 33
• 28
• 1 6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
«1 S
-------
QSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 /' Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 227S3
TABLE CCW,—CONSTrruEMTCONCEfJTHA-nONS ;M WASTES—Continued
Waste coda
KOO2
K003 -_.___
Knn4
KG05 , . _ ,
K006 ., . _ _
KT.A7
K008
Kf»9 .. .. . .
KQ11
KOI 3
KQtd...
i«ii«f
K11"
K017" . ,.,_ , „,--
KC1? > •• . r Trr ,
KQ20 ... . ._ __ :::::r
Seeatro
Table CCWE Hv 268,41
Table CCWE in 288.4t
Tafcie CCWE in 288.41.—
Table CCWE if» 268.41
Tabte CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE ...
Tab
-------
22706 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 /Rules and Regulations
TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
Waste code
X021 , ,„ ,.., „-
Kf>22 L ,' , „„ - - -
K023 — . . — ~
K02^
K023 —
KW9 „ „ I . - i, ,,M, ,,„ .„, m- u
.
KOTO,. . ,. ,„. „ ,..,,,,, ,
MM1 , , , „
HP3?.,,,,
KOXf ., Iln ,,„„-,-,,„,,,„„,„,„,„-,,-,,„,,,„-
K034 -. , ,-„,,-,-,„-,,-,,,,„.,-„---,,-
KfL-K
KW, ,-, -„ ,-.„,-„„-
K0.17 ,, ..,., ,,„,
ftP,*"" n n, ,„, „- ,„ ,,., , --,., -
Kfbin , , .. r.ml . ..
K«41 , . ,u „ M, , ,„-, ,-- ,-
K042 . ^ „„„,„,, ...„.,„..
See also
Tatte CCWE in 268.41
Tabla CCWE in 238.41 ».
Taole CCWE in 288 41 .— __.
.
TaWft OCWF in ?fffl *1 . , ,,„
Regulated hazardous constituent
1,1^2-Tetmchloroathane, _. „
Tetrachkxostfiene™ ..-.. ,_
Chtoroform ....„ __ _. _ „,
Carton tetractilonde
Antiffxxiy ,__.,_ __.._,,.,. m. ......... ^.1.,.1..
TOlUftfMJ «. «n ,1 MM .. ,
Acetophenone ,._
Diprtenytaitsne *_«_ I.r1ltl.,^...lll..ll^.ll^.
Oip*»enylnitrosai!iina.._»_«_ —
Sum of Diphenytamine and Oiphenyt-
rMrosamim.
Pfwod ,„._.,___ „__,_„_
Chromium (Total)
Nk*el._____™, ^
P^ttiaJic annydnda {maasured as
PtithaJic sod).
Ptitfialto anhydride (measure, as
Pfitnaiic acid).
1 1-OicMoroettiana ,„ _ _
trans-1 ,2-Bcfitoroetf!_ne ~...
Mexactilorobutadione,..™
Hexachkxoettiane..-
PentachtoroatftafiB... - ,_ _.
1 ,1 , 1,2-Tetrachtoroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetr_ef*xoethar,a — .
1,1,1 -TrtchtoetfiaRo ___,____„«,.„_-.
1,1,2-Trichtoremane .
TatracMoroelriylena
reniQhjnf ,,-,.,„ „„., , - , , „ , „
I^.DinhlnirMttup^ ,. ,, „. ,„. . „ , .
1,i.(X*i ,,, ,, „ ,, ,, „ ,
p-QicttlQrQtieftzefte „ ,.m___^.
HetactitorcOoladiene
MexacWoropfopefi*.-.,««,™«.,..™,. - m ,,
PuntlHf HTOh"'V *"" , ,-,, ,„, , , ... ,, ,,t .
p*"taM»iorrw*»ii""- ,,-, -..„-„ .., ,
15.4.5-Telran>«|tl}|fW ,., „„, „ , ,,„.,,„ „„
lA*-TrtetMof«)tff»mt.,,™,.,,.., ,...„..,„..
ArtflfliC. i ........i.....-iT-,lln-Lnl, II, L ^
Hexachkxopefttadiefw«..,M-.« »_. ,
Chlnir(ar» ,.., ,. ,lr u . „,-„-,„,„ ,
H^tptacftfof
Wo^VdCftVy ftjK^irto .. .. ,
H^xacWQfooyctopefitadwn* „. _,„.
H»"lCM, ,,„„„.„ , , ,
Aw^pWfWW .,,„.,.....,,.. ,..,,.,...,,.„„.„„!
BfZtfllJW^sc*^*, „..,,.»...,..„• ,„.„ , ,„,„
Benzo(a)pyrene
Qwysene , ___
Rvoranw«MWi.. _,„„,.„.,.„,„•,• , ,
FHiofflnft LI.,,,.. o!,,,,,..,,.,..,!...-^ ...i...
Indanoft.g.a-Cri^ynsnii.^, „, „„„„ ,„ ,
Cf(orDbefizeoe .
o-Oicfiltx ooenzefw — . _,..,__
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
T&-34-6
127-18-4
67-66-3
S6-23-5
744O-36-0
108-68-3
96-86-2
22-39-4
86-3O-S
108-95-2
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
85-44-9
85-44-9
75-34-3
87-«8-3
67-72-1
75-01-7
630-20-6
79-34-6
71-55-6
79-00-5
127-18-4
7440^43^9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
67-66-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
71-55-6
75-01-4
9S-50-1
106-46-7
87-68-3
67-72-1
1888-71-7
608-93-5
76-01-7
95-94-3
127-18-4
120-82-1
7440-38-2
77-47-4
57-74-9
76 .44-8
1024-57-3
77-47-4
77-47-4
83-32-9
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
216-O1-9
53-70-3
206-44-0
86-73-7
193-39-5
91-20-3
95-48-7
B5-01-8
tnft-Q^-9
129-OQ-O
298-04-4
298-04-4
108-88-3
298-02-2
298-02-2
8001-35-1
95-94-3
95-50-1
Wastewatars
concentraiton
(mg/l)
•0.007
•0.007
'0048
" 0,057
*0.60
* 0.080
0.010
"0.52
"0.40
NA
0.039
0.35
0.47
•0.54
•0.54
•0007
•0.033
•0.007
•0.033
•0033
•0.007
•0.007
•0,007
•0.007
•0.007
6.4
0.35
0037
0.47
046
0.21
0.025
0.054
027
•0008
•0.008
•0.007
NA
NA
• 6.007
*0.0'~
«o.-
•oc .
079
"0057
"00033
"0016
"0057
"0057
NA
NA
"0059
NA
' 0.059
'0068
NA
NA
"077
"0059
*o 11
'0059
"0067
'0025
*OQ25
"0060
0025
rj r}?c
"00095
"0055
"0.088
Non-
wastewatRrs
coocentracon
(mg/kg)
•56
•60
*e.a
•6.2
NA
* 0.034
•19
NA
NA
•13
_12
NA
NA
•28
*Z3
"60
"6.0
"S.6
"28
•56
•5.6
*5.6
"6.0
•60
•s.o
NA
NA
NA
NA
•60
•6.0
•60
•60
•60
NA
NA
•5.6
* 21
• 19
•28
•56
•14
*60
* 19
NA
•24
•026
•0060
•24
•2.4
•34
• 1 A
•34
•3.4
•3.4
• i* 4
•34
•34
•34
NA
•34
•34
•fl?
•01
•01
•28
•0 1
• n \
•26
•44
•4.4
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 954.1,00-14
• ' . i . • - ,;..•,•: ' ••:< ' * T ,.-..),: r .... r
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 100 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22707
TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATiONS IN WASTES—Continued
Waslecode
K043 „.,.. „
KD46 „
KC48 - _
K049
K"50 , ,., „„,.-, -
K051 , ,, , ,„„„„„,„- _
K052 '
See also
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table CC.VE in 268.41
Table CCWE in 268 41 _
Table CCWE in 268.41, . .„
Table CCWE in 288.41 ._ - ~ ,..-
Regulated hazardous constituent
p-Dichtorobenzene __.., _
Penlachlorobenzene —
1 ,2,4-Tflcniorobenzsne .*.—.... ..................
2,4-Dichlorophenol __
2 6-Dicnlorophcnol.. ™«... ... .
2,4,5-Tricfctoropfcenol.™.
2 4 6*Trich!oropheriol -,...~.,...
Tetrschlorophenols (Total)-.. _. ......
Pentacfilorophenol . „...
TetracnloroetFiene ...... w,,™~,.,
Hexacnior0dibefiZQ"p"dtQxiiis ......
Pentacnlorodibeftzo-fufans ..... ..
TetrscMorodibeftzo-ftjfans . .««._ .
Lead. _. __„. _.
Benzene _. „„
8en2O(a)pyrene ,.„.._„ ,._..._ _._.
Bis(2-ethyine-yl)prithalate
Chrysene.... . . _...._..
DK>-buty1 pnthalate « „
EthyJbeflzefie ..•.,.,.........»».....».».!.......
Fluorene . „ ~™..™...,
N»ph1tifll«nH , , „•,„
PhRB^nthrnnn „ .. ,„„,, „ „„ ,
Phanoi _„___
Pyffme ................T,.™,.,.,,,.,..,.,™.™.,.,..^..,,...
TOi-6ne -rr1 :-:-:,:,:::::::„„::::,::„-:,„, ,,rrL,,-«,<.
STyl«nB
-------
22708 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
Waste cod*
K06C . „., , „ . _
xoei , , - ._ , .
KC62 . . .
KC89 _._
KC71
K073.,,, ,_ .__.. _.
K083
K084 „„ „
KQ&S _
Ktw? , , ,. . , ,..
Sea also
Table CCWE in 268 41 and Tabie 2
in 268.42.
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE in 26841 and Table 2
in 268.42.
Table CCWE in 268.41 ..„..„. .
Tabla CCWE in 268.4f ..
T?h!o {TUMP in ?fiB -1 „ ,. 44UU 41
Regulated hazardous constituent
p-Cresol .. .«...., .— , -«.
2,4-Oime_TytphaRo( ... — „..„
Ethylbenzsne .—..., .... ,~ ,
Naphthalene .......««m». .«™. _
Phenanthrene
Phenol „.._.,..— ,.____«._...„,„.„„„„....„.
Toluene ....—..........._....—...*....„......«.........,
Xytenes....,__,._~__.___™._...__._.._. .
Cyanides (Total)..™ ,™ -
Chromium (Total) ,_ __„_ __ „,
Lead.- _
Benzene ..-,... ................ , ... ..
8enzo{a)pyrene ™ .... ... . _, . ,
Naphthalene., . »...-
Phenol ... ., .
Cyanides (Total) ..,._...„. .„ _
Cadmium „ .. _.m . .„,, . ,„
Chromium (Total) .—.._« «„ _ . .
Lead _._., , . _
Nickel..™ -., _. _ „
Chromium (Total) _ .„.. ..
Lead _ .._._.._
Nickel.. _
Cadmium .«... «.-....«,. * ... ...
Lead „_„„... _. _ .
Carbon tetfachtorkle
Chloroform .„...„„..._„ ™,.™. .
Hexachloroethane ,~~~«_-«~_
Tgtrachloroethene.. .......................... ™.
1.1,1-Tnctilocoettiane. » _.
S^PIeO^ ..„..,.„ T-UII in LI
Amlina ,,...r ..„ .. ,
Oiphenylamine . „_„„„_._ ...
Diphenylnittosamme...™ .
Sum of Oiptienyiamine and Ciphenyl-
nitrosamine.
Nitrobenzene ...»..._„.
Phenol.™ __„„..„._ _. .
Cyclon9xanone.~.._._ _.„..
Nickel.,-..- ,_.__,..
Afsemc. ™ _ _ J
Benzene ..._.___.__.„...._._.. „
Chtorebenzene ____._„_.._ ..„„_ ..
o-Oichloroberaene _.«™_...™™~™..
m-Dicnlorobenzene .___...„„„___.__..
p-Oicrtorobenzene.™-. ™— __
1 A4-Trich!oroDenzene _
1 A4,5-TetracWoroben_«ne
Pant^f^tlnintowiTMW,,,,,,.,,....,.! „,. ^ ,„
Hexacfi lof oDenzene »„„„..
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221 _._....
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1 242 ............. „_.__
Aroclor 1248... .
Aroclor 1254 „
Aroclor 1230
Acetone.._.»w
Acatopnenone . ..„.,.. „__..„._
Bis(2-Bthylhexyt)phthatate
r^flutyl alcohol __.„.__.„
Butyibenzylpmhaiata , ,
cydotwxanone _
1 ^-Otehtorooenzene
CXethvl phttialaw... „„ .
Dimethyl phthalata .... „„„..„„.
Ohn-butyl phthtlate. .. _
Oi-iMXStyl phthalate,_™_.m«_..,..,™..,_...
Ethyl acetate ........... . „„__,.
Eshylbenzene .,.„._ „ .._
Matrianol _
Methyl isobutyt ketone — .
Methyl ethyl ketone —
Metfcytene chlorida
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
106-44-5
105-67-9
100-41-4
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
106-85-3
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
71-43-2
SO-32-8
91-20-3
108-95-2
57-12-5
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-82-1
7440-02-0
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-43-5
7439-92-1
7439_97_6
56-23-5
67-66-3
67-72-1
127-18-4
71-55-6
71-43-2
62-53-3
22-39-4
86-30-6
96-95-3
1C8-95-2
10S-94-1
7440-02-0
7440-38-2
71-43-2
108-90-7
9S-50-1
541-73-1
f 06-16-7
120-82-1
95-94-3
606-93-5
118-74-1
12674-1, 2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-S
67-64-1
96-86-2
117-81-7
71-36-3
BS-,8-7
108-94-1
95-50-1
84-66-2
131-11-3
84-74-2
117-S4-0
141-76-fl
100-41-4
67-56-1
108-10-1
78-93-3
75-OS-2
Wastewaters
concentration
(mg/l)
"0.011
* 0.033
« 0.01 1
"0033
•0.039
•0.047
• 0.01 1
• 0.01 1
•0028
02
0037
"••0 17
*.» g Q35
*•• 0 028
*.• 0 042
1 9
1 61
032
051
044
032
0.04
0 44
1 6
051
0 030
*0057
' 0.046
* 0.055
"0.056
* 0.054
*014
"0.81
"0.52
"0.40
NA
"0.068
0.039
0.36
047
079
'0.14
* 0.057
"0.088
"0.036
"0090
"0.055
" 0.055
0055
" 0.055
" 0.013
" 0.014
"0.013
"0017
"0013
"0014
" 0.014
n 9R
0.010
"0.28
5.6
* 0.017
0.36
0.088
"0.20
"0.047
"0057
"0.017
"0.34
"0.057
* 56
0.14
0.28
"0.089
Norv
wastewaters
concentration
•rag/kg)
•62
•NA
• 14
•42
•34
•3.6
•14
•22
• 1 8
NA
NA
* 0 071
*3 6
• 34
*34
1 2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
• 62
•6.2
•30
•6.2
•S.2
•66
• 14
NA
NA
« ,4
«14
•56
*30
NA
NA
•4.4
•4.4
•4.4
•4.4
•44
•4.4
•4.4
• 44
•4.4
•0.92
•0.92
•0.92
• 0 92
* 0 92
• 1 8
•1.8
•9.7
•28
•2.6
•7.9
NA
•6.2
•28
•28
•28
•33
•6.0
•33
•36
•33
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22709
TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
Waste code
K08? , .. . ........
K093
K094
KC95
K096 , ....... „. ...._...,..,
K097 .„„. ,....„.„....,..,.„„„.„.,..,.... ,
K09S ,....„.„.„.......„„.,....,..,.,...,..,........,...„
K099 .,.,.., .....„...,..„„.........,.„..„..-.„..........,
K100
K1Q1
K102
KlQ3 J
K1Q4
K105 ...........
Soe also
Table CCWE in 268,41.......,.™...,,,— .......
Table CCWE in 268,41 .......
Table CCWE in 268.41...,....,..,..,...,....,.,..
Regulated hazardous constituent
NaDhthaiene „.,.. .... ...
Toluene *. .,...,.,.....,....„...,....,..,....„..,.„......
1,1 ,1 -Trichiofoethane ..,.„.
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes (Total) .,
Cyanides (Total) ,....„.,..,.„.......,...„,..
Chromium (Total) .»«.......«„»„...„.»„,»»..
Lead ........„.*.,.....»....,..,..........,..... ... . .
Acenaphfhalene ............................... ...
Benzene . ... ................................ ,
RuoraniheoQ, ,.,.».,. ..................................
lndeno(l 2,3<&l)pyfi;ne...... .......... .. ........
Naphthalene .,,..,.,,.,.,.«^..»™..,....,.,............
Toiuene .,...,,.,,,,.,..,..,..,.,.. »..,,..,,,„.,.....,......
Xyfenes[[[
Lead
Phthalic acid).
Phthafic acid).
i,lti 2-T8vifachi0fQethane .....
t j(2,2-TetfachlQtQ©ihafie ........ ..... .
Tetfachiofoethefis.....™...,.......™.. . ....
1 t 2-TrichlQfoetftane............................
Tnchloroethyiene «,*™.™...M....,.,.™......
HexacihlofssBttiajne™™........™*.^....,.......
Peotachi0fQetha**e . - ..™ .™—™ .
1,1,1,2-TetractilofoettianQ^. ,„„.„.,„.„
1 . t,2,2-Tetrachic»t>ethaR6.,.,.™,™«. ™.
TstrachiORsethsne ,..__. .,..„,.,...„„...»..
1 , 1 ,2-Tnchloroethane.., ........ ..„..„.„„..
Trichlofoettierie...™.™..™™.............™
l,3-Dichi!orobenzene™.™«-._ — ..„..„
Pentachloroethane .......™....«.
1 ,2.4-TnctitOfot»enz0ne „...„
HexachiQfocyclQpentadiene,. ."•«
Hepiachloc ....... ..,.,.»«*........,.„.,....,„.„...
H^3ta^ilo
-------
22710
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
Waste cede
Kt06 „.„„»,.. ...
K115 „ _ „,„ „
See also
Table CCWE in 26841 and TaM" 2
in 268,42,
Table CCWE in 268*.41
Regulated hazardous constituent
p-Dichlorobeniene _
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4.6-Trichlorophenol
2-Chforophenol .... .. .... *. . « ,
Pnenoi . _
Mercury.. «... ... « .. .. ... .« .*.«
Nickel _._.......„.._
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
1 06-46-7
95-95-4
88-06-2
95-57-8
1C8-9S-2
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
Wastewaterj
concentration
UJ m , ...............M............™.,.,...™....,.
FlyQfj^ff , , .,..„.......,.,..,....,.....».«.,..,.
HeptacMof . ^-MM«* «»«™™»..™™.™»m«
Isodrm ^««.... ,.~.~~,...~~-,~,.
Hydrooen cyartidBw.— .«w,«~.w«™«~«— .— *«—
Mercury fufminate...«»..«m«««.«.M«»».m«
Methyl parathion „„,.
Nickel cyanide...._.. __
p-Nitroanflln^.L........^.^... ,„..,„„„„ „ ui.m.j
N-Nitrosodimethylamine —
Paratfiion ™...™ . -~.~
Ph^nyimsrcury acetate
Phorate ...-. .- -~—
Famphur...._..-«..™.»«— »..»».»»» .»«».*.»*»
Potassium silver cyanide ....„_. — —.........
Ethyl cyanide CPropanenitrile) .__.„
Setonouraa __«____-«____ —
See also
Table CCWE in 268.41 .
Table CCWE in 268 41
Taole CCWE in 268.41 ..„
Table CCWE in 268.41 ....
Table 2 in 268 42
Tabto CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE in 268.41 .
TatOe 2 in 26S.42..
Tabte CCWE in 268.41
and Table 2 in 268.42.
Tabte CCWE in 268.41.
Table CCWE in 268.41
Tab* 2 in 268.42 _
TaMe CCWE in 268.41
and Table 2 in 268.42.
Taole CCWE in 268.41-..
Ta»"ccwjHn 268.41....
Regulated hazardous constituent
Aldrtn .„.„ ... . . „ „„ „ _ „, .
Arsenic. ....... .,«,.............« .„« . .........
Arser^c......«....».«« .. ,.~ . J
Afsemc. .......,™.,.m™™....,«™™-™.™.™™
Cyanides (Total) . _..
Cyanides (Amenaote) _^._™™_....™__
2-sec-8utyM.6^initrophenol (Oinoseb)
Cyanides (Total) ««.—«««..«™ ..
Cyanides (Amenable)
Carbon disuttide - . „««.««... ™™.
p4-riJoroaniline . ~~.... ... .— ™ .. -. .
Cvarudes (Total) „- .._.
Cyanides (Amenable) _.........„.„ ....
Cyanides (Total) .»..„...».„ »»..„.».....
Cyanides (Am^nabi?) , •
Arsenic. «...^.. .. . -, -™.™ ..^~ .... . ...
Qieldrin,
Arsenic „,.„,.,,.., „.,.„.««.... . „
Disulfotlin « ..„.....««...««-.. ..„«„ .
4,6-DinrtTO-o-cresol. „ «—___.._.„.
^^-OinJtroff^ool^,,,,,.,,..,,,.,,,.,.,,,..,.,.,,,.,.,.,,,,
EndosuHanl ._ _ _
EndosuHan II ,.
Endosuflan sulfaie 1
Endnn .. ,
Piujfin fllrtohyrlH ...,..„ .,„ .„, .,, „ It „ M
Rooride
HeptacriiO'.,.,...-,,.^,,,.
Heptachlor epoxide _______
Cyanides (Total).....-... .___ _._.
Cyanides (Amenable) _...___ .
Mercury....™ . . ...
Methyl paratnion.. _ ____..
Nickel™ _ _.„„„.„_.._
Cyanides (Table).™.-... .«__
Cyanides (Amenable)
Nickel .„_
p-NitrQartHw* „„„.„„„,„, ...r,...,,.,.,,.,.^..,.,^^
N-Nifrosodimettiylarrune.. ™_™_™.._
Parathion..... _. ra, »,„.»..,.
Mercury. ._ _
Pnorate ,.-..
Fampnur. _
Cyanides (Total) ™ ..„
Cyanides (Amenable)
Cyanides (Total) — .
Cyanides (Amenable)
Silver . ...__ _.__.„..___
Ethyl cyanide (Propanenitrile)
Selenium™ ... „... „„
CAS No. for
requlated
hazardous
constituent
30S-00-2
7440-38-2
7440-38-2
7440-38-2
S7-12-5
57-12-5
88-85-7
57-12-5
57-12-5
75-15-0
106-47-8
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-38-2
60-57-1
7740-38-2
29S-04-*
534-52-1
51-28-S
939-98-fl
33213-6-5
1031-07-8
72-20-8
7421-93-4
16964-48-8
76-44-8
1024-57-3
465-73-6
57-12-5
S7-12-5
7439-97-6
298-00-0
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-02-0
100-01-6
62-75-8
56-38-2
7439-97-6
298-02-2
52-85-7
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-22-4
107-12-0
7782-49-2
Wastewaters
concentra-
tion (mg/l)
"0.21
079
079
0.79
1.9
0.1
0.066
1 9
0.1
0014
0.46
1.9
0.1
1.9
0.1
079
'0017
0.79
0017
*0.28
"0.12
"0,023
"0.029
' 0.029
"00028
'0.025
35
"00012
" 0.016
"0021
1 9
0.10
0,030
0025
044
1 9
0.10
044
'0028
"0.40
0025
0030
0025
0.025
1 9
0.10
1.9
0.1
0.29
"0.24
'10
Non-
wastewaters
concentra-
tion (mg/kg!
0.068
NA
NA
NA
110
9.1
•2.5
110
9.1
NA
* 16
110
9.1
110
91
NA
*0 13
NA
•01
*160
*160
•0.066
•0.13
•0.13
*0 13
•0.13
NA
•0066
•0.066
•0066
110
9.1
NA
•01
NA
110
9.1
NA
•28
NA
•01
NA
•01
•0,1
110
9.1
110
9.1
NA
•360
NA
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
22711
TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
Waste
cooa
Pi 04
P106
P110
P113
P114
P115
PI19
P120
P121
F123
UCC2
UOC3
U004
U005
UCC9
U012
U018
U013
1:022
U024
U025
UC27
U028
Li029
UG30
U031
U032
U036
U037
U038
U039
U042
U043
U044
U045
U047
U043
LJ050
U051
U052
U057
UC60
U061
U063
UC66
U067
U068
U069
U073
U071
U072
U075
U076
U077
U079
U079
LJ080
U081
UOE2
Commercial chemical name
Silver evanida . ..
Sodium cvAPHfrr
Tctrafltbyl tear)
Thfllfio oxKtff . ,
Thallium sfltenitfl. ... . .
Tha!!ium(l)!5uriat« „ .,.,„ , ,_.....- -
Ammonia vanartate
Vanadium pentoxide . --
Sric cyanidfl • . —....—.—
'
Toyaphcne - -
Acetofw ,
Acetonrtrile _..
A^etoonpnone ..._. _ .
2-A<^4ryl^minnfiurrana _
Arrylrmrthla
Artijin? _
Pon7(a|anthrai-on^
Gf*nz9PQ
Benzoiajpyrene .
Bis(2-cft(orwthoxy)nwtnane -.-...-.
Bi<:(:>./*!nrnBthyl)ether —
8is(2-ohloroisopropyl) etner . _
Bi^p-atnylhavyl) pthfli?to
Bropv)"tyl cNorid*}
p-rhlnrnfanMhatona ,
2-Chtofnptwnol
Chryseoe— ,
Cfftosote _ _
Cresots (Crasyttc acid)
Cyclohexanone . , .
ppp
npr .
t^-Oibromoethane (EthytonodibfOfTiido) —
CH-rvbutyt phtnalatq _
n-Dichk)fot)ftft7ftnfl _.....
1 1 -Dirhlorpftthflnfl
1 l-Dtcfolorofftnytan9
1 2*Dicnloro6thyten6
Mflthytfwifl ct^lorirtft _.. ......
2 ^-pirti'OTOf^'>o'
2.6-Cicrtoroohenol
See also
Tabie CCWE in 263.41
Tabia CCWE in 268.41
and Table 2 in 268.42.
Tahifl ? in ?«aj ts>..,,.
Table CCWE in 268.41
Tab% 2 « 2*« J?
Tahto 2 in ?6?42 „
Table 2 in 268.42
Tabte 2 i" 2«fM2
Table CCWE in 268.41
Tabtfl 2 in 268.^2
Table 2 in 268.42
Tabta CCWE in 266 41
Table 2 in ?fm 47
Regulated hazardous constituent
Cyanides (Amenable)
Sifvw ,
Cyanides (Total)— - - ..-..._..
CyanidOT (Amanablfi) ,,
iPdft
Thalftim ,
S^flniijm
Thallium
VaruKtiii.Ti
Vanadium
Cyanides (Total) ,
Cyanide* (ArpanahUs) , ,
Toxflp^^na
Arntnna ....
Arolonitfilo
Af>)Tnphannna
J.Afjuyt^minofU^yapA
Arfylnnrtrila
AnHms ...
Eerzta)anttiracene ...._„.._
Benz9no
Benzo(a)pyrene ___ _
3'3(2-cnioroethoxy)rTHitfww
8w(?-C"ithyi)pW _
Bis(2-chloroisopvlopyi) ethef ... ,,,,, „
Hi«^5uithylho»yl) pttl^jjlo
Brnmnmathana (Methyl hrnmida) , ,,,,„,„
n-R.rty* oi^nhfll ,.
{•ttlQlrman (Total)
Cn*ordar>6 (alphB and 9anvi>a).w _._...
Chlofobenz9ne....H. .....„„.. , ,, ,
Oilnro^ocvjiLB'o .,,.
p^hjnroatpyl V , ,-, „ ,
\flnyi cn^Xytfl
CNnnnmathjina (Uathvl chlQoda)
5J^hlrvmn?[Jittv>U>ru>
7-TMnrnnhiinnl
Ch'yw^i
Maphltuilana
Phananthrona
Pyrana
Tnl.iana
Xylana* (Tnfal)
!«»«»
rU>o*nl ..
rmmta (m. anri p. i^otnan])
Cyflnhavnnrina
n,p'.nnn
p.p.-.nnn
n.p-janT ^ ,L
p,p-.f1f1T
n,p'-T5nn
P4C-OOD. . ._ .
o,p-.ODP
p,n-Jir,P
DrbATzn{a,h)finittfaca.na
1 ^-Oibfomo-3-ctiloropropana
12-Obromoethan» (Ethylen* dkromide)
04>fOfTK}netnane
ni-nJvityt phfhalalo
n.DichlAPOtH1"?000
m-GcWofotoenzena. M- gtt>
p-Dirhlnro^anzana .
CHcMofodifluofQffWJthafto. __„«
t 1^>rhlornathapa
i p-Ochioroffthanft
Y l-OicMoroethyfanje
trans-1^-Oichloroethylen«
Uotttytona ^hlnnXa
9,chkxoonenot
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-22-4
57-12-5
57-1 2-5
7433-92-t
7440-23-0
7782-49-2
7440-28-0
7440-62-2
7440-62-2
57-12-5
57-12-5
8001-35-1
67-64-1
75-05-8
98-86-2
53-96-3
107-13-1
62-53-3
£6-55-3
71-43-2
£0-32-8
111.91-1
111-44-4
39638-32-9
117-81-7
74-83-9
101-55-3
71-36-3
7440-47-32
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
95-57-8
218-01-9
91-20-3
87-86-5
85-01-8
129-00-0
108-88-3
7439-92-1
95-48-7
108-94-1
53-19-0
72-54-8
789-02-6
50-29-3
53-19-0
72-54-8
3424-82-d
72-55-9
53-70-3
96-1 2-ft
106-93-4
74-95-3
84-74-2
95-50-1
541-73-1
104-16 7
75-71 -8
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
156-60-5
75-09-2
120-83-2
67-65-0
Wastewatera
concur IUJK
ton (mg/l)
1 9
0.10
0.23
1 9
0.10
0.040
'0.14
1.0
'0.14
'28
'28
1 9
010
'O.OC35
023
017
•0010
"0059
'024
081
"0059
'0 14
"OC61
0036
0033
*0055
•0.54
•0.11
*0 C55
56
032
'00033
'0057
"0.10
* 0 013
0.057
'0.27
"0046
'0 19
"0055
'0.044
"0059
• 0031
•0 18
•0.031
•0028
•0028
•0032
•0037
'011
'077
036
0023
0023
'00039
• 00033
'0023
"0023
'0031
'0031
"0055
'011
"0028
'011
•054
"0068
0036
"0090
'023
'0059
'0.21
'0025
* 0054
1 0089
• 0044
'0.044
Non-
wastewaters
concen era-
Sen img/kg)
110
9.1
NA
110
9.1
NA
N'A
NA
NA
NA
NA
fO
9 1
• i 3
" 160
NA
•97
* 14O
•84
• 14
•32
•35
•82
•7 '
•72
•72
•28
•15
a !j
•26
NA
•013
•57
NA
• 14
NA
•33
• 56
•33
•56
•57
" 82
• 1 5
• 74
•15
•28
•33
NA
•56
•32
NA
•0 087
•0087
•0087
• 0 087
• 0 087
•0087
•0087
•0 087
•82
•15
15
15
•28
•6.2
6 2
•62
•7.2
72
• 72
•33
1 33
< 33
1 14
' 14
-------
22712
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1§90 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
Waste
coca
Commercial chemical name
See also
Regulated hazardous constituent
CAS No. fOf
regulated
hazardous
consmuent
Wastewatan
concentra-
tion (mg/i)
Non- •
wastewaters
concentra-
tion (mg/kg)
U083
U084
U088
U093
U101
U102
U105
U106
U107
U108
U111
U112
U117
U118
U120
U121
U127
U128
U129
U130
U131
U134
U136
U137
U138
U14Q
U141
U142
U144
U145
U146
U151
U152
U155
U1S7
U158
U159
U161
U1S2
U16S
UI68
U169
U170
U172
U174
U179
U180
U181
U183
U18S
U187
U168
U1SO
U192
U196
U203
U204
U205
U207
U208
U209
U210
U211
U214
U215
U216
U217
U220
U225
U226
U227
Diethyl phthalate
p-Otmetftylaminoazobenzane..
larts-1 ,3-OicfttofOpropylene
Table 2 in 268.42
p-DtmethytaniinoazQbenzerw -
2,4-Oimeth¥lphenol~-
phtnatate
2,4-CNnitrotoluane .-—
2,6-OWtrotoluene,
CH-ooctyl phthalate —
1.4-Ooxane.
DHHKOpyMtrosoarnine _
Ethyl acetate._.........__-
Ethyl etner
Ethyl methacrylata.
Ruorantnene
Tnchloromonoftuorometnane -
Hexacfliorabutadiena....
Lindane..««..«.—«.—..
Tnchloromonoiluorofnethane..
Hexacnlorobenzena_.
Hexachlorobutaoiene.
alpha-SHC..
beta-8HC—
Oelta-BHC™
78-87-5
10061-01-5
10081-02-6
84-86-2
60-11-7
105-67-9
131-11-3
121-14-2
606-20-2
117-34-0
123-91-1
621-64-7
141-78-6
60-29-7
S7-63-2
206-44-0
75-69-4
Hexachlorocyclopantadiene
Hexachlof ocyciopentadtene
Arsenic ..„..-...„....-
IndenoO ,2,3-c,d)pyrena,.
I oflomemana_______
Isobutyl alcohol..
Uad
Table CCWE in 268.41 „.
Table COVE in 268.41._
Table CCWE in 268.41 .„
Table CCWE in 268.41
and Table 2 in 268.42.
Lead.-
Mercury,.
87-68-3
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-39-9
77-47-7
67-72-1
16964-48-8
7440-38-2
193-39-5
74-68-4
78-83-1
120-58-1
143-50-8
7439-82-1
7439-92-1
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
3-Methylcftloanthfene.
4.4'-Metnyi6net«s(2-cM0.13
NA
NA
NA
NA
>B4
1 1.5
1 15
'35
'36
>33
' 160
'3.1
NA
' 14
' 29
« 17
1 28
'35
'35
'28
'37
'4.8
1 16
•62
'28
'22
NA
NA
'19
«42
'42
•5.6
1 5.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
'28
' 15
«S6
.A.JL. c
-------
QSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22713
TABLE CCW.—CoNsrrruEfn- CONCENTRATIONS in WASTES—Continued
Waste
code
U223
U235
U239
U240
U243
U247
Commercial chemical name
Trichforoflthyfflrw
tris-{2,3-Oibromopropyi)-pfcosphate
XytaWfl -
3,4.nichlnrpphBno«yiirB!ir; ariri
Mathn*yehlnr . ,
See also
Peculated hazardous constituent
tns^2,3-CibrarRcprepyl)-pho3phate
XyMfws
2,4-Dichloronhenoxyacetic acid
MflthOTyehlof
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
79-01-6
126-72-7
94-75-7
1888-71-7
72-43-5
Wastewatera
concentra-
tion (mg/l)
•0054
0.025
•0.32
0.72
•0035
*0.25
Non-
wastewaters
COnCouba-
600 (mg/Kg)
1 56
•0.10
'28
1 10
28
»0 *3
> Treatment standards for this organic constituent were established based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40
in accordance with applicable tecnnical requirements. A
CFR Part 264 Sufapart 0 or Part 265 Subpart 0. a based upon combustion in diet substitution units operating ti
facility may certify compliance with tftese treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR Section 266.7.
* Besed on analysis of composite samples.
9 As analyzed using SW-846 Me'Jxxl 9010; sample size: 05-10; distillation time: one hour to one hour fifteen minutes.
NA—Not Applicable.
(c) Notwithstanding the prohibitions
specified in paragraph (a) of this section,
treatment and disposal facilities may
demonstrate (and certify pursuant to
5 2S8.7(b)(5)J compliance with the
treatment standards for organic
constituents specified in this section
provided the following conditions are
satisified:
(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 O, or
based oa 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)(l) of this section: and
(3) The treatment or disposal facility
lias 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 standards 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 288
to read as follows:
Appendix IV—Organometaflic Lab
Packs
Hazardous waste with the following
EPA waste codes may be placed in an
"organometallic" or "Appendix FV lab
pack:"
POOl. P002, P003, P004. POOS. P006, P007.
F008, P009. P013, P014. P015, P016,
P017. P018, P020, P022, P023, P024,
P025, P026. P027, P028, P031, P034,
P036. P037, P038. P039, POM, P041.
P042, P043T P044, P045. P047. P048.
P049, P050. P051, P054, P056, POS7.
P058. P059, P060, P062, P063. P064,
P087,P063,P089,P370,
P073, P074, P075, F077,
F084, P085, P087. P088,
PC93, P094, P095, P096,
P099, P101. F102, P103,
P108, P109, P110, P112.
P115, P116, PI18, P119,
P123
P065, P066,
P071, F072,
P081. P082,
P089, PC92,
P097, P098,
P104. P105,
P113. P114,
P120. P122.
U001, U002, U003, UC04, U005, UOOft
U007. UOOa U009. U010, U011, U012,
U014. U015, U018, U017, U018, U019,
U020. U021. U022, U023, U024, U025,
U026, U027, U028, U029, U030. U031,
U032, U033, U034, U035. U036, U037,
U038, U039, U041. U042, U043, U044.
U045, U048, U047. U048, U049. UOSO.
UC31. U052. U053. U055, U058, U057.
U058. U059. U060. U061, U062, U083.
U064. U068. U067. U068, UC69, U070.
U071. U072. U073. U074. U075. U073,
U077. U078, U079, U080. U081, U082,
UC33, U084. U085, U086. L'087. U088.
U089. U090. U091, U092, U093. UC94.
U095. U096. U097, U098. U099, UlOl,
U102, U103, U105, U108. U107. U108,
U109. U110. Ulll, U112, U113. U114.
U115. U118. U117. U118, U119. U120.
U121. U122. U123. U124, U125. U128,
U127. U128. U129. U130, U131. U132,
U133. U134. U135. U138, U137, U136,
U137. U138. U139. U140, U141, U142.
U143, U144. U145. U148, U147, U148,
U149, U150, U152. U154, U153. U154.
U155. U156, U157, U158, U159, U160,
U161. U162. U1S4. U165. U138. U187,
U168 U169. U170. U171. L'172. U173,
U174, U176, U177. U173, U179. U180,
U181. U182, U183. U184. U183, U188
U187. U188, U189. U190, U191, U192,
U193, U194. U196. U197. U200, U201,
U202. U203, U204. U205, U206, U207,
U208, U209, U210. U211. U213, U214,
U215. U218, U217, U213. U219. U220.
U221, U222, U223, U225. U228, U227,
U228, U234. U235, U238. U237. U238,
U239. U240, U243. U244, U248, U247,
U248, U249, U328, U353, U339
F001. F002, F003, F004, F005. F008. F010,
F020, F021. F023, F024, F028, F027.
F028
K001. K002, K008, K009. K010. K011,
K013, K014. K015. K016, KC17, K013,
K019, K020. K021, K022, K023, K024,
K025, K028. K027, K028, K029, KC30,
K031, K032, K033. K034. KC35, X036.
K037. K038. K039, K040. K041, K042,
K043, K044, K045, K046. K047, K048.
K049, K050. K051, K052, K054, K060,
K081, K064. K065. K066. K069. K071,
K073, K083, K084, K085, K086, K087,
K093, K094, K095, K096, K097, K098.
K099, K101, K102, K103. K104. K105.
Kill. K112, K113. K114. K115. K116.
K117. K118, K123. K124, K125. K126.
K136
D001, D002, D003, D004, D005, D008,
D007, D008, D010. D011. D012, D013.
0014. D015, D018, D017
U032. U138. U144. U145. U143, U133,
U214, U215. U218, U217
14. Appendix V is added to part 263 to
read as follows:
Appendix V—Organic Lab Packs
Hazardous wastes with the following
EPA Hazardous Waste Code No. may be
placed in an "organic" or "Appendix V:"
P001. P002. P003, POM. POOS. P006. PC07.
P008, P009. P013. P014. P015. P018,
P017. P018, P02a P022, P023, P025,
P024. P028. P027, P028, P031, F034.
P038. P037. P038. P039. P040. P041,
P042, P043. P044. P045. P048. P047,
F048. P049. P050. P051. PC54. P057,
POS8, P059, P060, P082. P063. P064.
P064. P065, P068. P067, P068, P069.
P070. P071. P072, P073, P074. P075.
P077, P081, P082, P084. P035, PC87,
P088. P089, P092, P093. P094, P095.
P096. P097. P098. P099, P101. P102,
P103, P104. P105, P108, P109. PllO,
Pill. P112, P113. P114. P115, P116,
P113. P119, P120. P122, P123
UOOI. U002. U003, U004, U005. U006,
uoo7, uooa, uoo9, uoia uoii. uoi2,
U014. U015. U018, U017. U018, U019,
U020, U021, U022. U023, U024, U025.
U028. U027. U028, U029. U030, U031.
U033, U034. U035. U038. U037, U038.
-------
22714 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
U039, U041, U042, U043, U044. U045,
U048, U047, U048, U049, UOStt U051.
U052, U053, UOS5. U05& U057, U058.
U059, U060, U081, U062, U063, U064.
U068, U067, U06& U(»9. U070, U071.
U072, U073, U074, U075, U076, U077,
U07& U079. U080, U081, U082. U083,
U084, U085, U088. U087, U088, U089,
U090, U091, U092, U093, U094, U095,
U098, U097, U098, U099, U101. U102,
U103, U105, U106, U107, U108, U109,
U110, Ulll, U112, U113, U114. U11S,
mis, uii7, mm mm uim uizi,
U122, U123, U124, U125, U128, U127,
U128, U129, U130, U131. U132, U133,
U135, U137, U138, U139, U140, U141,
U142, U143. U147, U148, U149. UlSO,
U153, U1S4, U155, U158, U157, U158.
U159, Vim, U161, U162, U163, U164,
U165, U166, U187, U168 U189, U170,
U171. U172, U173, U174, U178, U177.
U178, U179, U180. U181. U182, U183,
U184, U185, U186 U187, U188. U189.
U190, U191. U192, U193, U194, U196,
U197, U20Q, U201, U202. U203. U205.
U206, U207, U208, U209, U210. U211.
U213, U214, U218, U219, U220, U221,
U222, U223, U22S, U228, U227, U228.
U234, U235, U236, U237, U238, U239.
U240, U243. U244, U248, U247, U24&
U249, U328, U353, U359
F001, F002, F003, F004, F005, F010, F020,
F021, F023, F024, F026, F027, F028
K001, K009, KOIO, K011, K013, K014.
K015, K016, K017, K018. KOlft K020,
K021, K022. K023, K024, K023, K028,
K027, K029, K030. K031, K032, K033,
K034, K035, K036, K037, K038, K039,
K040. K041, K042. K043, K044, K045,
K046, K047, K048, K049, K050, K051,
K052, K054. KQ60, K06S, K073, K083,
K084, K085, K086, K087, K093, K094.
K095, K096. K097, K09& K099. KlOl.
K102. K103, K104, K105. Kill. K112,
K113, K114, K115, K116, K117, K118.
K123, K124, K12S, K126, K138
D001. D012, D013, D014, D015, D016,
D017
IS, Appendix VI is added to part 268.
to read as follows:
Appendix VI—Recommended
Technologies to Achieve Deactivation of
Characteristics in Section 268,42
The treatment standard for many
subcategories of D001. DQ02, and D003
wastes as well as for K044, K045, and
K047 wastes is listed in 268.42 simply as
"Deactivation to remove the
characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, and reactivity". EPA has
determined that many technologies,
when used alone or in combination, can
achieve this standard. The following
appendix presents a partial list of these
technologies, utilizing the five letter
technology codes established in 40 CFR
268.42 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.
Waste ccxJe/subcategory
C001 Igmtabte Liquids based on 26l.21(a)(1>— Lo* TOO Nonwastewater Subcategcxy {containing 1% to <10%
TOQ.
DOOl Igratabto Uqiuds based on 26i-2l(a)(t>— igrntaOte Wastewalar Subcategoty (contajnirq <1% 7OC)._
C001 Ctrftipffrssod Gas^f bfis€\l ofl 26?.21(AK^) -«.,» .- ............. ,..i..........i ...„.,,.,...... ...T,,«..r,......,n. ..,.»..., ,.,...
P001 ignita&*Pfl«w>^*» (>»!»<> o^2fi1,?1 (111(2),. „„...„.,.,....,,„.,,.., ,....„ ,,.„,,. „ „„„„„,. „.„.,„„„..,,„, , , .,„
0001 !g^abifl OmJwwt tes^Kl wi#i pH tes» flwn o^ «„,,,,, ,- ,,-, '„ ,
0002 Alkaline StdKategory based on 26V22(aMi) with pH greater than or equal to 12.5. ._ ..._
DM2 Oltw GeTmHwift towl go 26* 22(aXZL" „ , ...^ , , „ .„„_.. :.._,.... ,..,„„.,„„„, „„,
0003 Water Readies based on 261 ^a) (2J. (3J, and (4) .»_ „ _.
0003 Reactive Sutfidos based on 26l,23Ca){S)~— ™-..™™__. .-.^. ._.-.._ ..
0003 Explosives based on 26i.23(so (6). (7% and (St.. ._„......._.__.........._ „...,-„-,_..,-...-,....,..,..,.. ...,^_
O003 Other HeacBves based on Xl.23Wt(l} „.„— „.,..„-,„ -„,„,-„„.„ , „,..,.„ „_„„,. „ ^
Nonwastawaters
RORp$ - „ ,
INC»N,,,,m „,..„-,-,„.-, .,.,,.. .
WrtTTOX , . .
CHO*0 ,-, -
8100(5 -„-„-„-,-,-, , , ,
f».8t ..«.™™....-,.«.-,r«— ...,,-, Ji -
RCGAS... . . _
INON „__„„.,.._ „.
FS UBS ,
AOGAS (b. INON ..__„. ,
AOGAS S3. (CHOXD: or CHRED)....
WTRHX „,„,„,„„ ,
CHOXD , _,
O-MPO ,,„.„, ,
STAPI, „.„., , „
INTJUl , , ,
rxopn ,n-,r,,~ , ., .,.„.,„
INC!N,,,^m ,,.„ „„„_
RCORR..
Utt-l/TR ........... , „ , . ,
INON,r-,- „.„.„„..
HflfT* „.. „ ,
INON „.,..,.„ „ „ „,„„ , ,
CHOXD _ .
CHRED ..
INCIN
STA61 .
INDN.™ . _ _
WTRRX
CHOXD. _
CHRED
CHOXD i_ ^__
CHR^D ,.. „ 4
Ui&H „ 4l ,
STABI „______,
man ™^_ ,
CHOXD_
CHRED_
INON „
CHOXD.. . ._.
CHREO . _.
Wastewaten
n.a.
RORGS
INCIN
WETOX
CHOXD
BIODG
n.a.
n.a.
CHREO
INCIN
NEUTH
INCtN
NEUTH
INCIN
CHOXD
CHBEO
INCIN
n 3.
CHOXD
CHRED
BIODG
INCIN
INCIN
CHOXD
CHRED
BIODG
CARBN
INON
CHOXD
CHHED
BIODG
CARBN
.*-*
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22715
Waste code/subcategory f Nonwastewttars
CHOXD _ _
CHRED -.
INCiN
CHOXD ......
CHRED
INCIN
CHOXO
CHRED ._ ,_ . ...
!NCiN
Wastewsters
CHOXO
CHREO
S.'ODG
CAR3N
INC!N
CHOXO
CHRED
SICDG
CARB.M
INCiN
CHOXO
CHflEO
BICDG
CAH3N
INCIN
Note: "n.a," stands for "no; apphcabie"; "ib." stands lot "tallowed By",
16. Appendix VII is added to part 258,
to read as follows:
APPENDIX VII.—EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs"
CComprehensive UsO
Waste code
California list _
California ist._
California list._
CalHomia list...
Waste category
Liquid
hazardous
wastes,
including tree
liquids
associated
witfi solid Of
sludge.
containing
free cyanides
at
concenw-
.Sons greater
than or equal
to 1.000 mg/l
or certain
metals or
compounds of
mesa metals
greater than
or equal to
the prorubttion
levels.
Liquid (aqueous)
hazardous
wastes having
• pHless
than or equal
toZ
Dilute HOC
wastewaters.
defined as
HCC-waste
mixtures that
are primarily
water and
that contain
greater than
or equal to
1,000 mg/l
but less than
10,000 mg/L
'Liquid
hazardous
waste
containing
PCSs greater
than or equal
to 50 pom.
Effective date
July 8, 1987.
July 8, 1987.
July 3, 1987.
Ju!y 8, 1987.
APPENDIX VII.— EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRS " — Continued
( Comprehensive List]
Waste code
California list._
California list-
California list ._
P<*H .„,
ncm>
notM
0004 ._
0004™—.
£ICV)A
0005 _______
rvyis
fino«
rvwi
B007
D007
pnnn
D008
0008. -
0009 _
0009 _____
CXX39 .____...
0009
Waste category
Other liquid and
rtorv liquid
hazardous
wastes
containing .
HOCs in total
concentration
greater ttian
or equal to
1,000 mg.
Soil and debris
HOCs not
from
CERCLA/
RCRA
corrective
acsons.
Soil and debris
HOCs from
CERCLA/
RCRA
corrective
actions.
All
id
AH -,-,„„, - , — -
Inorganic solid
debris.
Nonwastewater-.
Wastewater,.
Incrgaruc solid
debris.
AU others
Inorganic solid
deons.
AH others..
Inorganic solid
debris.
All others
Inorganic solid
debris.
Lead acid
batteries.
AH othefs~».
Inorganic solid
debris.
High mercury
norv
wastewater.
Low mercury
non-
wastawater.
Ail others
Effective date
Nov. 8, 1988.
JulyS, 1989.
Nov. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 199Z
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
MayS, 1992;
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
MayS, 1992.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
APPENDIX Vll. — EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs * — Continued
[Comprehensive List]
Waste coda "
0010 .
D010
0011
Don
001 2 _______
rvin
D0014_
D0015_
D0016
00017
F001-F005__
F001-F005
F001-FOOS__
FQ02* . ,
F005'
F006
F006 „.
F006
(cyanides).
Pno7
F008 ,______,
FQ10
F010 „.
F011 __.
F012
F020
F020-.
F021 — .
Waste category
norganic solid
debris.
A!l others
norganie solid
debris.
All others
AH- - ,,„„.. -
An
All-,,,,, ,„-,-,„-,-
Atl ,-,,,,
All ,.,,111::::::::::: _._
All.
All, exeepfc .____
Small quantity
generators.
RCRA
corrective
action, initial
generator's
solvent-water
mixtures.
sotvent-
oontaining
sludges and
solids, and
non
CERCLA/
RCRA
corrective
action sals
with less than
1 percent
total solvent
constituents.
Soil and debris ~
an .
AM
Wastewater
Nonwastewater—
Nonwastewator _
All
All
All ~
Sol and decns ._.
Ail others
AH
AH
All
Soil and debris.
All others...
Soil and debris .
Effective date
MayS, 1992.
Aug. S, 1990.
May S, 19S2.
Aug. B, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 19SO.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Nov. 8, 1986.
NOV. 8, 1988.
Nov. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1930.
Aug. 8. 199O.
Aug. 8, 19SO.
Aug. 8, 1988.
JulyS, 1389.
July 8. 1989.
July 8, 1989.
July a, issa.
June S, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
July 8, 1989.
Jury 8. 1989.
Aug. 8. 1390.
Nov. 8, 1990.
Nov. 8, 1S88.
Nov. 8. 1990.
-------
22718 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
APPENDIX Vll.—EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
EO IN THE LDRs«—Continued
[Comprehensive list]
Waste code
F021
F022
F022
F023
F023
F024
F024 (metals)..
F024
(dionns/
furans).
F024 — ™.-«
F025 _.___.
FQ2S...™— —
pn?f5 ,
F027— ™™— _
F027 „.
F028 __
F028 _._
F039_
F039_
KQ01
K001 (lead/
organics).
K001
KQ02.
K003..... ...,..,„„
KfiTU
KOOS*
Km7« lyr „ ,
KQ09
KQOS „....„.„ .
K010
K010
K011- —
K011.._
K011._ ...
K013..— — .
K013_— —
K013.™.— ~_
K014
Kni4 .,.,..„.,..„„
K014
KQ1* ,. ,, ,
KQ1S
K016... ,—
K01$ ,.„ .„
•"M7,,, ,„,„„,.
K018.
K018—_
K019
Koia
K020.~ ______
K020._____
K021 * ~
Xo?? , .....
KO??...... „..,...„
K022
K023
K023
K0?4 ,•.„„..,,.,..„
K024__,
Knj>^« ,
KOPfi ,„ „, „„-
K027___
K027,______
K028 _______
K028
(metals).
KOZ8_______
K029______
t«. „„„„ ,..
K029., ____
K030«_™___.
Waste category
AB others™..
Soil and debris _.
All others.
Soil and debris....
Ail others..—™
Soil and debris ...
Nonwasttwater...
All ..______.____.
All others — —
AH __„.„„___.„.
Soil and debris „..
All orTiers.-
Soil and debris-..
All others
Soil and debris—
All others.
Wastewater..
Nonwastawatef _
SoH and debris....
AH ,_.„,.. n.
All others.
All-...
AH... , ,
AM „.-,„,-„,- ..-- ,-
AM,. ,,„„,,."„-„,,-,,„
A" ,--.,. -„..„,, ,r-,M. M.
A* u, u ,„,-,„, 0,,
All , n
SoK and debris...
All others
Soil and debn»_
Allotners
Wastewater
Nonwastewater _
Soil and debris...
Wastewatei-..___,
Nonwastewater_
Soil and debris—
Wastewater .
Nonwastewater „
Soil and debris—
Wastewnw. ........
Nonwastewater-.
So* and debris—
All others-
All T,^t
Soil and debris—
All others—,
Soil and debris—
Soil and debris—
All others—™.
All _.__—)
Wastewater
Noriwastewnter -.
Soil and debris —
Soil and debris—
Aii«ntM«
Sot! and deons
All others..— —
Alt , u ,
A" ,- , - ,
So» and de-rts-
Soil and debris...
Nonwastewater ...
All others
Wastewater.
Nonwastewatar ._
Soil and debris—
Soil and deons....
Elective date
Nov. B, 1988. .
Nov. 8, 1990.
Nov. B, 1988.
Nov. 8, 1990.
Nov. 8, 1988.
June 8. 1991.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 8. 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Nov. 8, 1990.
Nov. 8. 1988.
Nov. 8. 1990.
Nov. 8. 198ft
Nov. 8, 1990.
Nov. 8, 1988.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May. 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8 1990
Aug. 8 1988.
Aug. 8. 1990
Aug. B, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
June 8. 1991.
JuneS, 1989
June 8, 1991.
June 8. 1988.
Aug 8 1990
Jura 8, 1989.
Junes, 1991.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 8, 1989.
June 8, 1991.
Aug. 8, 1990,
Junes, 1969.
JuneS, 1991.
Aug. 8, 1988.
Aug. 8, 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, 1988
Aug. 8. 1990,
JuneS, 1991.
JuneS, 1989.
Aug 8 1990.
Aug. 8. 1988.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Junes, 1991.
June 8, 19B9.
June 8, 1991.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 8, 1989.
Aug. 8. 1990.
June 8, 1989.
June 8, 1991.
Aug. 8, 1990.
APPENDIX Vll.—EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs "—Continued
[Comprehensive List]
Waste coda
K030.
K031
KQ31-. _.— ..
K032.— —_..
K033— — ..
K034.— ....
K035
K036 *..... .........
K037..— . ......
K037....... ...
K037—
K038.
KQ38.-.—_ _
K039.— ..
K039..— .—
K040...... .........
K040-— ~.
(0141 ,,,. „,,, ,
K042 „„„...
K043 ,...—„,
K043 .
KQ44— .
KQ45™— . .
K046..,.,— .....
KQ48.— —
K047. —
KQ48,™_— — _
K048.— —
K049
K049.— ..— .
KOSO ..._—
K050
KOS1
K051.™ — — ™
K052.™ ..— „
KQ52-— .
K060 «_—....
KOBiZZZI
K062
KM? ,,„,.„ ,„
KO73 ,,,„„„ „,, „
KQR-7
K084_—
K064.— —
K085.
>«»« ,,..„, ,, ,
K087—
K093...._ -™— .
K093
K094— — _.
K094
K095— _— _™
K09S.
K095.™ „— .
K096.
K096
K097
K098—
K099..
K101.
K101 _.
K102 ._—
K10Z
K103
K103
K104
K104— — .
K105 „
Waste category
All others
Wastewater
Nonwasttwater ...
AH_—
All—™
All...— .
All..— . -...-.„.
Soil and debris...
Wastewater... .
All others
SoU and debris —
All others.
Soil and debris-
All others. .
Soil and debris ....
AB others
All ,, ,,, ,, „ ,
SoH and debris-
All others.
All.™———..
All™™— .
Nonreactive
non-
wastewater.
All others— —
All ,. rrr. ,,. ,,.
Wastewater — —
Nonwastewater..
Wastewater—
Nonwastewater™
Wastewater
Nonwastewatar ._
Wastewater
Nonwastewater™
Wastawater——
Nonwastewater-.
All
Wastewater
Nonwastewater ..
AH
AH „„ .„
Wastewater
Nonwastewattr™
AM.., .,. IM MII1
A« ,, , ,
Soil and debris-
All others
Soil and debris-
All others
Sot and debris-
All others—.
Wastawater™™—
Nonwastewater..
Soil and debris—
Wastewater
Nonwastewater
Soil and debris™.
All.™™— ______ .
All,. .,„..„„ „ ,, :ll
AB „
Wamnwotor ,
Nonwastewater „.
Wastewater — —
Nonwastewater.
Soil and debris —
All others
Soil and debris-
All others
AM: .
Effective date
Aug. 8, 1986.
Aug. 8, 1990.
MayS, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990,
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. B, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1988.
June 8, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
June 8, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
JuneS, 1991.
June 8, 1S89.
Aug. 8, 19SO.
Aug. 8, 1990.
JuneS, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
Aug. S, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1986.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Nov. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Nov. S, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Nov. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Nov. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Nov. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. S, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1988.
Aug. 8, 1988.
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, 1988.
June 8, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
JuneS. 1991.
June 8, 1939.
Aug. &, 1990.
JuneB. 1989.
JuneS, 1991.
Aug. 8, 1990.
JuneB 1989
June 8, 1991.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug 6 1990
Aug. 6, 1988.
Aug 8, 1990
Aug. 8 1988
May S, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1986.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. B, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1988.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1988.
Aug. 8, 1990.
APPENDIX VII.—EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs "—Continued
[Comprehensive List]
Waste code
K106
K106. — .— _
K106
K113
K113
K114.. „.„....
K114
K11S .—
K11S
K116
K116
P001
P002...—
PQ03
POQ4
POOS
P006..._ „_..
P007.
P008
POQ3_- ____...
P010
P010
P011
PQ11 — — .
P012_
P012._— _— „„
P013 . _.
P014
P015...-.— _„.
P016......— .„—
P017
P018— —.
P020™ —_— ..
P021
P022— .— — ,_.
P023
P024
P026
P027
P028._— _™
PC 29
pnan,-. -„-,,„„,,
P031.— __—
P033.__— — „..
P034..— — _— .
PQ36._— —
RJ38
P037
P038__ .
P038—
P039
P039.._— —
P040IL
P040
PQ41
P041.__—
P042 .
PQ43 «
P043— __—
P044 .
P044, „.„.,..„....,
po4s!!
P046
P047
P048
P049
POSO
P051
P054
PQS6
P057
Waste category
High mercury
norv
wastewater.
Low mercury
non-
wastewater.
All othera — ..._,,..
Soil and debris ....
All others
Soil and debris....
All othirs.
Soil and debris....
All others.
Scri and debris.—.
All others
All __„
All
All __ .
All™..——
All ...
All—-, ,-,-,„-,,„,„
AN
All— _—_._—,
All™ ,„——„..
Wastewater. ........
Nonwastewater™
Wastewater_.
Nonwastewater _
Wastewater——..
Nonwastewaw™
All , ln .
All . „ ,„ ,
All.— :.,..,:,...;:
AH ,, „ ,„, lu „
AM,. -,- „.„„,,„,, „
All
AH _—_,__ __
All _—___—_
All— — . — — .-
All ~
All_.™___—
All ...
All.
All
AH, ,„ „ ,
All T ,
All.— „___ —
All— ——._„-
All „_— — _
Wastewater
Nonwastewater ...
All.,— ..—„.—.
Wastewater
Nonwastewater ...
Soil and debris...
AM others™
Soil and debris ...
All others.
Soil and debris..
All others
AB._
Soil and debris ...
All others _.
Soil and debris...
All others. ...
AJI,,m
All
All..
All
AH
All ,
AB ...—„_
AH ,..„....
All™—
All —. .
Effective date
May 8, 1992.
May. 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990. -
June 8. 1991.
June 8, 1989.
JuneS. 1991.
June B, 1969.
June 8, 1991.
JuneS, 1S89.
JuneS, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1i90.
Maya, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
MayS, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Junes, 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. B, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 8, 1989.
June 8, 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1960.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
June 8, 1991.
June 8. 19S9.
Junes, 1991.
June 8. 1989.
June 8, 1991.
JuneS, 1989.
Aug. 8. 1990.
JuneS. 1991.
June 8. 1989.
JuneB, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. S, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990,
i-I
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22717
APPENDIX VII.— EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LORs "—Continued
[Comprehensive List]
Waste code
P058
P059....
P060
P062
PQ62
P063 ,.
P064
P065
P065
P065.. ...
P066
P067
P068
P069 „....
P070
P071
P071_.
P072
P073
P074
P07S
P076
PQ77
P078
P081
P082
P084
PQ85..
P085
P087
P088
P089
P089
P092
P092
P092
P093
P093
P094 _
P094
P095
P095
PQ96
P097
P097
P098
FOS3 (silver)...
P099
(cyanides).
P099
(cyanides/
silver).
P101
P1Q2 „
P103
P104 (silver)....
P104
(cyanides).
P104
(cyanides/
silver).
P105
P106
P108
P1Q8
P109
P100
Waste category
All.__
All
All
Soil and debris ....
All
All
High mercury
non-
wastawater.
Low mercyry
non-
wastewater.
All others
All
All
All
All _
All
Soil and debris....
All ottiers...
Ail
All
All
All
All..____
AH.™.
AH.______
AM.__
All __„.
All
Soil and debris...
All others..............
All
•Ail „ „
Soil and debris ....
All others
High mercury
nort-
wastawater
Low mercury
non-
wastewatar
All others
Soil and debris...
All others
Soil and debris ...
AH others.
Soil and debris...
All others..... „„.
All _
Soil and debris ....
Alt others
All
Wastewater
Wastawater,.
Nonwastewater ...
All „,„_,..
All
AH
Wastewater
Wastewater
Nonwastewater ...
Ail
All
Soil and debris™.
All others. „
Soil and debrrs .„,
All otners
Effective date
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1 990.
Junes, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
June 8, 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990."
May 8, 1992.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 8, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
JuneS, 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Junes, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 8, 1991.
June 8, 1969.
MayS, 1992.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
JuneS, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 8, 1991.
June 8. 1989.
June 8, 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 8, 1989.
June 8, 1969.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. a. 1990.
June 8, 1989.
June 8, 1989.
Aug. 8, 1390.
June 8, 1989.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June a, 1991
June 8, 1989,
APPENDIX VII.— EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs • — Continued
[Comprehensive List]
Waste code
P110
P111. „...
P111._
P112
P113
P1 -J4
P1 15
P116..,.
P116 . ,„.
P118
P113,.,
P119.
P120
P121
P122
P123
U001
U002
U003 ._
U003
U004 „
U005
UOOB ...
U008
U007
U007., ....
U008
U009 . ,
U010 _.
U010 .
U01 1 ....__.
U011
U012.
U014
U014
U015...
U015
U016
U017 .
y017
yois
U019 .,
U020
U020
U021
U021
U022
U023
U024._
U025
U028
U028 ._
U027.™
U028
U028 ...
U029
U030 .
U031 ._
UQ32.
U033
U033
UQ34
UQ34
UQ35 _
UQ35
U036
U037
U038._
U03B ..
U039 . ,„
U041
U041
U042
U042
U043 ....
Waste category j Effective date
All . .....
So* and debris...
All others............
All _
Alt „
All „. ..
All
SON and debris....
All others
Soil and debris...
All others
All
All
All...
Ail _
All
All
All „
Soil and debris ....
All others —
All
All .
Soil and debris....
All others
Soil and deans ....
All others
All.. ...
Alt .
Soil and debris...
All others
Soil and debns....
All others.
All
Soil and debris...
All others.—
Soil and debris....
All others
All
Soil and debris...
All others,
All
All „
Soil and debris....
All others
Soil and debris...
All others
All..
All...™™
All..
All
Soil and debris...
All others
All . _
Soil and debris .._
All others,™. .
All
AM
All....
All _, „
Soil and debris
All others.....
Soil and debris....
All others
Soil and debris ....
All others
All
All
Soil and debris....
All others
All
Soil and debns....
All otners
Soil and aetxis...
All others
All™.
Aug. 8, 1990.
JuneS, 1991.
JuneS, 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990,
Aug. 8, 1990,
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992,
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 8, 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 199O.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992,
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 199Z
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990,
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1392.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 199i
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990,
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 6, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
June 8, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
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 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 3, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
APPENDIX VII.— EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs «— Continued
[Comprehensive List]
Waste code
U044
U045 ....
U046
U046
U047 ,
U048
U049
U049
UOSQ
U051 .....
UOS2
U053
U055
U056
UQ57
UQ58
U058 .
U059
U059
U060
U060...
U061
U061
U062
U062
U063
U064 .„
U066 „ _
U067
U068
U069
U069 —..
U070
U071
U072
U073... ...
U073
U074 ....
U074
U075
U078...
U07?
U078
U079
- U080
U081
U082
U083
U084
U085
U08S
U087 _
U087
U088
U086
U08i
U090
yogi
U091
U092
UQ92
U093
U093
U094 „
U095 _....
U095 _...
U096. .
U097 .....
U097...._
U098
U099
U101 _
U1Q2...,
U102
U103
Waste category
All „„
All
Soil and debris ....
AH others
All
All ._.
Sciland debris.™
All others.,,, _ ,
All „
All...
All... ...
All.
All
All
All
Soil and debris ....
All others
SoK and debris...
All others
Soil and debris....
All others...
Soil and debris...
All others „,.,
Soil and debris....
All others.™ .
All. ...
All
All
All
All _«__„
SoH and debns...
All others
All
All
All
Soil and debns ....
All others _.
Soil and debris...
All otners __.,
All
All ....
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All..
All
Soil and debris...
All others
Soil and debris...
All others
All
All
Soil and Debris...
All others
Son and debris...
All others
Soil and debris...
All others
All
Soil and debris...
All others
All
Soil and debris...
All others
Alt
All
All
Soil and debris...
All others
AH
Effective date
Aug. 8, 1930.
Aug. 3, 1 990.
MayS, 1392.
Aug. 8, 1890.
Aug., 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 3, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990,
Aug. a, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1 990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
JuneB. 1992.
JuneS, 1989.
MayS, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
JuneS, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
MayS, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1390.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. a. 1990,
June8, 1991.
June 8, 1989.
June 8, 1991
June 8, 1989.
Aug. B, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May a, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
MayB. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
MayB, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
MayS, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990,
May8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1390.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
i Juna 8, 1991
' June 8, 1989.
Aua, 8. 1990.
-------
22718 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
APPENDIX VII,— EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
- EDINTHELDRS* — Continued
[Comprehensive List]
Waste code
U1Q5, ..—.,—.
U106
U107
U107..
LI108
U109
U110
U1.10
U112
U113
U114
U114._
U115
U1 16. _____
U117
g,18
U119— ..
U119
U120
U1 21
lit??
LH23
U124.™ __..,
U125 -
U126
U127.._— . _
U128 _ ._
U129
U 130. __..__
U130
U131
U132
U132__
U1 33 ____._..
U134 ______
U135.— _ .
yiss —
U136- . _
U137.._
U138 ____
U140 ______
U141 _______
U142 _______
U143
yt44 ________
U 145 _______
U 146 ._______.
U 147. _____
y.aH „
U1«8____ _
U149 ______
U149 _______
U1SO
ui5o____—
U151 .____
U151
U151
U151 ..___
U1S2
U153
Waste category
All
All _..
Soil and debris....
All others. __.
All...,. . ......
All
Soil and debris....
All others .~.
All..... ,„_,_.
All
Soil and debris,...
All others „.—
All... .
Soil end debris ._
All
All
Soil and debris ....
All others.,... ....
All..,. „ ,.,_
AH
All
All _____ — —
All
AM,,. „ „„.„,..
All „ „ „„
All
Soil and debris
All QtfWf^
All
Soil and debris..
All others
All „
A|f
All
Wastewater.
Nonwastawater...
All »
All
All
*« , „ „,,,
All .______._
Soil and debris....
All
AH._.__.______.
All.— _______..
All _
Soil and debris— ,
All others™-™
Soil and debris __
All others™ ,
Soil and debris _
All others.,—.™
High mercury
non-
wastewaler.
Low mercury
non-
wastewater.
Soil and debris...
All others
All , .
Soil and debris-.
Effective date
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
JuneS. 1991.
June 8, 1989,
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. B, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 3, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8, 1992,
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. S, 1990.
Aug. S, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
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, 1390.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. S, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990,
Aug. S, 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.
May 8. 199Z
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
May 8, 1992.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
APPENDIX VI!.— EFFECTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs *— Continued
[Comprehensive List]
Waste code
U153,__._ —,, .
gi54
U 155 ..—„..._.
U156_— „ ,.
U156._._
U157
U158
U159_,_ ..
U180 .
U161 .„_._
U182
U1B3 ......
U163
U164.— ._.
U164.._
y
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22719
APPENDIX VIII—NATIONAL CAPACITY LDR VARIANCES FOR DIG WASTES • Comprehensive list—Continued
Waste cod«
Waste category
Effective date
California list ., ,
0^'f*ClfT1ia tiSi ,, i, . rnn • ,,,»,,. .. n nr. r . ... .
C^lif
-------
22720 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Effective
May 8 19SO
Self-implementing provision
Prohibition on land disposal at 3/3 at
listed wastes.
RCRA citation
3004(g)(6)(C)
Federal Register reference
tnis document.]
PART 302—DESIGNATION,
REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND
NOTIFICATION
1. The authority citation for part 302
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 102 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response. Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980,42 U.S.C. 9602: sees. 311
and 501(a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.
2. Section 302.4 is amended by adding
the following entry in alphabetical order
under the column "Hazardous
Substance" and adding as the first
footnote, footnote t to read as follows.
Footnotes 1* and 4 are republished.
§ 302.4 Designation of Hazardous
Substances.
Hazardous Substance CASRN
Statutory
Regulatory Synonyms
RO CodeT
RCRA
Waste
Number
Final RO
Category P°^1)S
Multi Source Leacriate
F033
1 (0.454)
t Indicates the statutory source as defined by 1, 2. 3, and 4 below.
<—indicates that the statutory source for designation of this hazardous substance under CERCLA is RCRA Section 3001.
1'—indicates that the 1 -pound RO is a CERCLA statutory RO.
[FR Doc. 90-12028 Filed 5-31-90; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE S5SO-SO-M
-------
OSWER DIR- N°- 9541'°°-14
Environmental Pfottcttofl Errwrgwicy Rtspons* EPA/530-SW-M-C46
*9«ncy (OS-MS) Miyl990
Off ic* of Solid Wast* "~"~" ~ """"
&EPA Environmental
Fact Sheet
FINAL RULE FOR THIRD THIRD
SCHEDULED WASTES COMPLETES
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR
LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
The fifth in a series of foe Land Disposal Restrictions (LDP) ruiemakings
establishes treatment standards and effective dates tor Third Third" wastes, including
characteristic wastes, and son hammer wastes from the First and Second Third lists.
The treatment standards apply to hazardous wastes that an land disposed, including
those that an injected Mo deep wells. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) i§
granting, at a minimum, a three month national capacity variance tor ai wastes
affected by tha rule to provide industry with time needed to comply with the new
regulations.
BACKGROUND
The 1984 amendments to the Rcf-ouree Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRAJ required EPA to establish treatment standards for all
hazardous wastes destined for land disposal. These standards must
specify a level or method of treatment which substantially reduces the
toxicity or mobility of the hazardous constituents so as to mto«mig»
long-term threats to human health and the environment.
Congress specified strict dates when particular groups of hazardous
wastes not meeting the treatment standards are prohibited from land
disposal unless the Agency finds that there will be "no migration of
hazardous constituents...for as long as the wastes remain hazardous."
With this rulemaking. the Agency has met an of the statutory deadlines
imposed BpCongress:
* On November 7, 1986, spent solvent and dloxin-bearing wastes
were regulated.
* On July 8, 1987, the "California List"* wastes were addressed.
* Except for those wastes in today*! rulemaklng. afl otter wastes
listed aa of November a 1984 were included to the land
restrictions on August 8, 1988 (First Third) and June 8,
(Second Third).
fMtann i pf 1"
Reproduced from
bast available copy-
-------
The land ban provisions will change the way that industry must man-
age their hazardous waste and has given considerable impetus to the
development of more economic and effective means of treating waste.
As a result, treatment technologies have improved rapidly and Include
methods to destroy, detoxify, or incinerate waste. In addition, hazard-
ous waste generators have developed new ways to recover and reuse
waste as well as methods to reduce the volume of hazardous waste
requiring treatment.
ACTION
The final rule specifies treatment standards and effective dates for all
Third Third waste, characteristic wastes. First and Second Third soft
hammer wastes, and five newly listed wastes. EPA also is promulgat-
ing treatment -andards for multi-source leachate and mixed hazard-
ous/radioactl. waste, and is promulgating alternate treatment stan-
dards for lab packs. The Agency has rescheduled wastes from the pe-
troleum refining industry to the Third Third and is revising existing
standards for these wastes. Previously promulgated treatment stan-
dards expressed as "no land disposal" for nonwastewaters are being
replaced with treatment levels or specified methods.
The effective date of the rule is May 8. 1990. However, SPA is grant-
ing, at a minimum, a three-month national capacity variance to the
treatment standards for all wastes affected by this rule to allow the
regulated community sufficient time to make necessary changes to
comply with the regulations. During the period of variance, wastes
that are placed in a Landfill or Into surface impoundments and do not
meet the treatment standards, must be disposed of in units that meet
the minimum technological requirements of Section 3004(o) of RCRA
(e.g.. ground-water monitoring and leachate collection) and comply
with the recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR 268.7.
For the characteristic wastes, EPA is specifying treatment levels below
the characteristic for the EP toxic pesticide nonwastewaters and reac-
tive cyanides. In addition, the Agency is specifying methods that re-
quire treatment below the characteristic level for high TOC ignitables
and for EIToxlc pesticide wastewaters. Concentrations are specified
at the characteristic level for the EP toxic metals except for selenium.
which is slightly higher than the EP level. For corrosive and remaining
ignitable and reactive, the standards require that wastes be treated so
that they no longer exhibit a characteristic.
The dilution prohibition developed for listed wastes is extended to .
characteristic wastes included in the Third Third. However, the final
rule does not prohibit dilution of characteristic wastes that are gener-
ated and managed in wastewmter treatment systems regulated under
the Clean Water Act or underground injection wells regulated under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Prohibited wastes that are treated by
2
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
inappropriate methods or sent to treatment systems that do not treat
the wastes are considered Impennissibly diluted.
With regard to characteristic wastes, dilution is permissible when
wastes are aggregated for legitimate treatment in centralized treat-
ment systems.
Treatment standards for characteristic wastes require the following:
* Wastes that carry more than one characteristic waste code
must be treated to meet the standard for each characteristic.
Listed wastes that exhibit hazardous characteristics must meet
the treatment standard for each waste code, unless each
characteristic is specifically addressed in the treatment stan-
dard for the listed waste. In addition, land disposal of a waste
that exhibits a characteristic is prohibited. The only exception
to this standard is selenium where the data only supports a
treatment level above the characteristic.
* During the period of a national capacity variance, hazardous
wastes that are subject to more than one treatment standard
must still meet the treatment standard for any waste that has
not received an extension.
* The use of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedures
(TCLP) in assessing whether a waste is subject to the Third
Third land ban rule.
The Agency is promulgating alternate treatment standards for lab
packs that contain certain prohibited organometallic and organic
wastes. These standards are expressed as a specified technology for
each of the waste categories* For the organometallic wastes, incinera-
tion, followed by treatment to meet the treatment standards for metals
(included in the alternate standard) is required. For organic wastes in-
cineration is a specified method. Generators and owners/operators
who use the alternate treatment standards for lab pack wastes are re-
quired tc^iteach waste code on the notification.
Due to inadequate treatment capacity for mixed hazardous/radioac-
tive wastes Included In the Third Third. EPA is granting a two-year
national capacity variance for these wastes. Those hazardous wastes
listed in the attached tables also are receiving a two-year national
capacity variance. Furthermore, the Agency is granting wastes from
the petroleum refining industry—EPA hazardous waste numbers
K048-KD52—a six-month national capacity variance.
-------
EPA amended 40 CFR 268.7 to allow referencing treatment standards
for all wastes except spent solvents. California List wastes, and multi-
source leaehate. The following information must be included in the
reference: EPA hazardous waste number, subcategory of the waste
code, treatability group, and CFR section where the treatment stan-
dards appear. In addition, EPA is allowing a one-time notification and
certification for small quantity generator shipments that are subject to
tolling agreements.
EPA promulgated waste analysis plan requirements for wastes treated
in 90-day tanks or containers. Persons treating prohibited wastes to
comply with treatment standards in such tanks and containers are
required to prepare a plan justifying the frequency of testing and
adhere to recordkeeping requirements.
CONCLUSION
The land disposal restrictions imposed by this rule completes the
Agency's assessment of all hazardous waste as required by the Haz-
ardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). Treatment standards
have been established for all listed and characteristic wastes that
existed when HSWA was enacted in 1984. Restricting the land dis-
posal of wastes covered by this final rule will create significant
changes in hazardous waste management, thereby minimizing threats
to human health and the environment
CONTACT
To order a copy of the Federal Register notice, or for additional infor-
mation, contact the RCRA Hotline Monday-Friday. 8:30 a.m. to 7:30
p.m., EST. The national toll-free number is (800) 424-9346; for the
hearing impaired, the number is TDD (800) 553-7672. In Washington.
D.C.. the number is (202) 382-3000 or TDD (202) 475-9652.
.*:*».
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCES
Surface-Disposed Wastes'
A.item«tlve
Treatment Technology
Acid Leaching &
Chemical Precipitation
Combustion of Sludge
Solids
Mercury Retorting
Secondary Sroe*ing
Storage Area
Thermal Recovery
Vitrification
Physical
Coda Form
0009 Low Mercury Nortwastewater
K 1 06 Low Mercury Nonwastewater
P065 Low Mercury Nortwastewater
P092 Low Mercury Nonwastewater
U1 S1 Low Mercury Nonwastewater
F039* Nonwastewater
K048* Nonwastewater
KQ49* Nonwastewater
K0501 Nonwastewater
KOS1* Nonwastewater
K052* Nonwastewater
D009 High Mercury Nonwastewater
K 1 06 High Mercury Nonwastewater
P065 High Mercury Nonwastewater
P092 High Mercury Nonwastewater •
U1 SI High Mercury Nonwastewater
0008 Lead Materials before
Secondary Smelting
0004
K031
K084
K101
K102
P010
P011
P012
P038
P038
U138
Effective
Date
May 1992
May 1992
May 1992
May 1992
May 1992
May 1992
November 1990
November 1990
November 1990
November 1990
November 1990
May 1982
May 1992
May 1992
May 1992
May 1992
May 1992
P087 Nonwastewattr/V/astewater May 1982
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewatef
Nonwastawater
Nonwaatewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater
Nonwaatewater
Nonwasttwattc
May 1992
May 1992
May 1982
May 1982
May 1982
May 1982
May 1982
May 1882
May 1!
MayH
May 1882
'EPA is granting ttteaa waste* a two-year national capacity variance, «*eei*aio!herwiae
noted. Thia table doe* not include mined ndtoedfce wattaa orioiaiiddetorii,*
-------
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCES
Attematlv
nt Technology
Deep Welt Disposed
Physical
out
0009 Low Mercury Nonwastewater May 1992
D0031 Wastewater/Nonwastewater May 1992
0003* Wastewater/Nonwastewater May 1992
0003s Wastewater/Nonwastewater May 1992
000? Wastewater/Nonwastewater May 1992
0009 High Mercury Nonwastewaters May 1992
0002* Wastewaster/Nonwastewater May 1992
Acid Leaching followed by
Chemical Precipitation
Alkaline Chtorinatton
Chemical Oxidation
followed by Chemical
Precipitation
Chemical Oxidation
followed by Chromium
Reduction and Chemical
Precipitation
Chromium Reduction
followed by Chemical
Precipitation
Mecury Retorting
Neutralization
Wet-Air Oxidation
Wet-Air Oxidation followed
by Carbon Adsorption
followed by Chemical
Precipitation; BtotogfceJ
Treatment followed by
ChemfcarPrecipilatiofi
Waste* that are deep wei deposed on-ste receive a sfe-month variance, with restrictions
effective in tmSrttr 1900.
K011 Wastewater
K013 Wastewater
K014 Wastewater/Nonwastewater
F039* Wastewater
May 1992
May 1992
May 1992
May 1992
10003 (Cyanides)
10003 (SoHV*s)
'0003 (Explosives, Water Reactive*, and Other Reactive*)
standards on August a, 1900.
•Mo*-»ourceUachate
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79
Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks
55 FR 25454-25519
June 21, 1990
(HSWA Cluster II)
Note: The Federal Register addressed by this checklist is the first of a multiphased regulatory
effort to control air emissions at new and existing hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal facilities (TSDFs). On April 26, 1991 (56 FR 19290; Revision Checklist 87), a technical
amendment for this rule was published. States are strongly encouraged to adopt the technical
corrections at the same time the Revision Checklist 79 provisions are adopted.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 260 - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
SUBPART B - DEFINITIONS
REFERENCES
add "ASTM Standard
Method for Analysis
of Reformed Gas by
Gas Chromatoqraphy"
add "ASTM Standard
Test Method for
Heat of Combustion
of Hydrocarbon
Fuels by Bomb
Calorimeter"
add "ASTM Standard
Practices for
General Techniques
of Ultraviolet-Visible
Quantitative Analysis"
add "ASTM Standard
Practices for
General Techniques of
Infrared Quantitative
Analysis"
add "ASTM Standard
Practice for Packed
Column Gas
ChromatoaraDhv"
260.11 (a)
260.11(a)
260.11 (a)
260. 11 (a)
260. 11 (a)
June 21, 1990 - Page 1 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
add "ASTM Standard
Test Method for
Aromatics in Light
Naphthas and Aviation
Gasolines by
Gas Chromatoaraphv"
Add "ASTM Standard
Test Method for
Vapor Pressure-
Temperature Relation-
ship and Initial
Decomposition
Temperature of
Liquids by
IsoteriscoDe"
add "APTI Course
415: Control of
Gaseous Emissions"
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260.11 (a)
260.11 (a)
260.11(a)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SI ATc ANALOG 15:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
insert ", AA, and BB"
after "L"; insert
"except as
provided in 261 .6(d)."
after "regulation"
in the last sentence
add new paragraph
reading "Section
261. 6(d) of this
chapter."
261.6(c){1)
, 261.6fc)(2MHn
June 21, 1990 - Page 2 of 95
DCL78.9 - 12W91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
add new paragraph
subjecting owners or
operators of RCRA
facilities to the
requirements of
Subparts AA and BB
of Part 264 or 265
if they recycle
hazardous wastes
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261 .6(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAICS IS;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MOHE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
change "which" to
"that; add
references to
264.1 034{d) and
264.1 063(d)
264.13(b)(6)
GENERAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
add references to
264.1033, 264.1052,
264.1053, and
264.1058
264.1 5(bM4)
SUBPART E - MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING
OPERATION RECORD
add references to
264.1034 and
264.1063
add references to
264,1034{c)-(f),
264.1035,
264.1063(d)-(i),
and 264.1064
264.73(bM3)
264.73(b)(6)
June 21, 1990 - Page 3 of 95
DCL79.9 - 129/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MOHi
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPi
ADDITIONAL REPORTS
add references to
Subparts
AA and BB
264.77{c)
SUBPART AA - AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR PROCESS VENTS
APPLICABILITY
1 regulations in
this subpart apply
to owners and
operators of
facilities that
treat, store or
dispose of
hazardous waste
except as provided
in 264.1
2 except for
264.1034(d)
and 264.1034(e),
Subpart AA applies
to process vents
associated with
operations managing
hazardous wastes
with at least
10-ppmw organic
concentrations if
conducted in
specific units
units subject to
the permitting
requirements of
Part 270
264.1030(a)
264.1 030(b)
264.1030(b)(1)
June 21, 1990 - Page 4 of 95
DCL78.9 - 12/9/81
-------
OSWER DIE. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
hazardous waste
recycling units
located on
hazardous waste
management facilities
otherwise subject
to Part 270
permitting
requirements
incorporation of
264.1032 through
264.1036 requirements
for permits received
under Section 3005
of RCRA prior to
December 21 , 1 990,
when permit is
reissued under
124.15 or reviewed
under 270.50;
note included
DEFINITIONS
introductory
paragraph
"air stripping
operation"
"bottoms receiver"
"closed-vent system"
"condenser"
"connector"
"continuous recorder"
"control device"
"control device
shutdown"
"distillate receiver"
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 030(bK2)
264.1030(c)
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STAtl ANAL05 IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORI
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 5 of 95
DCL79.9 - 1^9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"distillation operation"
"double block and
bleed system*
"equipment"
"flame zone"
"flow indicator"
"first attempt
at repair"
"fractionation
operation"
"hazardous waste
management unit
shutdown"
"hot well"
"In gas/vapor
service"
"in heavy liquid
service"
"in light liquid
service"
"in situ sampling
systems"
"in vacuum service"
"malfunction"
"open-ended
valve or line"
"pressure release"
"process heater"
"process vent"
"repaired"
"sensor"
"separator tank"
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
MA ic ANALOG IS:
"KSUnT"
ALENT
MORE
STRIN0ENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 6 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"solvent extraction
operation"
"startup"
"steam stripping
operation"
"surqe control tank"
"thin-film
evaporation
operation"
"vapor incinerator"
"vented"
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
stAf^ ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: PROCESS VENTS
owner or operator of
facility with process
vents meeting
certain conditions
shall either:
reduce total organic
emissions below 1.4
kq/h and 2.8 Mo/vr
using control device,
reduce total organic
emissions by 95
weight percent
264.1033 require-
ments must be met if
owner or operator
installs closed-vent
system and control
device to comply with
264.1032(a) provisions
264.1032(a)
264.1 032(a)(1)
264.1 032(a)(2)
264.1032(b)
June 21, 1990 - Page 7 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
use of engineering
calculations or
performance tests
(conforming to
264.1034(c)
requirements) may be
used for determi-
nating 1) vent
emissions and
emission reductions
or 2) total organic
compound concen-
trations achieved
by add-on control
devices
use of 264.1 034(c)
procedures to
resolve disagreements
between owner or
operator and Regional
Administrator on
vent determinations
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1032(0)
264.1032W)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
i
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: CLOSED-VENT SYSTEMS AND CONTROL DEVICES
compliance with
provisions of
264.1033 by
owners or operators
of closed-vent
systems and control
devices used to
comply with provisions
of Part 264
264.1 033(a)(1)
June 21, 1990 - Page 8 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12»8/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
preparation of an
implementation
schedule by owner
or operator, of
existing facility,
who cannot install a.
closed-vent system
and control device
to comply with
Subpart AA provisions
by effective date;
units that begin
operation after
December 21, 1990,
must comply with the
rules immediately
specification of
efficiency standards
for control device
involving vapor
recovery unless
264.1032(a)(1)
emission limits
can be attained
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 033(aK2)
264.1033(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 9 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
determination of
actual exit
velocity of a flare
using flow rate
as determined by
Reference Methods
2, 2A, 2C or 2D in
40 CFR Part 60
determination of
maximum allowed
velocity for a
flare complying with
264.1033(d)(4)(iii)
determination of
maximum allowed
velocity for an
air-assisted flare
monitoring and
inspection of
control device by
owner and operator
to ensure compliance
with 264.1033 by
implementing
specified
requirements:
installation, cali-
bration, maintenance,
and operation of a
flow indicator; where
sensor shall be
installed
specifications for
installation, cali-
bration, maintenance,
and operation of a
device to continuously
monitor control device
operation:
temperature monitor-
ing device with a
continuous recorder
for a thermal vapor
incinerator
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 033(e)(3)
264.1 033(e)(4)
264.1 033(e)(5)
264.1033(f)
264.1033(f)(1)
264.1 033(f)(2)
264,1033(0(2)0)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CtTATION
olAit ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 11 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12^9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
temperature monitor-
Ing device with a
continuous recorder for
a catalytic vapor
incinerator
heat sensing monitor-
ing device with
a continuous recorder
for a flare
temperature monitor-
ing device with a
continuous recorder
for a boiler or process
heater having a
design heat input
capacity less
than 44 MW
monitoring device with
a continuous recorder
for a boiler or process
heater having a
design heat input
capacity greater
than or equal to
44 MW
for a condenser,
either:
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder to
measure concen-
tration level of the
organic compounds
in the exhaust
vent stream
from the condenser
temperature monitor-
ing device with a
continuous recorder;
specifications
for a carbon
adsorption system,
either:
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 033(fK2)(ii)
264.1 033(f)(2)(iii)
264.1u33(f)(2Hiv)
264.1 Q33(f)(2)(v)
264.1 033(n(2)(vi)
264.1 Q33(f)(2){viMA)
264.1 033(f)(2)(vi)(B)
264.1 033(fM2)(vii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 12 of 95
DCL79.9 - 1 #9/91
-------
SPA
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder to measure
concentration level
of organic compounds
in exhaust
vent stream from
carbon bed
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder to measure
a parameter that
indicates the carbon
bed is regenerated
on a regular pre-
determined time cycle
daily inspection of
readings from
monitoring device
required by
264.1 033(f)(1) and
264.1 033{f)(2);
implement corrective
measures if
necessary
replacement of
existing carbon
in control device
by owner or operator
using a fixed-bed
carbon adsorber
that meets the
264.1035{b)(4)p)(F)
requirement
replacement of
carbon on a regular
basis by owner
or operator using
a carbon canister
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 033ffi(2Hvii)(A)
264.1 033(fl(2Uvii)(B)
264.1 033CW3)
264.1033(0)
264.1033(h)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATS ANALOG is:
EQUIV
ALENT
MORE
STRINQiNT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 13 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/S1
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitor organic
compounds daily or at
interval no greater
than 20 percent of
time required to
consume total carbon
working capacity
established at
264.1035(b)(4)(iii)(G),
whichever is longer;
replace existing
carbon when carbon
breakthrough occurs
replacement of
existing carbon
at intervals less
than design carbon
replacement interval
established as a
requirement of
264.1 035(W(4)(iii)(G)
alternative operational
or process parameter
may be monitored
If specific demonstra-
tion can be made
documentation
requirements for
owner or operator
seeking to comply with
Part 264 provisions
by using a control
device other than
a thermal vapor
incinerator, catalytic
vapor incinerator,
flare, boiler,
process heater
condenser, or carbon
adsorption system
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 033(h)(1)
264.1033(h)(2)
264.1033m
264.1033(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EQUIV
ALENT
MORI
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 14 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
design and operational
requirements for
closed-vent systems
based on 264.1 034(b)
methods
monitoring of
closed-vent systems
during initial leak
detection monitoring,
conducted by
the date that the
facility becomes
subject to 264.1033
provisions, annually,
and as requested by
Reqional Administrator
control of detectable
emissions no later
than 15 calendar days
after emission
is detected
first attempt at repair
no later than 5
calendar days
after emission is
detected
closed vent systems
and control devices
used to comply with
provisions of Subpart
AA shall be operated
at all times when
emissions may be
vented to them
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 033(k)(1)
264.1 033(M(2)
264.1 033(k)(3)
264.1 033(k)(4)
264.1033(1)
ANALOG CDS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TEST METHODS AND PROCEDURES
compliance with
264.1034 test
methods and
procedures by
owner or operator
subject to provisions
of Subpart AA
264.1034(a)
June 21, 1990 - Page 15 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
when testing a
closed-vent system
for compliance with
264.1 033(k)
requirements, comply
with following
test requirements:
monitoring in
compliance with
Reference Method 21
in 40 CFR Part 60
detection instrument
shall meet the
performance criteria
of Reference
Method 21
calibration of
instrument by
procedures specified
in Reference
Method 21
calibration gases
shall be:
zero air
mixture of methane
or n-hexane and air
at specified
concentration
background level
determined as set
forth in Reference
Method 21
instrument probe
traverse requirements
as described in
Reference
Method 21
arithmetic difference
compared with 500
ppm for compliance
determination
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 034(W
264.1034fb)(1)
264.1034(bH2)
264.1034(bK3)
264.1034(W(4)
2B4.1034(b)(4)(i)
264.1 034{b)(4Mii)
264.1 034(b)(5)
264.1 034(b){6)
264.1034(b){7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
si Are ANALOG Is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 16 of 95
DCL78.9 - 12/9/81
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
performance test
requirements to
determine compliance
with 264.1032(a)
and 264.1033(c)
reference methods
and calculation
procedures to use
when determining
total organic
compound
concentrations and
mass flow rates
Method 2 in
40 CFR Part 60
for velocity and
volumetric flow rate
Method 18 in
40 CFR Part 60
for organic content
performance tests
in three separate
runs; conditions for
conducting runs;
averaging results on a
time-weighted basis
equation for
determining
total organic
mass flow rates
equation for
determining annual
total organic
emission rate
determination of
total organic
emissions from all
process vents using
264.1 034(c)(1)(iv)
equation and
264.1 034(c)(1)(v)
equation
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1034(c)
264.1034(c)(1)
264.1 034(c)(1)(i)
264.1034(c)(1)(ii)
264.1 034(c)(1)(iii)
264.1034(c)(1)(iv)
264.1034(c)(1Mv)
264.1 034{cM1)(vi)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINOENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 17 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
recording of process
information necessary
to determine
performance test
conditions; certain
operational periods
not applicable
performance testing
facilities provided
by owner or operator
sampling ports
adequate for
264.1034(c)(1)
test methods
safe sampling
platform(s)
safe access to
samplinq platform(s)
utilities for sampling
and testing equipment
use of time-weighted
average of three runs
in making compliance
determinations;
Regional Administrator
approval needed for
average based on two
runs if a sample is
accidentally lost
or certain
conditions occur
to demonstrate a
process vent is not
subject to Subpart
AA requirements,
use one of two
methods to determine
an annual average
total organic
concentration of less
than 10 ppmw
direct measurement
using the following
procedures:
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1034(c)(2)
264.1 034(c)(3)
264.1034(c)(3)(i)
264.1 034(c)(3)(ii)
264.1034(c)(3)(iii)
264.1034(c)(3)(iv)
264.1034(c)(4)
264.1034(d)
264.1034(dH1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 18 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Method 8240
procedures
used to resolve
dispute in case
of disagreement
between owner or
operator and Regional
Administrator regarding
the determination
made in
204.1034(e)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 034(«
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOO IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
compliance with
recordkeeping
requirements
recordkeeping
requirements tor
more than one
hazardous waste
management unit
in one recordkeeping
system
information that must
be recorded in the
facility operating
record
for 264.1 Q33(a)(2)-
complying facilities,
an implementation
schedule that
includes specified
dates and rationale;
inclusion In operating
record by effective
date the facility
becomes subject to
Subpart AA provisions
up-to-date documen-
tation of 264.1032
standards
264.1 035(aH1)
264.1035(a>(2)
264.1035(b)
264.1 035(b)(1)
264.1035(bH2)
June 21, 1990 - Page 20 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
documentation of
compliance with
264.1033
information references
and sources
records including the
dates of each
compliance test
required
bv 264.1033M
if engineering
calculations are
used, a design
analysis and other
documents that
present basic control
device design
information; design
analysts addresses
vent stream
characteristics and
control device
operation
parameters
design analysis
requirements for a
thermal vapor
incinerator
design analysis
requirements for a
catalytic vapor
incinerator
design analysis
requirements for a
boiler or process
heater
design analysis
requirements for a
flare
design analysis
requirements for a
condenser
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1035(b)(4)
264.1 035(W(4)(I)
264.1 035(bH4Hii)
264.1 035(bK4)(iii)
264.1 035(b)(4Hiin(A)
264.1 035(bM4KiiiMB)
264.1 035(b)(4KiiiHC)
264.1 035(b){4Miii)(D)
264.1035(b)(4)(lii)(B
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
oTAi c ANALOQ IS:
ESUI7-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 22 of 95
DCL79J - 12/9/91
.1:41:
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
design analysis
requirements for
carbon adsorption
system that
regenerates the
carbon bed directly
onsite
design analysis
requirements for a
carbon adsorption
system that does not
regenerate the carbon
bed directly ortslte
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner or
operator regarding
operating
parameters
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner or
operator regarding
control equipment
meeting design
specifications
all test results
when performance
tests are used to
demonstrate
compliance
information to be
recorded and kept
up-to-date in the
facility operating
record for each
closed-vent system
and control device
subject to the Part
264 reputations
description and date
of each
modification
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1035(b)(4)(iii)(F)
264.1 035(bH4Xiii)(G)
264.1035(b)(4)(iv)
264.1035(b)(4){v)
264.1 035(b)(4Mv!)
264.1035(c)
264.1 035(c)m
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5i«it! ANALUO rs:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 23 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
organic emission
standards for
enclosed combustion
device; for boiler
or process heater
used as control
device, vent stream
introduced into
fiame zone
specifications for
the design and
operation of a
flare
determination of
compliance of
a flare with
the visible
emission provisions
of Subpart AA
using Reference
Method 22 in
40 CFR Part 60
calculation of
net heating value
of gas being
combusted in a
flare using
specified equation
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1033(0)
264.1 033(dH1)
264.1 033(dM2)
264.1 033(d)(3)
264,1033(d)(4Mn
264.1 033(d)(4Hii)
264.1 033(dK4Hiin
264.1 033(d)(5)
264.1 033(d)(6)
264.1 033(e)(1)
264.1 033(eH2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG B! "'
Eouv"-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 10 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
minimum of four
grab samples under
specified process
conditions
for waste generated
onsite, collect grab
samples before
exposure to the
atmosphere; for
waste generated
offsite, collect grab
samples at the Inlet
to the first waste
management unit that
receives the waste
under specific
conditions
sample analysis
using Method 9060
or 8240 of
SW-846
calculation of
time-weighted, annual
average total organic
concentration of waste
using knowledge of
the waste to
determine Its total
organic concentration
is less than 10 ppmw;
documentation of the
waste determination
is required; examples
of acceptable
documentation
guidelines for the
determination that
hazardous wastes
are managed with
time-weighted,
annual average total
organic concentrations
less than 10 ppmw
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1034(d>mm
264.1034(d)(1Mii)
264.1 034(dM1Hiii)
264.1034(dH1Hiv)
264.1034(dK2)
264,1034(e)
264.1034(e>m
264.1034(e)(2)
264.1 034(e)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATfe ANALOG IS:
EQUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINOENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
i''ii--
June 21, 1990 - Page 19 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12W91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information and
data identifying
all affected process
vents and specific
information for
each vent
information and data
supporting determina-
tions of vent
emissions and
emission reductions;
new determination
required if any action
taken increases total
emissions
a performance test
plan for owners or
operators using
test data
for determination
a description of the
determination that a
planned test will be
conducted when unit
is operating at the
highest load or
capacity level
detailed engineering
description of
closed-vent system
and control device
detailed description of
sampling and monitor-
ina procedures
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1Q35(b)(2Hi)
264.1 035(b)(2Hin
264.1035(bH3)
264.1Q35(bH3Mi)
264.1 Q35(b)(3Hi!)
264.1 035(bH3HIWA)
264.1 035(bH3)(ii)(B)
264.1 0350>)(3)(ii)(C)
264.1 035{bH3MHMD)
264.1 035(bK3)fli)(E)
264.1 035(b)(3)flH)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATI ANAU5S IS
EQUIV-
ALENT
-
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 21 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
identification of
operating parameter,
description of
monitoring device
and location diagram
for compliance with
264.1033(f)(1) and
(f)(2)
Information required
bv 264.1033(fMk)
date, time and
duration of each
period that occurs
while control
device is operating
when any .monitored
parameter exceeds
the value established
in the design
analysis
when combustion
temperature is below
760bC for a
thermal vapor
incinerator
when temperature of
vent stream is more
than 28°C below
average temperature
or when temperature
difference across
catalyst bed is less
than 80 percent of
the design average
temperature
difference for a
catalytic vapor
incinerator
boiler or process
heater
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1035(cK2)
264.1 035(cH3)
264,1 035(c)(4)
264.1035(c)(4Hi)
264.1035(c)(4)(ii)
264.1035(c)(4)(iii)
264.1035(e)(4MiiiMA)
264.1 035(c)(4)(iii)(B)
264.1 035(c)(4)(iv)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
ST Aft ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
**-> -J.
June 21, 1990 - Page 24 of 95
DCL79.8 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
flame zone
temperature is more
than 28°C below
design average
temperature
position
changes
period when the pilot
flame is not ignited
for a flare
period when organic
compounds are more
than 20 percent
greater than the
design level for
a condenser
condenser that
complies with
264.1 033{fM2)(viMB)
temperature of
exhaust vent stream
is more than 6°C
above design
average temperature
temperature of
exiting coolant fluid
is more than 6°C
above design average
temperature
period when organic
compounds are more
than 20 percent
greater than the
design level for a
carbon adsorption
system
period when vent
stream flow exceeds
predetermined
regeneration time
for a carbon
adsorption system
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 035(c)(4MvHA)
264.1Q35(eM4MivHB)
264.1035(c)(4)(v)
264.1035(c)(4)(vi)
264.1 035(cM4Mvii)
264.1 035(c)(4Kvii)(A)
264.1035(c)(4)(vH)(B)
264.1 035(e)(4)(viii)
264.1035(c)(4)(!x)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRIN0ENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 25 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79; Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPAS
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
explanation for each
period under
264.1035(c)(4) of the
cause for parameters
being exceeded and
measures
implemented
date when existing
carbon is replaced
log to record
specific dates
date of each control
device startup
and shutdown
records required
by paragraphs
264.1 035(c)(3)-(c)(8)
need be kept only
3 years
specification of
recordkeeping
requirements for
certain control
devices by
Regional Administrator
logging of information
used to determine if
process vent is
subject to 264.1032
and 264.1032{d)(2)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1035(0(5)
264.1035(c)(6)
264.1 035(c)(7)
264.1 035(cM7)(i)
264.1 035(c)(7)flf)
264.1 035(cM8)
264.1035W)
264.1035(6)
264.1035(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOQ IS:
•EdO(V-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
semiannual report
submitted by date
specified by
Regional Adminis-
trator; information
the report must
contain:
264.1036(a)
June 21, 1990 - Page 26 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
EPA ID number,
name and address
of facility
dates when design
specifications are
exceeded, duration
and cause, and
corrective
measures taken
exception to
reporting require-
ments specified in
264.1 036(a)
reserved
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 036(a)(1)
264.1 036(a)(2)
264.1036(b)
264.1037 - 264.1049
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE A7IAL05 1ST
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART BB - AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS
APPLICABILITY
owners and operators
of facilities
that treat, store
or dispose of
hazardous wastes
except as provided
in 264.1
except as provided
in 264.1 064(k),
applicability of
Subpart BB to equip-
ment that contains or
contacts hazardous
wastes with organic
concentrations of at
least 10 percent by
weight that are
managed in units or
facilities subject to
Part 270 permitting
requirements
264.1050(a)
264.1050(b)
264.1 050(b)(1)
264.1050(b)(2)
June 21, 1990 - Page 27 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
for permits received
under Section 3005
of RCRA prior to
December 21 , 1 990,
requirements of
264.1052-264.1065
must be incorporated
when permit is
reissued under 124.15
or reviewed under
270.50
equipment subject
to Subpart BB, Part
264 shall be marked
equipment in vacuum
service excluded
from requirements of
264.1052 to 264.1060
If identified
as required in
264.1 064(a)(5)
DEFINITIONS
all terms have
meaning given them
in 264.1031, the Act,
and Parts 260-266
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1050(0)
264.1 050(d)
264.1 QSOfe)
264.1051
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATe ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: PUMPS IN LIGHT LIQUID SERVICE
monthly monitoring
to detect leaks
as specified by
264.1063(b) methods
except as provided
in 264,1 052(d), (e)
and (f)
visual inspection each
calendar week
conditions
indicating a
leak is detected
264.1 052(a)(1)
264.1052(a>(2)
264.1 052(b)(1)
264.1 052(b)(2)
June 21, 1990 - Page 28 of 95
DCL79.9 - \2/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
time frame for
leak repair, except
as provided in
264.1059
first attempt
at leak repair
not to exceed
5 calendar
days after
leak detection
pump equipped with
dual mechanical seal
system that includes
a barrier fluid
system is exempt
from 264.1052(a) if
specific requirements
are met:
operational and
equipment
requirements for a
dual mechanical
seal system
organic concentra-
tion limitation
for barrier
fluid system
sensor requirement
weekly visual check
of pump
daily check of
barrier fluid
system sensor
or monthly check
of audible alarm
determination of
criterion to indicate
failure of systems
leak detection
criteria
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1052(cH1)
264.1052(C)(2)
264.1 052(d)
264.1 052(dH1)
264.1052(dH1Hi)
264.1 052(d)(1Hii)
264.1 052(d)f1)flil)
264.1052(d)(2)
264.1 052(dH3)
264.1 052(d)(4)
264.1052(dH5Ki)
264.1052(d)(5)(ii)
264.1 052(d)(6)0)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG ISt
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 29 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
repair of leak
not to exceed
15 calendar days,
except as provided
in 264.1059
first attempt at
leak repair not
to exceed 5
calendar days
after leak detection
conditions under
which pump
designated for no
detectable emissions
is exempt from
264.1052(8), (c)
and (d) requirements
pump equipped with
closed-vent system
and control device in
compliance with
264.1060 is exempt
from 264.1 052(a)-(e)
requirements
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 052(d)(6)(ii)
264.1052(d)(6)(iii)
264.1052(6)
264.1052(e)(1)
264.1052(e)(2)
264.1 052(e)(3)
264.1 052(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL08 IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQ1NT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: COMPRESSORS
seal system
requirement for
compressor, except
as provided in
264.1053(h) and (I)
specifications
for compressor
seal system
organic concentration
limitation for
barrier fluid
264.1053(3)
264.1 053(b)
264.1 053(b)(1)
264.1 053(W(2)
264,1053(b)(3)
264.1053(0
June 21, 1990 - Page 30 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/8/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
sensor
requirement
daily check of
barrier fluid
system sensor
or monthly check
of audible alarm;
daily check if
compressor located
within boundary
of unmanned site
determination of
criterion to indicate
failure of systems
leak detection
criteria
repair of leak not
to exceed 1 5
calendar days,
except as
provided in
264.1059
first attempt at
leak repair not
to exceed 5
calendar days after
leak detection
compressor equipped
with closed-vent
system and control
device in compliance
with 264.1060 is
exempt from
264.1053(a) and (b)
requirements, except
as provided in
264.1 053(0
conditions under
which compressor
designated for no
detectable emissions
is exempt from
264.1053(a) through
(h) requirements
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1053(d)
264.1053(e)(1)
264.1053(e)(2)
264.1053(f)
264.1 053(aK1)
264.1053(a)(2)
264.1053(h)
264.10530)
264.1 053(i)(1)
264.1 053(i)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 31 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
i EQU1V-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADiR
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS; PRESSURE RELIEF DEVICES IN GAS/VAPOR SERVICE
except during pressure
releases, no
detectable emission
standards for the
operation of
pressure relief device
in gas/vapor service,
as measured by
264.1063(c) method
time requirement and
criteria for
return of pressure
relief device to a
condition of no
detectable emissions,
except as provided in
264.1059
monitoring of pressure
relief device within 5
calendar days after
pressure relief to
confirm no
detectable emissions,
as measured by
264.1063(c) method
pressure relief
device equipped with
closed-vent system
and control device
in compliance with
264.1060 is exempt
from 264.1054(a)
and (b)
264.1054(a)
264.1054(b)(1)
264.1 054(bH2)
264.1054(0)
STANDARDS: SAMPLING CONNECTING SYSTEMS
sampling connecting
system equipped
with closed purge
or closed-vent
system
264.1055(a)
June 21, 1990 - Page 32 of 95
DCL78.9 -
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (eont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
return, collect and
recycle purged waste
with no detectable
emissions; control
device in compliance
with 264.1060
in situ sampling
systems exempt from
264.1055(a) and (b)
requirements
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 055(W
264,1 055(b)(1)
264.1 055(b)(2)
264.1055(b)(3)
264.1055(0)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATe ANALOG is:
££jg|y_
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: OPEN-ENDED VALVES OR LINES
each open-ended
valve or line shall be
equipped with a cap,
blind flange,
plug, or a second
valve
requirement to seal
open end at all
times except during
specified operations
operational require-
ments for open-ended
valve or line equipped
with a second valve
requirements for
bleed valve
or line when a
double block and
bleed system is used;
compliance with
264.1056(a)
264.1056(a)(1)
264.1 056(a)(2)
264.1 056(b)
264.1056(c)
June 21, 1990 - Page 33 of 95
DCL78.9 - 12/9/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL5S IS:
1CDW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: VALVES IN GAS/VAPOR SERVICE OR IN LIGHT LIQUID SERVICE
monthly monitoring
of each valve in
gas/vapor or light
liquid service using
264.1063(b) methods;
compliance with
264.1057(b)-(e),
except as provided in
264,1 057(f), (g) and
(h), 264.1061
and 264.1062
instrument reading
of 10,000 ppm or
qreater indicates leak
monitoring
requirements if
leak not detected for
two successive months
monthly monitoring
requirement if
leak detected
repair of leak not to
exceed 15 calendar
days, except
as provided in
264.1059
first attempt
at leak repair
not to exceed
5 calendar
days after
leak detection
best practices to
Include in first
attempt at repair
264.1057(a)
264.1057(b)
264.1 057(c)(1)
264.1 057(c)(2)
264.1 057WM1)
264.1 057(d)(2)
264.1057(6)
264.1057(e)(1)
264.1057(e)(2)
264.1057(e)(3)
264.1 057(e)(4)
June 21, 1990 • Page 34 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
valve designated
for no detectable
emissions under
264.1 064(g)(2)
is exempt
from 264.1057(a)
requirements
if specified
conditions are met
conditions under which
an unsafe-to-monitor
valve as described in
264.1064(h)(1) is
exempt from
264.1057(a)
requirements
conditions under which
a difficult-to-monitor
valve as described in
264.1064(h)(2) is
exempt from
264.1057(3)
requirements
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 057(f)
264.1057(f)(1)
264.1 057(f)(2)
264.1057(f)(3)
264.1057(0)
264.1 057(a)(1)
264.1 057(a)(2)
264.1 057(h)
264.1 057(h)(1)
264.1 057(h)(2)
264.1057(h)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SIAIt ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: PUMPS AND VALVES IN HEAVY LIQUID SERVICE, PRESSURE
RELIEF DEVICES IN LIGHT LIQUID OR HEAVY LIQUID SERVICE, AND FLANGES
AND OTHER CONNECTORS
monitoring of
specified pumps
and valves,
pressure relief
devices, flanges and
other connectors
within 5 days using
264.1 063 (b) methods
in case of potential
leaks
reading of 10,000
ppm or greater
indicates leak
264.1058(a)
264.1058(b)
June 21, 1990 - Page 35 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
repair of leak
not to exceed 1 5
calendar days,
except as
provided In
264.1059
first attempt
at leak repair
not to exceed
5 calendar
days after
leak detection
first attempt at
repair includes
best practices
described
under 264.1057(e)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1058(c)(1)
264.1 058(c)(2)
264.1058(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
'EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: DELAY OF REPAIR
requirements for the
delay of repair of
equipment for which
leaks have been
detected
type of equipment for
which delay of repair
allowed
conditions
under which
delay of repair of
valves allowed
conditions
under which
delay of repair of
pumps allowed
conditions for delay
of repair beyond a
hazardous waste
management unit
shutdown
264.1059(3)
264.1059(b)
264.1059(0)
264.1059(c)(1)
264.1 059(c)(2)
264.1059(d)
264.1059(d)(1)
264.1059WK2)
264.1059(0)
June 21, 1990 - Page 36 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12W91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
S6XIIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: CLOSED-VENT SYSTEMS AND CONTROL DEVICES
owners or operators
of closed-vent
systems and control
devices shall comply
with 264.1033
provisions
264.1060
ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FOR VALVES IN GAS/VAPOR SERVICE OR IN LIGHT LIQUID
SERVICE: PERCENTAGE OF VALVES ALLOWED TO LEAK
alternative standard
allowing no greater
than 2 percent of
valves to leak
for an owner or
operator subject
to 264.1057
requirements
notification,
performance test,
and repair
requirements if
an owner or operator
decides to comply with
alternative standard
monitoring
standards, leak
detection criterion
and determination of
leak percentage
when conducting
performance tests
written notification
to Regional
Administrator of
intent to follow
264.1057(a)-(e) work
practice standard
if owner or operator
decides to no longer
comolv with 264.1061
264.1061(3)
264.106Kb)
264.1 061 (b)(1)
264.1 061 (bM2)
264.1 061 (b)(3)
264.1061(0)
264.1 061 (c)(1)
264.1 061 (eK2)
264.1061(0(3)
264.1 061 (d)
June 21, 1990 - Page 37 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALUCS IS:
IOURT
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FOR VALVES IN GAS/VAPOR SERVICE OR IN LIGHT LIQUID
SERVICE: SKIP PERIOD LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR
election to comply
with 264,1062(b)(2)
and (3) alternative
work practices by
owner or operator
subject to 264.1057
requirements
notification of
Regional Administrator
.before implementing
alternative
work practice
compliance with
264.1057
requirements, except
as described
in 264.1 062(b){2)
and (b)(3)
conditions under
which an owner
or operator
may begin to skip
one of the quarterly
leak detection
periods for valves
subject to 264.1057
requirements
conditions under
which an owner
or operator may
begin to skip three
of the quarterly
leak detection
periods for valves
subject to 264.1057
requirements
264.1062(a)(1)
264.1062(aK2)
264.1 062(b)(1)
264.1062fb)(2)
264.1 062(b)(3)
June 21, 1990 - Page 38 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/8/91
-------
OSWER DIE. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
compliance with
264.1057 monthly
monitoring require-
ments if percentage
of valves leaking
exceeds 2 percent;
may elect to use
264.1062 require-
ments again
after meeting
264.1057{c){1)
requirements
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1062(b)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TEST METHODS AND PROCEDURES
compliance with test
methods and proced-
ure requirements by
owner or operator
subject to provisions
of Subpart BB
leak detection
monitoring as
required in
264.1052-264.1062
shall comply with
specified
requirements:
monitoring in
compliance with
Reference Method
21 in 40 CFR
Part 60
detection instrument
shall meet the
performance criteria
of Reference
Method 21
calibration of instru-
ment by procedures
specified in
Reference Method 21
calibration gases
shall be:
264.1063(a)
264.1 063(b)
264.1 063(b)(1)
264.1 Q63(b)f2)
264.1063(bH3)
264.1 063(b)(4)
June 21, 1990 - Page 39 of 95
DCL79.9 -
i-Ot"
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
zero air
mixture of methane
or n-hexane and
air at specified
concentration
instrument probe
traverse
requirements as
described in
Reference Method 21
test compliance
requirements for
equipment with no
detectable emissions
as required in
264.1052(e),
264.1053(1),
264.1054 and
264,1057(f)
in accordance with
264.13(b), determina-
tion by owner or
operator of whether
equipment contains
or contacts a
hazardous waste with
organic concentration
equal to or greater
than 10% by weight
using the following:
methods described
in ASTM Methods
D 2267-88,
E 169-87,
E 168-88
and E 260-85
Method 9060 or
8240 of SW-846
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1063(b)(4)(i)
264.1 063(b)(4)(if)
264.1 063(bM5)
264.1063(c)
264.1063(c)(1)
264.1 063(c){2)
264.1 063(cK3)
264.1063(0(4)
264,1 063(d)
264.1063(d)(1)
264.1 063WH2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOQ is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQiNT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 40 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
application of the
knowledge of the
nature of the
hazardous waste
stream or the process
by which It was
produced; docu-
mentation required;
examples of
documentation
determination as
specified in
264.1063(d) can be
revised only after
following
264.1063(d)(1)
or (d)(2) procedures
use of 264.1 063(d)(1)
or (d)(2) to resolve
determination
disputes between
owner or operator
and Regional
Administrator
samples used
for determination
representative
of highest expected
total organic content
hazardous waste
to determine if pumps
or valves are in light
liquid service, vapor
pressures of
constituents may be
obtained from
standard reference
texts or may be
determined by
ASTM D-2879-86
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1063(d)(3)
264.1063(6)
264.1 063(f)
264.1063(0)
264.1063(h)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
Sf ATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 41 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
performance tests
for control device
shall comply with
264.1 034(c)(1)
through (c)(4)
procedures
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1063(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT j
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
compliance with
recordkeeping
requirements
recordkeeping
requirements for
more than one
hazardous waste
management unit
in one
recordkeeping
system
specific information
that owners and
operators must record
in the facility
operatinq record
for facilities that
comply with the
provisions of
264.1 033(a){2), an
implementation
schedule as
specified in
264.1 033(a)(2>
264.1 064(a)(1)
264.1 064(aM2>
264.1064(W
264.1064{bM1)
264.1064(b)(1)m
264.1 064fb)(1)(H)
264.1 064(bH1Miii)
264.1064Cb)(1Hiv)
264.1064fbK1Hv)
264.1064(b)(1)(vi)
264,1064(b){2)
June 21, 1990 - Page 42 of 95
DCL78.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPAS
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
performance test plan
as specified in
264.1035(b)(3)
if test data
are used for
control device
demonstration
documentation of
compliance with
264.1060, including
documentation or
results specified in
264.1 035(b)(4)
information require-
ments when each
leak is detected
as specified in
264.1052,
264.1053, 264.1057
and 264.1058
inspection log
information require-
ments when each
leak is detected
as specified in
264.1052, 264.1053,
264.1057 and 264.1058
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1064(b)(3)
264.1 064(W(4)
264.1064(c)
264.1064fc>m
264.1064(c)(2)
264.1Q64(eX3)
264.1064(d)
264.1 064(d)m
264.1064(d)(2)
264.1 064fdM3)
264.1 064(d)(4)
264.1064(dH5)
264.1 064WH6)
264.1 064(d)(7)
264.1 064(d)(8)
264.1 064WH9)
264.1064(d)(10)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STAtl ANAL5S IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORI
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 43 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12W91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
for each closed-vent
system and control
device subject to
264.1060,
design documentation
and monitoring,
operating and
inspection informa-
tion recorded in
facility operating
record as specified
in 264.1 035(c)
for a control device
other than thermal
vapor incinerator,
catalytic vapor
incinerator, flare,
boiler, process
heater, condenser, or
carbon adsorption
system, Regional
Administrator will
specify appropriate
recordkeeping
requirements
information
requirements for
equipment subject to
the requirements of
264.1052 through
264.1060 to be
recorded in a log
and kept in the
facility operating
record
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1064(6)
264.1064(f)
264.1064(0)
264.1 064(a)(1)
264.1 064(a)(2)(i)
264.1064(a)(2)(ii)
264.1 064(a)(3)
264.1 064(a)(4)(i)
264.1064(a)(4)(ii)
264.1 064(q)(4)(iii)
264.1064(a)(5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 44 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic atr Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information
requirements for
valves subject to the
requirements of
264.1 057(a) and (h)
information
requirements for
valves complying
with 264.1062
additional information
requirements
criteria required
in 264.1 052(d)(5)(H)
and 264.1 053(e)(2)
and an explanation of
the design criteria
any changes to the
criteria and the
reasons for the
changes
information require-
ments to be
recorded in a log
for determining
exemptions as
provided in the
applicability section
of Subpart BB and
other specific Subparts
records of equipment
leak and operating
information need be
kept for only
three years
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1064(h)
264.1064(h)(1)
264.1 064fh)(2)
264.1064(1)
264.1064(i)m
264.1 064(i)(2)
264.1064(1)
264.1 064(i)(1)
264.1 064(i)(2)
264.1 064(k)
264,1064(k)m
264.1064(k)(2)
264.1064(k)(3)
264.1064(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
Sf ATI ANAL0S IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
i — ~.
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 45 of 95
DCL7S.9 - 12W91
tffi
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
the owner or operator
of facility subject to
Subpart BB and to
regulations at
40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart VV, or
40 CFR Part 61,
Subpart V, may
elect to determine
compliance by
documentation either
pursuant to 264.1064
or provisions of
40 CFR Part 60 or
Part 61, to the
extent that the
documentation
duplicates the
documentation
required
under Suboart BB
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 064(m>
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STAli ANALOG IS:
•EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
a semiannual report
submitted by owners
or operators to
Regional
Administrator by
specified dates
specific information
the semiannual
report must
contain
264.1065(a)
264.1065(a)(1)
264.1065(a)(2)
264.1 065(a)(2)fl)
264.1065(a)(2)(ii)
264.1065(a)(2)(iii)
264.1065(a)(3)
264.1 065(aH4)
June 21, 19iO - Page 46 of 95
DCL79.0 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
a report to Regional
Administrator
not required if,
during the semi-
annual reporting
period, leaks from
valves, pumps, and
compressors are
repaired per
264.1057(d),
264.1Q52(e) and
(d)(6) and 264.1 053(g)
requirements and the
control device does
not exceed or operate
outside 264.1064(e)
specifications for
more than 24 hours
reserved
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264,1065(b)
264.1066 - 264.1079
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 265 - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
4 add references to
265.1034(d) and
265.1063W)
265.1 3(b)(6)
GENERAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
change "items" to
"terms"; add
references to
265.1033, 265.1052,
265.1053, and
265.1058
265,15(b)(4)
June 21, 1990 - Page 47 of 95
DCL79.9 • 12/9/91
t * "
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRIN0ENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART E - MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING
OPERATION RECORD
add references to
265.1034 and
265.1063
add references to
265.1034(c)-(f).
265.1035,
265.1063(d)-,
and 265.1064
265.73(bK3)
265.73(b)f6)
ADDITIONAL REPORTS
add new paragraph
reading: "As
otherwise required
by Subparts
AA and BB."
265.77(d)
SUBPART AA - AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR PROCESS VENTS
APPLICABILITY
regulations In
this subpart apply
to owners and
operators of
facilities that
treat, store or
dispose of
hazardous waste
except as provided
in 265.1
265.1030fa)
June 21, 1990 - Page 48 of 95
DCL79.9
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
5 except for
265.1034(d)
and 265.1034(6),
Subpart AA applies
to process vents
associated with
operations managing
hazardous wastes
with at least
10-ppmw organic
concentrations if
conducted in
specific units
units subject to
the permitting
requirements of
Part 270
hazardous waste
recycling units
located on
hazardous waste
management facilities
otherwise subject
to Part 270
permitting
requirements
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1030(b)
265.1 030(b)(1)
265.1030(b)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
DEFINITIONS
all terms have
meaning given them
in 264.1031, the Act,
and Parts 260-266
265.1031
STANDARDS: PROCESS VENTS
owner or operator of
facility with process
vents meeting
certain conditions
shall either:
reduce total organic
emissions below 1.4
ka/h and 2.8 Mo/vr
265.1032(a)
265.1032(a)(1)
June 21, 1990 - Page 49 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
;
t 9
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
using control device,
reduce total organic
emissions by 95
weight percent
265.1033 require-
ments must be met if
owner or operator
installs closed-vent
system and control
device to comply with
265. 1032 (a) provisions
use of engineering
calculations or
performance tests
conforming to
265.1034(c)
requirements may be
used for determi-
nation of vent
emissions and
emission reductions
or total organic
compound concen-
trations achieved
by add-on control
devices
use of 265.1034(c)
procedures to
resolve disagreements
between owner or
operator and Regional
Administrator on
vent determinations
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1032(a)(2)
265.1032CW
265.1032fc)
265.1 032(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
51 A re ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: CLOSED-VENT SYSTEMS AND CONTROL DEVICES
compliance with
provisions of
265.1033 by
owners or operators
of closed-vent
systems and control
devices used to
comply with provisions
of Part 265
265.1033(aK1)
June 21, 1990 - Page 50 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
preparation of an
implementation
schedule by owner
or operator, of
existing facility,
who cannot install a
closed-vent system
and control device
to comply with
Subpart AA provisions
by effective date;
units that begin
operation after
December 21, 1990,
must comply with the
rules immediately
specification of
efficiency standards
for control device
involving vapor
recovery unless
265.1 032(a)(1)
emission limits
can be attained
FEDERAL RORA CITATION
265.1033(a)(2)
265.1 033(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5 1 Ale ANALOQ IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 51 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
organic emission
standards for
enclosed combustion
device; for boiler
or process heater
used as control
device, vent stream
introduced into
flame zone
specifications for
the design and
operation of a
flare
determination of
compliance of
a flare with
the visible
emission provisions
of Subpart AA
using Reference
Method 22 in
40 CFR Part 60
calculation of
net heating value
of gas being
combusted in a
flare using
specified equation
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1033(c)
265.1033WH1)
265.1 033(dH2)
265.1033{d)(3)
265.1033(d)(4)(n
265.1033(dH4)(ii)
265.1 033(dH4K«i)
265.1033WH5)
265.1 033(dH6)
265.1 033(eM1)
265.1 033(e)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
•
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STR1NQ1NT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 52 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
determination of
actual exit
velocity of a flare
using flow rate
as determined by
Reference Methods
2, 2A, 2C or 2D in
40 CFR Part 60
determination of
maximum allowed
velocity for a
flare complying with
265,1033(dH4)(iii)
determination of
maximum allowed
velocity for an
air-assisted flare
monitoring and
inspection of
control device by
owner and operator
to ensure compliance
with 265.1033 by
implementing
specified
requirements:
installation, cali-
bration, maintenance,
and operation of a
flow indicator; where
sensor shall be
installed
specifications for
installation, cali-
bration, maintenance,
and operation of a
device to continuously
monitor control device
operation:
temperature monitor-
ing device with a
continuous recorder
for a thermal vapor
incinerator
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1033(eH3)
265,1033(eM4)
2B5.1033(e)(5)
265.1 033(f)
265.1033(0(1)
265.1 033(f)(2)
265.1 033(f)(2)(i)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG tS:
feouiV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 53 of 95
DCL?9.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
temperature monitor-
ing device with a
continuous recorder for
a catalytic vapor
Incinerator
heat sensing monitor-
ing device with
a continuous recorder
for a flare
temperature monitor-
ing device with a
continuous recorder
for a boiler or process
heater having a
design heat input
capacity less
than 44 MW
monitoring device with
a continuous recorder
for a boiler or process
heater having a
design heat input
capacity greater
than or equal to
44 MW
for a condenser,
either:
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder to
measure concen-
tration level of the
organic compounds
in the exhaust
vent stream
from the condenser
temperature monitor-
ing device with a
continuous recorder;
specifications
for a carbon
adsorption system,
either:
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 033ff)(2Min
265.1033ff)(2)(ffl)
265.1033(f)(2)(iv)
265.1 Q33(fM2Hv)
265.1033(f)(2)(vi)
265.1 033m{2MviHA>
265.1 033(f)(2)(viKB)
265.1033(f)(2Kvii)
ANALOQOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 54 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/»91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder to measure
concentration level
of organic compounds
in exhaust
vent stream from
carbon bed
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder to measure
a parameter that
indicates the carbon
bed is regenerated
on a regular pre-
determined time cycle
daily inspection of
readings from
monitoring device
required by
265.1 033(f)(1) and
265.1033(f)(2);
implement corrective
measures if
necessary
replacement of
existing carbon
in control device
by owner or operator
using a fixed-bed
carbon adsorber
that meets the
265.1 035(b)(4)(iii)(F)
requirement
replacement of
carbon on a regular
basis by owner
or operator using
a carbon canister
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 033(f)(2)(vii)(A)
265.1 033(f)(2)(vii)(B)
265.1033(W3)
265.1033(a)
265.1033(h)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 55 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitor organic
compounds daily or at
interval no greater
than 20 percent of
time required to
consume total carbon
working capacity
established at
265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(G),
whichever is longer;
replace existing
carbon when carbon
breakthrouqh occurs
replacement of
existing carbon
at intervals less
than design carbon
replacement interval
established as a
requirement of
265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(G)
documentation
requirements for
owner or operator
seeking to comply with
Part 265 provisions
by using a control
device other than
a thermal vapor
incinerator, catalytic
vapor incinerator,
flare, boiler,
process heater
condenser, or carbon
adsorption system
design and operational
requirements for
closed-vent systems
based on 265.1034(b)
methods
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 033(h)Cn
265.1 033(h)(2)
265.1033(1)
265.1033(0(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 56 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO, 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring of
closed-vent systems
during initial leak
detection monitoring,
conducted by
the date that the
facility becomes
subject to 265.1033
provisions, annually,
and as requested by
Regional Administrator
control of detectable
emissions no later
than 15 calendar days
after emission
is detected
first attempt at repair
no later than 5
calendar days
after emission is
detected
closed vent systems
and control devices
used to comply with
provisions of Subpart
AA shall be operated
at all times when
emissions may be
vented to them
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 033(i)(2)
265.1033(i)(3)
265.1 033(iK4)
265.1 033(k)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TEST METHODS AND PROCEDURES
compliance with
265.1034 test
methods and
procedures by
owner or operator
subject to provisions
of SubDart AA
265.1034(a)
June 21, 1990 - Page 57 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12W91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
when testing a
closed-vent system
for compliance with
265.10330)
requirements, comply
with following
test requirements:
monitoring in
compliance with
Reference Method 21
in 40 CFR Part 60
detection instrument
shall meet the
performance criteria
of Reference
Method 21
calibration of
instrument by
procedures specified
in Reference
Method 21
calibration gases
shall be:
zero air
mixture of methane
or n-hexane and air
at specified
concentration
background level
determined as set
forth in Reference
Method 21
instrument probe
traverse requirements
as described in
Reference
Method 21
arithmetic difference
compared with 500
ppm for compliance
determination
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 034(b)
265,1 034(W(1)
265.1 034{b)(2)
265.1 034(bH3)
265,1034(b)(4)
265.1 034(bM4)(i)
265.1 034Cb)(4Hii)
265.1034(W(5)
265.1 034fb)(6)
265.1034(bH7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPi
June 21, 1990 - Page 58 of 95
DCL7B.9 - 12/8/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
performance test
requirements to
determine compliance
with 265,1032(a)
and 265.1033(c)
reference methods
and calculation
procedures to use
when determining
total organic
compound
concentrations and
mass flow rates
Method 2 in
40 CFR Part 60
for velocity and
volumetric flow rate
Method 1 8 in
40 CFR Part 60
for organic content
performance tests
in three separate
runs; conditions for
conducting runs;
averaging results on a
time-weiqhted basis
equation for
determining
total organic
mass flow rates
equation for
determining annual
total organic
emission rate
determination of
total organic
emissions from all
process vents using
265.1 034(c)(1)(iv)
equation and
265.1 034(c)(1)(v)
equation
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1034(0)
265.1 034(c)(1)
265.1034(c)(1)fi)
265.1034(c)(1)(ii)
265.1 034(c)(1)(iii)
265.1 034(c)(1)(iv)
265.1 034(c)(1)(v)
265.1 034(c)(1)(vi)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
'
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
June 21, 1990 - Page 59 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
recording of process
information necessary
to determine
performance test
conditions; certain
operational periods
not applicable
performance testing
facilities provided
by owner or operator
sampling ports
adequate for
265.1034(c)(1)
test methods
safe sampling
platform(s)
safe access to
samplinq platform(s)
utilities for sampling
and testing equipment
use of time-weighted
average of three runs
in making compliance
determinations;
Regional Administrator
approval needed for
average based on two
runs if a sample is
accidentally lost
or certain
conditions occur
to demonstrate a
process vent is not
subject to Subpart
AA requirements,
use one of two
methods to determine
an annual average
total organic
concentration of less
than 10 ppmw
direct measurement
using the following
procedures:
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 034(cM2)
265.1034(c)f3)
265.1034(cK3Hi)
265.1 034(c)(3)(ii)
265.1034(eM3)«m
265.1 034(cK3Kiv)
265.1034(cK4)
265.1 034(d)
265.1034(d)(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STAlE ANALOG IS:
B3UI7-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
i
i
|
I
i
I
June 21, 1990 - Page 60 of 95
DCL79.9 • 12/9/91
-------
DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
minimum of four
grab samples under
specified process
conditions
for waste generated
onsite, collect grab
samples before
exposure to the
atmosphere; for
waste generated
offsite, collect grab
samples at the inlet
to the first waste
management unit that
receives the waste
under specific
conditions
sample analysis
using Method 9060
or 8240 of
SW-846
calculation of
time-weighted, annual
average total organic
concentration of waste
using knowledge of
the waste to
determine Its total
organic concentration
is less than 10 ppmw;
documentation of the
waste determination
is required; examples
of acceptable
documentation
guidelines for the
determination that
hazardous wastes
are managed with
time-weighted,
annual average total
organic concentrations
less than 10 ppmw
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 034(dM1)(i)
265,1034{d)(1)Cli)
265.1 034(d)(1Hiii)
265.1034(d)(1)(iv)
265.1034(dK2)
265.1034(6)
265.1034feH1)
265.1 034(e)(2)
265.1 Q34(eH3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5T*Tf ITOtWTS
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 61 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12W91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Method 8240
procedures
used to resolve
dispute in case
of disagreement
between owner or
operator and Regional
Administrator regarding
the determination
made in
265.1034(6)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1034(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5l A Ic ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINdENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
compliance with
recordkeeping
requirements
recordkeeping
requirements for
more than one
hazardous waste
management unit
In one recordkeeping
system
information that must
be recorded in the
facility operating
record
for 265.1 033(a}(2)-
complylng facilities,
an implementation
schedule that
includes specified
dates and rationale;
inclusion in operating
record by effective
date the facility
,,»"*<«•••*-•" , iijj.jjjgtj'n ;,„
„ uOvdrt AA provisions
up-to-date documen-
tation of 265.1032
standards
265.1 035(a)(1)
265.1 035(a)(2)
265.1035(b)
265.1 035(b)(1)
265.1 035(b)(2)
June 21, 1990 - Page 62 of 95
DCL79.9 -
-------
DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information and
data identifying
all affected process
vents and specific
information for
each vent
information and data
supporting determina-
tions of vent
emissions and
emission reductions;
new determination
required if any action
taken increases total
emissions
a performance test
plan for owners or
operators using
test data
for determination
a description of the
determination that a
planned test will be
conducted when unit
is operating at the
highest toad or
capacity level
detailed engineering
description of
closed-vent system
and control device
detailed description of
sampling and monitor-
inq procedures
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 035(bK2Mi>
265.1 035(b)(2)(ii)
265.1 035(b)(3)
265.1035(b)(3)m
265.1 035(b)(3)(il)
265.1035(bK3HiWA)
265.1035(W(3HHMB)
265.1 035{b)(3Hii){C)
265.1035(bK3Hii){D)
265.1035(b)(3)(ii)(E)
265.1 035(b)(3)(iin
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG l§:
IGOW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 63 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/8/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
documentation of
compliance with
265.1033
information references
and sources
records including the
dates of each
compliance test
required
bv 265.1 033(i)
if engineering
calculations are
used, a design
analysis and other
documents that
present basic control
device design
information; design
analysis addresses
vent stream
characteristics and
control device
operation
parameters
design analysis
requirements for a
thermal vapor
incinerator
design analysis
requirements for a
catalytic vapor
incinerator
design analysis
requirements for a
boiler or process
heater
design analysis
requirements for a
flare
design analysis
requirements for a
condenser
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 035(bH4)
265.1035(b)(4Hn
265.1 035(b)(4Min
265.1 035(bH4)(lii)
265.1 035(b)(4Mim(A)
265.1035(bM4MHiHB)
265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(C)
265.1 035(b)(4)fiHHD)
265.1 035(b)(4HiiiME)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
'" STATE ANALOG 15:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 64 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
JUV.J.
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
design analysis
requirements for
carbon adsorption
system that
regenerates the
carbon bed directly
onsite
design analysis
requirements for a
carbon adsorption
system that does not
regenerate the carbon
bed directly onsite
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner or
operator regarding
operating
parameters
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner or
operator regarding
control equipment
meeting design
specifications
all test results
when performance
tests are used to
demonstrate
compliance
information to be
recorded and kept
up-to-date in the
facility operating
record for each
closed-vent system
and control device
subject to the Part
265 regulations
description and date
of each
modification
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 035(b)(4)(iii)(F)
265.1035(bK4Kiii)(G)
265.1035(b)(4Hiv)
265.1035(bH4Mv)
265.1 035(b)(4)(vi)
265.1035(0
265.1035(0(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 65 of 95
DCL79,9 - 12/9/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
identification of
operating parameter,
description of
monitoring device
and location diagram
for compliance with
265.1033(f)(1) and
(f)(2)
information required
bv 265.1033(fMi)
date, time and
duration of each
period that occurs
while control
device is operating
when any monitored
parameter exceeds
the value established
in the design
analysis
when combustion
temperature is below
760bC for a
thermal vapor
incinerator
when temperature of
vent stream is more
than 28°C below
average temperature
or when temperature
difference across
catalyst bed is less
than 80 percent of
the design average
temperature
difference for a
catalytic vapor
incinerator
boiler or process
heater
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1035(0(2)
265.1 035(cH3)
265.1035(c)(4)
265.1 035(c)(4HI)
265.1 035(c)(4)(ii)
265.1035(cM4Hiii)
265.1035(O(4Miii)(A)
265.1 035(c)(4)(iii)(B)
265.1 035(c)(4Hiv)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOS IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINSENT
!
1
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 66 of 95
DCL7S.8 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
flame zone
temperature is more
than 28°C below
design average
temperature
position
changes
period when the pilot
flame is not ignited
for a flare
period when organic
compounds are more
than 20 percent
greater than the
design level for
a condenser
condenser that
complies with
265.1 033(f)(2)(vi)(B)
temperature of
exhaust vent stream
is more than 6°C
above design
average temperature
temperature of
exiting coolant fluid
Is more than 6°C
above design average
temperature
period when organic
compounds are more
than 20 percent
greater than the
design level for a
carbon adsorption
system
period when vent
stream flow exceeds
predetermined
regeneration time
for a carbon
adsorption system
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1035(eM4MivHA)
265,1 035(c)(4Miv)(B)
265.1 035(c)(4)(v)
265.1 035{cM4Mvi)
265.1 035(cM4)(vii)
265.1 035{c)(4)(vii)(A)
265.1u35(c)(4KviiKB)
265.1 035(cH4Mviii)
265.1035(c)(4)(ix)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
swrrHOTSBTsi
EQUlV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 67 of 95
DCL78.9 - 12/9/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
explanation tor each
period under
265.1 035(c)(4) of the
cause for parameters
being exceeded and
measures
implemented
date when existing
carbon Is replaced
log to record
specific dates
date of each control
device startup
and shutdown
records required
by paragraphs
265.1035(c)(3)-(c)(8)
need be kept only
3 years
monitoring and
inspection Infor-
mation for control
device other than
a thermal vapor
incinerator,
catalytic vapor
incinerator, flare,
boiler, process
heater, condenser,
or carbon adsorption
system must be
recorded in the
facility
operating record
logging of information
used to determine if
process vent is
subject to 265.1032
and 265.1 032(d)(2)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1035{eM5)
265.1 035(c)(6)
265.1 035(c)(7)
265.1 035(cM7)(i)
265.1035(c)(7MH)
265.1 035(cH8)
265.1 035(d>
265.1035(6)
265.1035(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG 15:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21,'1990 - Page 68 of 95
DCL78.8 -
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
reserved
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1036 - 265.1049
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART BB - AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS
APPLICABILITY
owners and operators
of facilities
that treat, store
or dispose of
hazardous wastes
except as provided
in 265.1
except as provided
in 265.1064(j),
applicability of
Subpart BB to equip-
ment that contains or
contacts hazardous
wastes with organic
concentrations of at
least 10 percent by
weight that are
managed in units or
facilities subject to
Part 270 permitting
requirements
equipment subject
to Subpart BB, Part
265 shall be marked
equipment in vacuum
service excluded
from requirements of
265.1052 to 265.1060
requirements if
identified
as required in
265.1064(oK5)
265.1 050(a)
265.1050(b)
265.1 050(b)(1)
265.1 050(b)(2)
265.1050(c)
265.1050{d)
DEFINITIONS
all terms have
meaning given them
in 264.1031, the Act,
and Parts 260-266
265.1051
June 21, 1990 - Page 69 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
§"Af6 ANALOG IS:
EOUTf-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: PUMPS IN UGHT LIQUID SERVICE
monthly monitoring
to detect leaks
as specified by
265.1063(b) methods
except as provided
in 265.1 052(d), (e)
and (f)
visual inspection each
calendar week
conditions
indicating a
leak is detected
time frame for
leak repair, except
as provided in
265.1059
first attempt
at leak repair
not to exceed
5 calendar
days after
leak detection
pump equipped with
dual mechanical seal
system that includes
a barrier fluid
system is exempt
from 265.1052(a) if
specific requirements
are met;
operational and
equipment
requirements for a
dual mechanical
seal system
265.1052(aH1)
265.1 052(aK2)
265.1 052(bX1)
265.1 052(b)(2)
265.1 052(c)m
265.1Q52(eM2)
265.1 052(d)
265.1052(0(1)
265.1 OS2(dK1Mi)
265.1052(d)(1)(ii)
265.1052(dH1)Oii)
June 21, 1990 - Page 70 of 95
DCL79.S - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment teaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
organic concentra-
tion limitation
for barrier
fluid system
sensor requirement
weekly visual check
of pump
daily check of
barrier fluid
system sensor
or monthly check
of audible alarm
determination of
criterion to indicate
failure of systems
leak detection
criteria
repair of leak
not to exceed
1 5 calendar days,
except as provided
in 265.1059
first attempt at
leak repair not
to exceed 5
calendar days
after teak aeteotion
8 conditions under
which pump
designated for no
detectable emissions
is exempt from
265.1052(a), (c)
and (d) requirements
pump equipped with
closed-vent system
and control device in
compliance with
265.1060 is exempt
from 265.1052(a)-(e)
requirements
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 052(dH2)
265.1 052(d)(3)
265.1 052(dH4)
265.1 052(dM5Mi)
265.1 052(d)(5)(ii)
265.1 052(d)(6)(i)
265.1 052(d)(6)(ii)
265.1 052 fenreuun
265.1052(6)
265.1052(e)m
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
265.1052(e)(2) |
!
265.1052(6) (3)
265.1 052(f)
STATE ANALOG IS:
EWjlV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 71 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
STANDARDS: COMPRESSORS
seal system
requirement for
compressor, except
as provided in
265.1 053(h) and fi)
specifications
for compressor
seal system
organic concentration
limitation for
barrier fluid
sensor
requirement
daily check of
barrier fluid
system sensor
or monthly check
of audible alarm;
daily check if
compressor located
within boundary
of unmanned site
determination of
criterion to indicate
failure of systems
leak detection
criteria
repair of leak not
to exceed 15
calendar days,
except as
provided in
265.1059
first attempt at
leak repair not
to exceed 5
calendar days after
leak detection
265.1053(3)
265,1053(b)
265.1053(b)(1)
265.1053(b)(2)
265.1 053(b)(3)
265.1053(C)
265.1053(d)
265.1()53fe)<1>
265.1053(e)(2)
265.1053m
265.1053(aU1)
265.1 053(a)(2)
ANALOQOUS
STATE CITATION
SIAIfc ANALOG IS:
EQUlV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 72 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/8/91
-------
DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
compressor equipped
with closed-vent
system and control
device in compliance
with 265.1060 is
exempt from
265.1Q53(a) and (b)
requirements, except
as provided in
265.10530)
conditions under
which compressor
designated for no
detectable emissions
is exempt from
265.1053(a) through
(h) requirements
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 053(h)
265.1053{i)
265,1053(0(1)
265.1053(0(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: PRESSURE RELIEF DEVICES IN GAS/VAPOR SERVICE
except during pressure
releases, no
detectable emission
standards for the
operation of
pressure relief device
in gas/vapor service,
as measured by
265.1063(c) method
26S.1054(a)
time requirement and
criteria for
return of pressure
relief device to a
condition of no
detectable emissions,
except as provided in
265.1059
265.1054(b)(1)
monitoring of pressure
relief device within 5
calendar days after
pressure relief to
confirm no
detectable emissions,
as measured by
265.1063(c) method
265.1054(b)(2)
June 21, 1990 - Page 73 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
a ol
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
pressure relief
device equipped with
closed-vent system
and control device
in compliance with
265.1060 is exempt
from 265.1054(a)
and (b)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1054(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
51 Ale ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: SAMPLING CONNECTING SYSTEMS
sampling connecting
system equipped
with closed purge
or closed-vent
system
return, collect and
recycle purged waste
with no detectable
emissions; control
device in compliance
with 265.1060
in situ sampling
systems exempt from
265.1055(8) and (b)
requirements
265.1055(8)
265.1055(b)
265.1055fbH1>
265.1055(b)(2)
265.1055(b)(3)
265.1055(c)
STANDARDS: OPEN-ENDED VALVES OR LINES
each open-ended
valve or line shall be
equipped with a cap,
blind flange,
plug, or a second
valve
requirement to seal
open end at all
times except during
specified operations
operational require-
ments for open-ended
valve or line equipped
with a second valve
265.1056(aH1)
265.1 056(a)(2)
265.1056(b)
June 21, 1990 - Page 74 of 95
DCL78.B - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIE. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
requirements for
bleed valve
or line when a
double block and
bleed system is used;
compliance with
265,1056(3)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
285.1056(0)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
ST ATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: VALVES IN GAS/VAPOR SERVICE OR IN LIGHT LIQUID SERVICE
monthly monitoring
of each valve In
gas/vapor or light
liquid service using
265.1063(b) methods;
compliance with
265.1057(b)-(e),
except as provided in
265.1057(f), (g) and
(h), 265.1061
and 265.1062
instrument reading
of 10,000 ppm or
qreater indicates leak
monitoring
requirements if
leak not detected for
two successive months
monthly monitoring
requirement if
leak detected
repair of leak not to
exceed 15 calendar
days, except
as provided in
265.1059
first attempt
at leak repair
not to exceed
5 calendar
days after
leak detection
265.1057(a)
265.1057(b)
265.1 057(c)(1)
265.1057(C)(2)
265.1057(d)(D*
265.1 057(d)(2)
June 21, 1990 - Page 75 of 95
DCL79.S - 12/9/81
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (corrt'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
best practices to
include in first
attempt at repair
valve designated
for no detectable
emissions under
265.1 064(g)(2)
is exempt
from 265.1057(a)
requirements
if specified
conditions are met
conditions under which
an unsafe-to- monitor
vatve as described in
265.1 064(h)(1) Is
exempt from
265.1057(a)
requirements
conditions under which
a difflcult-to-monitor
valve as described in
265.1 064(h)(2) is
exempt from
265.1057(a)
requirements
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1057(e)
265.1057(e)(1)
265.1057(e)(2)
265.1057(e)(3)
265.1 057(eK4)
265.1 057(0
265.1 057(f)(1)
265.1 057(ft(2)
265.1 057(f)(3)
265.1057(0)
265.1Q57ta)(1)
265.1057(0X2)
265.1 057(h)
265.1 057(h)(1)
265.1057(h)(2)
265,1057(h)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATS ANALOG IS:
EoUIV^
ALENT
MORE
STRINOENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 76 of 95
DC179.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ECU IV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: PUMPS AND VALVES IN HEAVY LIQUID SERVICE, PRESSURE
RELIEF DEVICES IN LIGHT LIQUID OR HEAVY LIQUID SERVICE, AND FLANGES
AND OTHER CONNECTORS
monitoring of
specified pumps
and valves,
pressure relief
devices, flanges and
other connectors
within 5 days using
265.1063(b) methods
in case of potential
leaks
reading of 10,000
ppm or greater
indicates leak
repair of leak
not to exceed 1 5
calendar days,
except as
provided in
265.1059
first attempt
at leak repair
not to exceed
5 calendar
days after
leak detection
first attempt at
repair includes
best practices
described
under 265.1057(e)
265.1058(a)
265.1 058(b)
265.1 058(c)(1)
265.1 058(c)(2)
265.1058(d)
STANDARDS: DELAY OF REPAIR
requirements for the
delay of repair of
equipment for which
leaks have been
detected
type of equipment for
which delay of repair
allowed
265.1059(a)
265.1059(b)
June 21, 1990 - Page 77 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
conditions
under which
delay of repair of
valves allowed
conditions
under which
delay of repair of
pumps allowed
conditions for delay
of repair beyond a
hazardous waste
management unit
shutdown
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1059(c)
265.1 059(e)(1)
265.1059(0(2)
265.1059(d)
265.1059(d)(1)
265.1059(d)(2)
265.1059(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
Si ATE ANALUQ is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRIN0ENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: CLOSED-VENT SYSTEMS AND CONTROL DEVICES
owners or operators
of closed-vent
systems and control
devices shall comply
with 265.1033
provisions
265.1060
ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FOR VALVES IN GAS/VAPOR SERVICE OR IN LIGHT LIQUID
SERVICE: PERCENTAGE OF VALVES ALLOWED TO LEAK
alternative standard
allowing no greater
than 2 percent of
valves to leak
tor an owner or
operator subject
to 265.1057
requirements
notification,
performance test,
and repair
requirements if
an owner or operator
decides to comply with
alternative standard
265,1061(a)
265.106Kb)
265.1061 (W(1)
265.1061 (b)(2)
265.1 061 (b)(3)
June 21, 1990 - Page 78 of 95
DCL78.9 - 12/9/81
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79; Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring
standards, leak
detection criterion
and determination of
leak percentage
when conducting
performance tests
written notification
to Regional
Administrator of
intent to follow
265.1057(a)-(e) work
practice standard
if owner or operator
decides to no longer
comply with 265.1061
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1061(0)
265.1 061 (C)(1)
265.1 061 (cM2)
265.1 061 (cH3)
265.1 061 (d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE INAL5Q IS:
"EQUlV-
ALENT
I
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FOR VALVES IN GAS/VAPOR SERVICE OR IN LIGHT LIQUID
SERVICE: SKIP PERIOD LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR
election to comply
with 265.1062{b)(2)
and (3) alternative
work practices by
owner or operator
subject to 265.1057
requirements
notification of
Regional Administrator
before implementing
alternative
work practice
compliance with
265.1057
requirements, except
as described
in 265.1 062(b)(2)
and (b)(3)
265.1062(aM1)
265.1062(a)(2)
265.1062(b)(1)
June 21, 1990 - Page 79 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
JHJ
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79; Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUlREMf NT
conditions under
which an owner
or operator
may begin to skip
one of the quarterly
leak detection
periods for valves
subject to 265.1057
requirements
conditions under
which an owner
or operator may
begin to skip three
of the quarterly
teak detection
periods for valves
subject to 265.1057
requirements
compliance with
265.1057 monthly
monitoring require-
ments If percentage
of valves leaking
exceeds 2 percent;
may elect to use
265.1062 require-
ments again
after meeting
265.1 057(c)(1)
requirements
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 062(b)(2>
265.1Q62(bM3)
265.1 062(bH4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG is;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TEST METHODS AND PROCEDURES
compliance with test
methods and procedure
requirements by owner
or operator subject
to provisions of
Subpart BB
265.1063(a)
June 21, 1990 - Page 80 of 95
DCL79.9
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
leak detection
monitoring as
required in
265.1052-265.1062
shall comply
with specified
requirements:
monitoring in
compliance with
Reference Method
21 in 40 CFR
Part 60
detection instrument
shall meet the
performance criteria
of Reference
Method 21
calibration of instru-
ment by procedures
specified in
Reference Method 21
calibration gases
shall be:
zero air
mixture of methane
or n-hexane and
air at specified
concentration
instrument probe
traverse
requirements as
described in
Reference Method 21
test compliance
requirements for
equipment with no
detectable emissions
as required in
265.1052(6),
265.1053(i),
265.1054 and
265.1057(f)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1063(b)
265.1 063(b)(1)
265.1 063(b)(2)
265.1063(b)(3)
265.1063(b)(4)
265.1 063(b)(4)(i)
265.1 063(b)(4)(ii)
265.1 063(b)(5)
265.1063(c)
265.1 063(c)(1)
265.1063(C)(2)
265.1063(c)(3)
265.1 063(c)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 81 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12^9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
in accordance with
265.1 3(b), determina-
tion by owner or
operator of whether
equipment contains
or contacts a
hazardous waste with
organic concentration
equal to or greater
than 10% by weight
using the following:
methods described
in ASTM Methods
D 2267-88,
E 169-87,
E 168-88
and E 260-85
Method 9060 or
8240 of SW-846
application of the
knowledge of the
nature of the
hazardous waste
stream or the process
by which it was
produced; docu-
mentation required;
examples of
documentation
determination as
specified in
265.1063(d) can be
revised only after
following
265.1063(d)(1)
or (d)(2) procedures
use of 265.1 063(d)(1)
or (d)(2) to resolve
determination
disputes between
owner or operator
and Regional
Administrator
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 063(d)
265.1063(d)(1)
265.1 063(d)(2)
265.1 063(d)(3)
265.1063(e)
265.1 063(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 82 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
samples used
for determination
representative
of highest expected
total organic content
hazardous waste
to determine if pumps
or valves are in light
liquid service, vapor
pressures of
constituents may be
obtained from
standard reference
texts or may be
determined by
ASTM D-2879-86
performance tests
for control device
shall comply with
265.1034(c)(1)
through (c)(4)
procedures
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1063(0)
265.1063(h)
265.1063(i)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV- MORE
ALENT | STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
compliance with
recordkeeping
requirements
265.1064(a)(1)
recordkeeping
requirements for
more than one
hazardous waste
management unit
in one
recordkeeping
system
265.1064(a)(2)
June 21, 1990 - Page 83 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9 ,
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
specific information
that owners and
operators must record
in the facility
operating record
for facilities that
comply with the
provisions of
265.1 033(a)(2), an
Implementation
schedule as
specified in
265.1033(aH2)
performance test plan
as specified in
265.1 035(b)(3)
if test data
are used for
control device
demonstration
documentation of
compliance with
265.1060, including
documentation or
results specified in
265.1035(bH4)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 064CW
265.1064(b)(1)
265.1 064(b)(1)(i)
265.1 064(bH1 XH)
265.1064(b)(1)(iii)
265.1064(bM1)(iv)
265,1064(bH1)(v)
265.1064(bM1Mvi)
265.1064(bH2)
265.1064(bH3)
265.1 064(bK4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG is:
'EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCQPi
June 21, 1990 - Page 84 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
9 Information require-
ments when each
leak is detected
as specified in
265.1052,
265.1053, 265.1057
and 265.1058
inspection log
information require-
ments when each
leak is detected
as specified in
265.1052, 265.1053,
265.1057 and 265.1058
for each closed-vent
system and control
device subject to
265.1060,
design documentation
and monitoring,
operating and
inspection informa-
tion recorded In
facility operating
record as specified
in 265.1035(c)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1064(c)
265.1 064(cK1)
265.1064(c)(2)
265.1064(c)(3)
265.1064(d)
265.1064(d)(1)
265.1 064WK2)
265.1 064(d)(3)
265.1064(d)(4)
265.1 064(d)(5)
265.1 064(d)(6)
265.1 064WH7)
265.1064(d)(8)
265.1064(d)(9)
265.1064(d)(10)
265.1064(e)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATI AWSSTSI
IQUIV-
ALENT
MOflB
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
'
June 21, 1990 - Page 85 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring and
inspection Infor-
mation for control
device other than
a thermal vapor
incinerator,
catalytic vapor
incinerator, flare,
boiler, process
heater, condenser,
or carbon adsorption
system must be
recorded in the
facility
operating record
information
requirements for
equipment subject to
the requirements of
265.1052 through
265.1060 to be
recorded in a log
and kept in the
facility operating
record
information
requirements for
valves subject to the
requirements of
265.1057(0) and (h)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1064m
265.1064(0)
265.1 064(aH1)
265.1064(a)(2)(i)
265.1064ta)(2Min
265.1 064(crt(3)
265.1 064{a)(4)(i)
265.1 064(a)(4)(ii)
265.1 064(aH4)(iii)
265.1064(aM5)
265.1 064(h)
265.1064(h)(1)
265.1 064(h)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOQ IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 86 of 95
DCL78.9 - 12W91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Information
requirements for
valves complying
with 265.1062
additional information
requirements
criteria required
in 265.1 052(d)(5)(ii)
and 265.1053(e)(2)
and an explanation of
the design criteria
any changes to the
criteria and the
reasons for the
changes
information require-
ments to be
recorded in a log
for determining
exemptions as
provided in the
applicability section
of Subpart BB and
other specific Subpart s
records of equipment
leak and operating
information need be
kept for only
three ^ears
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1064(1)
265.1064(0(1)
265.1 064{i)(2)
265.1064(1)
265.1064(i)(1)
265.1064(i)(2)
265.1064(k)
265.1064(k)(1)
265.1 064(k)(2)
265.1 064(k)(3)
265.1064(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 87 of 95
DCL79.9 • 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
the owner or operator
of facility subject to
Subpart BB and to
regulations at
40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart W, or
40 CFR Part 61,
Subpart V, may
elect to determine
compliance by
documentation either
pursuant to 265.1064
or provisions of
40 CFR Part 60 or
Part 61 , to the
extent that the
documentation
duplicates the
documentation
required
under Subpart BB
reserved
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 064(m)
265.1065 - 265.1079
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL
EQUIV- MORI
ALENT I STRINQENT
OG Is:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 270 - EPA-ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS:
THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM
SUBPART B - PERMIT APPLICATION
CONTENTS OF PART B: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
add references to
264.1033, 264.1052,
264.1053 and
264.1 OSS
remove "and" at the
end of paragraph
insert "; and" at the
end of paragraph
add new paragraph
reading "Prevent
releases to
atmosphere"
270.1 4(bM5)
270.1 4(bM8Hiv)
270.1 4(b)(8)(v)
270.14(bM8)(vi)
June 21, 1990 • Page 88 of 95
DCL78.8 - 12?8/81
-------
/ OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
81 Alt ANALOO IS:
, gjjjjy,
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCESS VENTS
additional infor-
mation that must be
provided by owners
and operators of
facilities that have
process vents to
which Subpart AA of
Part 264 applies,
except as
provided in 264,1
implementation
schedule as
specified in
264,1033(3) (2) for
facilities that
cannot install
a closed-vent
system and control
device to comply
with Part 264
Subpart AA
provisions
on the effective
date the facility
becomes subject to
Part 264 or Part
265 Subpart AA
provisions
documentation of
compliance with
process vent
standards in
264.1032 including:
information and data
identifying ai!
affected process
vents and specific
information for
each vent
270.24
270.24(a>
270.24(b)
270.24(W(1)
June 21, 1990 - Page 89 of 95
0CL79.9 - 12W91
i »-..
Jk V
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information and
data supporting
estimates of vent
emissions and
emission reductions;
estimates made using
parameter values
representing highest
load or capacity
level conditions
information and
data for determining
if a process vent is
subject to 264.1032
requirements
a performance test
plan as specified
in 264.1035(b){3) If
applying to use
certain control
devices and using
test data to
determine efficiency
or concentration
documentation of
compliance with
264.1033 including:
references and
sources used in
preparing
documentation
records Including
dates of each
compliance test
required by
264.1033m)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.24(bK2)
270.24fb)(3)
270.24(c)
270.24(d)
27Q.24(dH1)
270.24(dK2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STAiE ANALOG Is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
10
June 21, 1990 - Page 90 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12?9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
design analysis and
other documents that
present basic control
device design informa-
tion; design analysis
addresses vent stream
characteristics and
control device
operation parameters
as specified in
264.1035(b)(4)(iii)
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner or
operator regarding
operating parameters
used in design
analysis
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner or
operator regarding
control device
meeting efficiency
desiqn specifications
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.24(dH3)
270.24(d)(4)
270.24(d)(5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT
additional infor-
mation that must be
provided by owners
and operators of
facilities that have
equipment to which
Subpart BB of
Part 264
applies, except as
provided in 264.1
for each piece of
equipment to which
Subpart BB of Part
264 applies:
270.25
270.25(a)
June 21, 1990 - Page 91 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
equipment identifi-
cation number and
hazardous waste
management unit
identification
approximate locations
within the facility
type of equipment
percent by weight
total organics in
the hazardous waste
stream at the
equipment
hazardous waste
state at
the equipment
method of
compliance with
the standard
implementation
schedule as
specified in
264.1033(a)(2) for
facilities that cannot
install a closed-vent
system and control
device to comply
with Part 264
Subpart BB
provisions on
the effective date
the facility becomes
subject to
Part 264 or Part
265 Subpart BB
provisions
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.25(aM1)
270.25(aK2)
270.25(a)(3)
270.25te)(4l
270.25(a)(5)
270.25(a)(6)
270.25(W
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
8! A Ft ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 92 of 95
DCL70.0 - 12/0/01
» * *-
•*..*. x..
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
a performance test
plan as specified
in 264.1 035(b)(3)
if applying to use
certain control
devices and using
test data to
determine efficiency
or concentration
documentation
demonstrating
compliance with
264.1052 to 264.1059
equipment standards
and containing
records required
under 264.1064;
Regional Administrator
may request further
documentation
documentation to
demonstrate
compliance with
264.1060 shall
include:
references and
sources used in
preparing
documentation
records including
dates of each
compliance test
required
bv 264.1033H)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.25(c)
270.25(d)
270.25(6)
270.25(e)(1)
270.25(e)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
S I Art ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
June 21, 1990 - Page 93 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
design analysis and
other documents that
present basic control
device design infor-
mation; design analysis
addresses vent
stream characteris-
tics and control
device operation
parameters as
specified in
264.1 035(bH4)(iii)
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner or
operator regarding
operating parameters
used in design
analysis
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner or
operator regarding
control device
meeting efficiency
design specifications
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.25(e)(3)
270.25(e)(4)
270.25(e)(5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SIAIt ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
There is a typographical error in the Federal Register notice for this checklist (55 FR 25494,
June 21, 1990). The reference to "2641" in paragraph 264.1030(a) should be to "264.1."
There is a typographical error in the Federal Register notice for this checklist (55 FR 25494,
June 21, 1990). The reference to "264.1035(e)" in paragraph 264.1030(b) should be to
"264.1034(e)."
The reference to "paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section" in the Federal Register (55 FR
25454, June 21, 1990) in paragraph 264.1033(f)(3) should be to "paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of
this section."
There is an error in the July 1, 1989 CFR which is repeated in the Federal Register for this
checklist (55 FR 25506 and 25507, June 21, 1990). The reference to "265.193" should be to
"265.200."
June 21, 1990 - Page 94 of 95
DCL79.9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIR. No. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 79: Organic air Emission Standards
for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks (cont'd)
ANALOGOUS EQUIV- MORE BROADER
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT | FEDERAL RCRA CITATION | STATE CITATION _ | ALENT | STRINGENT | JN SCOPE
5 There is a typographical error In the Federal Register notice for this checklist (55 FR 25507,
June 21, 1990). The reference to "265,1 035(d)" in paragraph 265.1 030(b) should be to
"265,1034(e)."
e
There is a typographical error in the Federal Register notice for this checklist (55 FR 25510,
June 21, 1990). The first reference to "(c)(1)(v)" in paragraph 265.1 034(c)(1)(vi) should be to
There is a typographical error in the Federal Register for this checklist (55 FR 25512, June 21,
1990). The reference to "paragraph (3)" in paragraph 265.1035(c)(5) should be to "paragraph
(4)."
o
There is a typographical error in the Federal Register for this checklist (55 FR 2551 3). The
reference to "(a)(2)" in paragraph 265.1052(e)(3) should be to "(e)(2)."
There is a typographical error In the Federal Register for this checklist (55 FR 2551 6, June 21 ,
1990). The reference to "265.1953" in paragraph 265.1 064(c) should be to "265.1053."
There is a typographical error in the Federal Register for this checklist (55 FR 25518, June 21,
1990). The reference to "264.103(k)" in paragraph 270.24(d)(2) should be to "264.1 033(k)."
June 21, 1990 - Page 95 of 95 00179.9 -12/9/91
-------
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Thursday
June 21, 1990
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 260, 281, 264, 265, 270, 271
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities—Organic Air
Emission Standards for Process Vents
Equipment Leaks; Final Rule
-------
25454 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260,261,264,265,270,
and 271
[FRL-3614-3]
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities—Organic Air
Emission Standards for Process Vents
and Equipment Leaks
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The EPA is today
promulgating standards that limit
organic air emissions as a class at
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDF) requiring a
permit under subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Today's action is the first part
of a multiphased regulatory effort to
control air emissions at new and
existing hazardous waste TSDF. The
rule establishes final standards limiting
organic emissions from (1) process vents
associated with distillation.
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, and air or steam
stripping operations that manage
hazardous wastes with 10 parts per
million by weight (ppraw) or greater
total organics concentration, and (2)
leaks from equipment that contains or
contacts hazardous waste streams with
10 percent by weight or greater total
organics. These standards were
proposed in the Federal Register on
February 5, 1987 (52 FR 3748).
The final standards are promulgated
under the authority of section 3004 of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) to the RCRA. The
EPA is required by section 3004(n) of
RCRA to promulgate standards for the
monitoring and control of air emissions
from hazardous waste TSDF as
necessary to protect human health and
the environment The EPA plans to
promulgate additional standards under
this section in two further phases. Phase
II will consist of air standards for
organic emissions from surface
impoundments, tanks, containers, and
miscellaneous units. These standards
are scheduled for proposal kter this
year. In Phase III, the residual risk from
the first two phases will be assessed
and, if necessary, EPA will develop
further regulations or guidance to
protect human health and the
environment from the effects of TSDF
air emissions.
EFFECTIVE DATE This final rule is
effective on December 21,1990. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the regulations is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of September 5 and October
11,1989.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
final rulemaking is contained in Docket
No. F-80-AESF-FFFFF. This docket and
the proposal docket (Docket No. F-86-
AESP-FFFFF) are available for public
inspection at the EPA RCRA Docket
Office (OS-300) in room 2427M of the
U.S Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street SW* Washington. DC
20460. Additional information
concerning the development of the
equipment leak standards is contained
in Docket No. A-79-Z7, which is
available for public inspection at EPA's
Central Docket Section, room 2903B,
Waterside Mall, 401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. For further
information, see the discussion of
supporting documentation for the rules
under section X of this preamble.
Background information document:
The background information document
(BID) for the final standards may be
obtained from the U.S. EPA Library
fMD-35), Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711. telephone (919) 541-
2777. Please refer to "Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities (TSDF}—Background
Information for Promulgated Organic
Emission Standards for Process Vents
and Equipment Leaks'* (EPA-450/3-69-
009). The EPA has prepared a technical
guidance document to aid In
implementation of these rules. This
document may also be obtained from
the U.S. EPA Library (see above
address). Please refer to "Hazardous
Waste TSDF—Technical Guidance
Document for RCRA Air Emission
Standards for Process Vents and
Equipment Leaks" (EPA-450/3-89-21).
TOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA Hotline, toll-free at (800) 424-
9348. For further information on
regulatory aspects of these standards,
contact Rick Colyer, Standards
Development Branch, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5282.
For further information on the technical
aspects of these standards, contact
Robert Lucas, Chemicals and Petroleum
Branch, telephone number (919) 541-
0884, at the same address. For further
information on test methods associated
with these standards, contact Terry
Harrison, Emission Measurement
Branch, telephone number (919) 541-
5233, at the same address as above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline:
L Authority
E Summary of Final Standards
A. Vent* on Hazardous Waste
Management Process Units
B. Equipment Leaks on Hazardous Waste
Management Process Units
HL Background
A. Regulatory Authority
B. Regulatory Scope of Today's Standards
C Air Standards under RCRA Section
3004{n)
D. Other RCRA Air Standards
E. Relationship of Air Standards to Other
Subtitle C Rules
P. Relationship of Today's Final Standards
to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA)
IV. Applicability and Requirements of
Proposed Process Vent and Equipment
Leak Standards
V. Applicability and Requirements of Today's
Final Standards
A. Scope of Final Standards
B. Standards for Process Vents
C. Equipment Leak Standards
D. Summary of Changes from Proposal
E. Relationship of RCRA Exemptions to
Final Standards
VL Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Regulatory Issues
B. Standards and Applicability
C. Control Technology
D. Impact Analyses Methodologies
E. Implementation and Compliance
VH. Summary of Impacts of Final Standards
A. Overview of the Source Category
E Use of Models in the Regulatory
Development Process
C Emission Impacts
D. Ozone Impacts
E. Health Risk Impacts
F. Cost Impacts
VUL State Authorization
A Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
B. Effect on State Authorizations
DC. Implementation
X. Administrative Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysts
E Regulatory Flexibility Act
C Paperwork Reduction Act
0. Supporting Documentation
E. List of Subjects
L Authority
These regulations are promulgated
under the authority of sections 1006,
2002. 3001-3007,3010,3014, and 7004 of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as
amended by RCRA. as amended (42
U.S.C. 6905. 6912,6921-B927, 6930, 6934,
and 8974).
D. Summary of Final Standards
The standards limit emissions of
organics from certain process vents and
equipment leaks at new and existing
hazardous waste TSDF requiring a
permit under RCRA subtitle C (i.e.,
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25455
permitted TSDF and TSDF that need
authorization to operate under RCRA
section 3005(eJ). This applicability
includes all hazardous waste
management units that require RCRA
permits and recycling units that are not
subject to RCRA permit requirements, if,
independent of today's final rules, a
RCRA permit is needed for another part
of the facility operations.
A. Vents on Hazardous Waste
Management Process Units
Today's final standards are applicable
to vents on waste management units
that manage hazardous waste with an
annual average total organics
concerttra lion of 10 ppmw or greater
{hereafter referred to as "process
vents") and specifically include (1)
process vents on distillation,
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, and air or steam
stripping operations and vents on
condensers serving these operations;
and (2) process vents on tanks (e.g.,
distillate receivers, bottoms receivers,
surge control tanks, separator tanks, and
hot wells) associated with distillation,
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, and air or steam
stripping processes if emissions from
these process operations are vented
through the tanks. Up-to-date
information and data used to determine
whether or not a hazardous waste
management unit and its associated
process vent(s) are subject to the
subpart AA standards must be
maintained in the facility operating
record (f 264.1035(0 and | 265.1035(fJ).
For example, documentation of a waste
analysis showing that the waste
managed in the unit is less than the 10-
ppmw applicability criterion must be
kept in the facility operating record.
The final rules for process vents
require that owners or operators of
TSDF subject to the provisions of new
subpart AA: (1) Reduce total organic
emissions from all affected process
vents at the facility to below 1.4 kg/h (3
Ib/h) and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr). or (2)
install and operate a control device(s)
that reduces total organic emissions
from all affected process vents at the
facility by 95 weight percent. The owner
or operator of the facility must
determine through test data or
engineering judgment and calculations
that the facility is not expected to
exceed the emission rate limit of 1.4 kg/
h and 2.8 Mg/yr. Facilities with organic
emissions from affected vents that never
exceed the emission rate limit will not
be required to install controls or monitor
process vent emissions under this rule.
For all other affected facilities, the
owner or operator must install controls
to reduce total facility process vent
emissions from all affected vents below
the emission rate limit or to reduce total
facility process vent organic emissions
after primary recovery by 95 percent; if
enclosed combustion devices are used,
the owner/operator has the option of
reducing the organic concentration of
each affected vent stream at the facility
to no more than 20 parts per million bv
volume (ppmv). Selection of the
emission rate limit is addressed further
in section VLB below and in chapters 4.0
and 7.0 of the BID.
The final standards for process vents
do not require the use of any specific
types of equipment or add-on control
devices. Condensers, cerbon adsorbers,
incinerators, and flares are
demonstrated emission control
equipment for the regulated processes,
although the choice of control is not
limited to these.
To demonstrate compliance with the
process vent provisions, TSDF owners/
operators must document process vent
emissions and emission reductions
achieved by add-on control devices and
certify the emission reduction capability
of the control equipment.
Documentation must (1) identify
affected process vents, provide the
throughput and operating hours of each
affected unit, and provide emission rate
determinations for each affected vent
and for the overall facility (i.e., the total
emissions for all affected vents at the
facility); and (2) show whether installed
add-on control devices achieve the
emission rate limit by design and during
operation. Where the emission rate limit
is sot attained, documentation must
show whether the add-on control
devices achieve a 95-percent reduction
in organics or the 20-ppmv organics
concentration limit by design and during
operation. The documentation must
include the basis for determining the
design emission reduction.
The rules for process vents require
that specific control device operating
parameters be monitored continuously
and the monitoring information be
recorded in the facility operating record
to ensure that the devices perform
according to their design and are
properly operated and maintained. For
facilities with final RCRA permits,
periods when monitoring indicates that
control device operating parameters
exceed established tolerances for design
specifications must be reported
semiannually. The records and reports
must include dates, duration, cause, and
corrective measures taken. There are no
reporting requirements for interim status
facilities. These monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements are
discussed below in section V,B and in
the BID in chapter 11.0, section 11.4.
B. Equipment Leaks on Hazardous
Waste Management Process Units
The equipment leak standards apply
to emissions from valves, pumps,
compressors, pressure relief devices,
sampling connection systems, and open-
ended valves or lines. Under the final
standards, controls for these sources are
required at TSDF where the equipment
contains or contacts hazardous waste
streams with organic concentrations of
10 percent by weight or greater. The
owner or operator of a facility may
choose any of the applicable test
methods identified in the final rules for
determining the organic content.
To comply with the equipment leak
standards, the facility owner/operator
must identify all affected equipment
(i.e., pumps, valves, compressors, etc.,
that contain or contact hazardous waste
streams with at least 10-percent-by-
weight organics), establish which of the
affected equipment is in heavy liquid
service, and determine which valves are
unsafe or difficult to monitor. By the
effective date of this regulation, the
facility owner/operator must conduct
the initial monthly monitoring survey of
pumps and valves in gas/vapor or light
liquid service. A number of portable
volatile organic monitoring devices are
capable of detecting equipment leaks.
Any analyzer can be used, provided it
meets the specifications and
performance criteria set forth in EPA
Reference Method 21 (contained in
appendix A of 40 CFR part 80).
Affected compressors must have a
dual mechanical seal system that
includes a barrier fluid system or mast
be designated as having "no detectable
emissions," which means an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background using EPA Reference
Method 21. Sampling connections must
have a clssed-purge system. Open-
ended valves or lines must have a cap.
blind flange, plug, or second valve.
Pressure relief devices must operate
with "no detectable emissions."
Recordkeeping and monitoring are
also required by the equipment leak
provisions. For example, leaking
equipment as determined by Method 21
must be tagged as specified in the rule,
and records of repair attempts, delay of
repair, etc., must be recorded in a log
and included as part of the facility's
operating record. Monitoring of control
device operating parameters is also
required if a closed-vent system and
control device are installed as a result of
the equipment leak standards. The
standards and recordkeeping
-------
254§S Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
requirements are discussed below at
section V.C,
III. Background
A. Regulatory Authority
In 1984, Congress passed HSWA,
amending RCRA. Section 3004(n) of
RCRA, as amended by HSWA, directs
EPA to "* * * promulgate such
regulations for the monitoring and
control of air emissions at hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities, including but not limited to
open tanks, surface impoundments, and
landfills, as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment."
The standards being promulgated today
address, in part this congressional
directive and are applicable to all TSDF
that require authorization to operate
under section 3005 of RCRA. These
regulations are being promulgated under
the authority of sections 1006. 2002,
3001-3007,301tt 3014, and 7004 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as
amended by RCRA, as amended (42
U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6921-6927, 6930. 6934,
and 8974).
B, Regulatory Scope of Today's
Standards
Today's final rules apply to facilities
that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
wastes as defined in 40 CFR 261.3 and,
specifically, to certain hazardous waste
management units at facilities requiring
RCRA subtitle C permits. This includes
facilities with permits and those
operating under interim status. Today's
rules, codified in new subparts AA and
BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 285, are
applicable to the following units at
TSDF: (1) Hazardous waste management
units subject to the permitting
requirements of part 270 (i.e., not 90-day
accumulation tanks at TSDF), and (2)
hazardous waste recycling units located
on hazardous waste management
facilities otherwise subject to the
permitting requirements of part 270.
Under 40 CFR 260.10, the term "facility"
means all contiguous land, and
structures, other appurtenances, and
improvements on the land, used for
treating, storing, or disposing of
hazardous waste. (Note: This definition
differs from the definition of "facility"
for purposes of corrective action under
RCRA section 3004(u), See SO FR 28712,
July IS, 1985.)
C. Air Standards Under RCRA Section
30Q4(n)
Air emissions from hazardous wastes
are generated or released from
numerous sources at TSDF, including
distillation and other organic separation
units, surface impoundments, tanks.
containers, landfills, land treatment
facilities, wastepiles. and leaks from
equipment associated with these
operations.
In considering the regulation of air
emissions under RCRA section 3004(n)
and within the RCRA regulatory
framework, EPA has concluded that air
emissions from hazardous waste
management facilities that are subject to
RCRA subtitle C should be regulated
under the authority of RCRA section
3004(n). Air emissions from facilities or
units that manage solid wastes that are
not regulated as hazardous wastes
pursuant to 40 CFR part 261 (e.g., cement
kiln dust waste) and air emissions from
hazardous waste from units or facilities
that are exempt from the permitting
provisions of 40 CFR 270.l(c)(2j (e.g.,
wastewater treatment units with
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits)
will be subject to control techniques
guidelines or standards developed as
needed under either the Clean Air Act
(CAA) or RCRA authority. Air emissions
from wastes managed in units subject to
subtitle D (nonhazardous solid wastes
such as those managed in municipal
landfills) also will be subject to
guidelines or standards issued under
CAA or RCRA authority as appropriate.
Air emissions from hazardous wastes
include photochemically reactive and
nonphotochemically reactive organics,
some of which are toxic or carcinogenic,
and also may include toxic or
carcinogenic inorganic compounds.
Depending on the source, particulates
(including metals, aerosols of organics,
dust, as well as toxics and carcinogens)
also may be released or generated.
These emissions, which are released to
the atmosphere from a wide variety of
sources within TSDF, present diverse
health and environmental risks.
Therefore, EPA has developed a
multiphased approach for regulating
TSDF organic air emissions. This
approach, described generally below,
reflects EPA's understanding of the
problem and knowledge of applicable,
effective controls at this time.
Organic emissions from TSDF
managing hazardous wastes contribute
to ambient ozone formation and
increase cancer and other health risks.
Phases I and II of EPA's TSDF
regulatory approach will significantly
reduce emissions of ozone precursors
and air toxics and carcinogens from
TSDF by controlling emissions of
organics as a class rather than
controlling emissions of individual
waste constituents. The regulation of
organics as a class has the advantage of
being relatively straightforward because
it can be accomplished with a minimum
number of standards, whereas the
control of individual toxic constituents
will require multiple standards.
Regulating organics as a class also
makes efficient use of EPA resource,
avoids many of the complexities of
having multiple standards, and reduce;.
the number of constituents for which
separate standards may be required.
The health and environmental effects
of ambient ozone are well documented*
measured in terms of monetary losses,
they total hundreds of millions of dollars
each year. Other health impacts of TSDF
organic emissions are summarized in
section VII.D of this preamble and are
discussed in more detail in the BID that
accompanies this final rule and in the
draft BID for Phase 0 organic standards
titled, "Hazardous Waste TSDF—
Background Information for Proposed
RCRA Air Emission Standards,"
available in Docket F-90-CESP-FFFFF.
The substantial reductions in organic
emissions achievable through
implementation of Phase I and Phase II
controls will reduce atmospheric ozone
formation as a result of reductions in
TSDF emissions of ozone precursors and
will reduce nationwide cancer incidence
and maximum individual risk due to
exposure to air toxics and carcinogens
emitted from TSDF.
Specifically. Phase I (which is being
promulgated as final rules today) entails
the promulgation of standards for the
control of organic air emissions from
selected hazardous waste management
processes and equipment leaks. As
discussed in the February 1987 proposal.
EPA chose to develop this portion of its
TSDF rulemaking first to prevent
uncontrolled air emissions from land
disposal restriction (LDR) treatment
technologies. The technologies used in
lieu of land disposal include the
distillation/ separation processes
subject to the Phase I rules. Publication
of today's final rules for air emissions
from hazardous waste management unit
process vents from distillation,
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, and air or steam
stripping processes and from leaks in
piping and associated equipment
handling hazardous wastes marks the
completion of this first phase.
In the second phase, EPA will propose
(in 1990) additional standards under
section 3004(n) to control organic air
emissions from other significant TSDF
air emission sources not covered or not
adequately controlled by existing
standards. These sources include
surface impoundments, tanks (including
vents on closed, vented tanks),
containers, and miscellaneous units.
-------
D1R. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1090 / Rules and Regulations 25457
The analyses of impacts indicate that,
at some facilities; residual cancer risk to
the most exposed individuals after
implementing the first two phases of
regulation will remain outside the risk
range for other regulations promulgated
under RCRA (which historically has
heen in the range of 1X 10~4 to 1X10"*}.
The EPA is therefore planning a third
phase of the effort to control TSDF
emissions in which various means for
further reducing risk will be examined.
In the interim, as explained in section
VLB, the omnibus permitting authority
of RCRA is an available option for
requiring additional emission and risk
"eductions beyond that achieved by
today's final rules if it is decided, on a
case-by-case basis, that additional
control is needed to protect human
health and the environment.
The EPA is currently involved in an
effort to improve the data used in the
current risk analyses and, in the third
phase, will make use of any new data
obtained. If additional constituent
control is found to be necessary, the
number of constituents for which
additional control is needed is expected
to be significantly less than if a
constituent approach were used as the
only means of regulating TSDF air
emissions. Therefore, the EPA is
convinced that the control of organics as
a class followed by controls for
individual toxic constituents, as
necessary, will ultimately result in
comprehensive standards that are
protective whilt providing effective
interim control.
Should additional regulation under
Phase III be necessary, EPA is
considering a variety of approaches for
reducing residual risk associated with
emissions from wastes managed at
TSOF, and additional approaches may
be developed In the future. For example,
EPA could require additional technology
control for toxic waste management
(e.g., technology that ensures lower
rates of leakage from equipment, if such
technology can be developed for use at
TSDF) or limit the quantities of specific
constituents that can be managed at a
TSDF. The constituents to be evaluated
in Phase III will include those reported
as being present in hazardous wastes
managed by existing TSDF for which
health effects have been established
through the development of unit risk
factors for carcinogens and reference
doses for noncarcinogens.
D. Other RCRA Air Standards
The EPA has promulgated several
standards under RCRA that reduce air
emissions from TSDF. For example,
several existing provisions in 40 CFR
part 264 (40 CFR 264.251(0. 264.301(i),
and 264.273(fJ) require the
implementation of general dasign and
operating practices at permitted
wastepiles, landfills, and land trea tment
operations to limit the release of
particulate air emissions. The EPA has
prepared a technical guidance document
to aid in the implementation of these
particulate rules; the document
("Hazardous Waste TSDF—Fugitive
Particulate Matter Air Emissions
Guidance Document," EPA-450/3-89-
019) provides information on the sources
of, and control technology for,
particulate air emissions at TSDF.
Additionally, 40 CFR part 264, sabpart
X, contains provisions that require
prevention of air releases that may have
adverse effects on human health or the
environment at miscellaneous
hazardous waste management units,
Air standards also have been
promulgated for the control of air
emissions from permitted hazardous
waste incinerators (40 CFR part 264,
subpart O). These standards require that
incinerators be operated to achieve a
destruction and removal efficiency
(ORE) of at least 99.99 percent for those
primary organic hazardous constituents
listed in the facility permit. Higher
efficiencies are required when the
incinerator is burning certain specified
waste types. These standards also limit
air emissions of organics, hydrochloric
acid, and particulates from incinerator
stacks.
Air standards for interim status
hazardous waste incinerators (40 CFR
255, subpart O) require monitoring of
visible emissions and operating
conditions. When burning specified
wastes, these incinerators must receive
a certification from the Assistant
Administrator stating that the
incinerator can meet the performance
standards specified for permitted
incinerators in 40 CFR 264, subpart O.
Interim status standards for other
thermal treatment units are found in 40
CFR part 285, subpart P. These
standards apply to facilities that
thermally treat hazardous waste in
devices other than enclosed devices
using controlled flame combustion. The
standards require monitoring of visible
emissions and operating conditions of
the combustion devices and prohibit
open burning except for open burning
and detonation of waste explosives.
The EPA has also proposed standards
covering the burning of hazardous waste
in boilers and industrial furnaces (52 FR
18987; May 6,1887). These standards
would require such burning to achieve a
DRE of 99.99 percent for each principal
organic hazardous constituent identified
in the facility permit. In addition, a DRE
of 99.99 percent must be achieved when
burning certain specified constituents.
The proposed standards also have
provisions for burning low-risk wastes
that allow an owner or operator to
demonstrate that the burning of
hazardous waste will not result in
significant adverse health effects. To
qualify for the low-risk waste
exemption, an owner or operator weald
have to use dispersion modeling to
demonstrate that emissions of
carcinogenic compounds would not
result in off-site ground-level
concentrations that pose a risk to the
most exposed Individual of greater then
1 XlOs. For noncarcinogenic compounds.
the dispersion modeling would
demonstrate that the resulting air
concentrations would not exceed the
reference air concentration (RAC) of
individual hazardous compounds. The
proposed standards would also limit
emissions cf carbon monoxide, metals,
and hydrochloric acid from boilers and
furnaces burning hazardous wastes.
E. Relationship of Air Standards to
Other Subtitle C Rules
In addition to the air emission
standards discussed above. EPA has
ongoing programs that indirectly affect
air emissions from hazardous waste.
Today's rules are designed to
complement other air standards under
RCRA and the rules that might
otherwise affect air emissions. Existing
RCRA regulations that have the
potential for affecting air emissions from
hazardous waste TSDF include: (1) The
LDR and (2) the corrective action
program.
The LDR, developed under section
3004(m] of the HSWA, require that
hazardous waste be treated to reduce
concentrations of specific chemicals or
hazardous properties to certain
performance levels or by certain
methods before the waste may be
disposed of on land. Affected (and
disposal units include surface
impoundments, wastepiles, landfills,
and land treatment units. The EPA
anticipates that LDR will substantially
reduce the potential for air emissions
from these land disposal sources. The
first set of LDR, for certain dioxins and
solvent-containing hazardous wastes,
was promulgated on November 7,1986
(51 FR 40572); the second set of
restrictions, the "California list," was
promulgated on July 8,1937 (52 FR
25760); the "First Third" was
promulgated on August 17, Ii88 (53 FR
31130), and the "Second Th.ird" on June
23,1989 (54 FR 26597).
The treatment technologies evaluated
under LDR for both wastewater and
-------
25458 Federal Register/ Vol. SS. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
nonwastewater spent solvents include
distillation and other separation
processes subject to the requirements of
the Phase I rules. Today's standards are
designed to protect human health and
the environment by reducing air
emissions from technologies expected to
be used to treat wastes prior to land
disposal.
Under the authority of RCRA section
3004(u), EPA is developing rules to
address releases of hazardous waste or
hazardous constituents from solid waste
management units (SWMU) that pose a
threat to human health and the
environment Because this authority
applies to contamination of soil, water,
and air media, organic air emissions
from SWMU at some TSDF would be
addressed by the corrective action
program EPA intends to propose under a
separate rulemaking. The draft rules
would establish health-based trigger
levels measured at the TSDF boundary
for determining whether further
remedial studies are required to assess
air emissions from a particular SWMU.
Health-based cleanup standards would
then be set for air emission levels that
exceed acceptable health-based levels
at the point at which actual exposure
occurs. When such exposure is
determined either through monitoring or
modeling techniques, corrective action
will be required to reduce such
emissions at the point of compliance.
The corrective action program is
designed to achieve site-specific
solutions based on an examination of a
particular TSDF and its environmental
setting. It is not intended to set national
standards that regulate organic air
emissions from all TSDF. At sites where
there are releases from SWMU to the
atmosphere, organic emissions will be
controlled based on site-specific
exposure concerns. Furthermore,
releases from the SWMU that contain
hazardous solid wastes will also be
subject to corrective action. Therefore.
for e.r emissions, corrective action is in
pan designed to expeditiously address
threats to human health and the
environment that are identified prior to
implementation of more comprehensive
air emission standards. In addition,
because corrective action can address a
wider universe of SWMU, it will
address, in some respects, exposure
concerns that today's final standards do
not address.
F. Relationship of Today's Final
Standards to CERCLA
The CERCLA. as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA), 42 U.S.C.
9601 et seq.. authorizes EPA to
undertake removal and remedial actions
to clean up releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
Removal actions typically are
immediate or expedited activities
necessary to minimize exposure or
danger to human health and the
environment from the release of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant. Remedial actions are
longer term, planned activities
performed at sites listed on the National
Priorities List to permanently clean up
hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants and any soils, surface
waters, or ground waters contaminated
by these materials. On-site remedial
actions are required by CERCLA section
121(d)(2) to comply with the
requirements of Federal and more
stringent State public health and
environmental laws that have been
identified by EPA or the delegated State
authority as applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARAR) to the
specific CERCLA site. In addition, the
National Contingency Plan (NCP)
provides that on-site CERCLA removal
actions "should comply with Federal
ARAR to the extent practicable
considering the exigencies of the
circumstances" (40 CFR 300.65(f)).
Today's final standards may be
considered ARAR for certain on-site
remedial and removal actions,
A requirement under a Federal or
State environmental law may either be
"applicable" or "relevant and
appropriate," but not both, to a remedial
or removal action conducted at a
CERCLA site. "Applicable
requirements," as defined in the
proposed revisions to the NCP, means
those cleanup standards, standards of
control, and other substantive
environmental protection requirements,
criteria, or limitations promulgated
under Federal or State law that
specifically address a hazardous
substance, pollutant, contaminant,
remedial action, location, or other
circumstance found at a CERCLA site
(40 CFR 300.5 (proposed), 53 FR 51475
(December 21,1988)). "Relevant and
appropriate requirements" means those
Federal or State requirements that,
while not applicable, address problems
or situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at the CERCLA site that
their use is well suited to the particular
site (53 FR 51478).
Some waste management activities
used for remedial and removal actions
to clean up hazardous organic
substances use the distillation/
separation operations regulated under
subpart AA of today's rules. For
example, hazardous organic liquid
wastes and ground and surface waters
contaminated with hazardous wastes
may be treated on site using air
stripping processes. Therefore, the
organic emission control requirements of
today's subpart AA rules may be
"applicable" for on-site remedial and
removal action activities that use
distillation, fractionation. thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations that treat
substances that are identified or listed
under RCRA as hazardous wastes and
have a total organic concentration of 10
ppmw or greater. In addition, off-site
storage, treatment and disposal of all
wastes classified under RCRA as
hazardous waste must be performed at a
TSDF permitted under RCRA subtitle C.
Thus, CERCLA wastes that are defined
as hazardous under RCRA, contain more
than 10 ppmw of total organics, and are
shipped off site for management in
distillation, fractionation. thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, and air
or steam stripping operations, would be
subject to today's final standards like
any similar RCRA hazardous waste. The
new subpart AA control requirements
for process vents may also be "relevant
and appropriate" to on-site CERCLA
removal and remedial actions- that use
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, and air
or steam stripping operations to manage
substances that contain organics that
are not covered by this rule (e.g..
organics less than 10 ppmw or organics
from nonhazardous wastes).
Today's final rules do not include
control requirements for process vents
on operations not associated with
organics distillation/separation but
typically associated with CERCLA
remedial or removal actions such as soil
excavation, in situ soil vapor extraction,
in situ steam stripping of soil, soil
washing, stabilization, bioremediation
(in situ or otherwise), dechlorination.
and low temperature thermal
desorption. Therefore, the final rule for
process vents would not be "applicable"
to remedial or removal actions involving
these processes at CERCLA sites. Also,
the final process vent standards may not
be considered "relevant and
appropriate" for these same activities at
CERCLA sites. Waste management
operations involving soil excavation, in
situ soil vapor extraction, in situ steam
stripping of soil, soil washing,
bioremediation, dechlorination. and low
temperature thermal desorption can be
considerably different from the waste
management operations (i.e.,
distillation/separation processes)
regulated in subpart AA. Control
technologies for reducing organic
emissions from these types of processes
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 23159
were not evaluated as part of today's
rulemaking. However, the air emission
potential of remedial and removal
actions requiring excavation, land
treatment, land fanning, in situ
treatment activities, and other treatment
activities involving landfills and
wastcpiles should be determined, and, if
necessary, the proper emission controls
should be applied to these activities.
The organic emission control
requirements of subpart BB for TSDF
equipment leaks may also be considered
as an ARAR for the equipment
components (e.g., pumps and valves]
installed at CERCLA cleanup sites that
contain or contact substances
containing 10 percent by weight or more
total organics.
Although today's final standards
would not be ARAR for all types of
remedial and removal actions that are
potential sources of organic air
emissions, other existing RCRA or CAA
regulations may qualify as ARAR for
many of these activities. For example,
subpart O of 40 CFR part 234 establishes
standards of performance limiting
organic emissions from thermal
destruction processes (i.e., hazardous
waste incinerators). •
IV. Applicability and Requirements of
Proposed Process Vent and Equipment
I-eak Standards
On February 5,1087 (52 FR 3748), EPA
proposed standards under RCRA section
3004{n) for the control of organic air
emissions from certain equipment and
process vents at hazardous waste TSDF.
The proposed standards would have
applied to equipment and process vents
"in volatile hazardous air pollutant
(VHAP) service" (i.e., containing or
contacting liquids, gases, or other
derivatives of hazardous waste in
concentrations greater than 10 percent
total organics) located at TSDF required
to have a RCRA permit The decision as
to whether equipment or process vents
would be covered by the rule (I.e., would
ever contain or contact wastes greater
than 10 percent total organics) could be
based either on testing the waste and
derivatives according to specified test
procedures or on engineering Judgment
as to these materials, total organic
content.
The proposed standards would have
required a 95-percent reduction in
organic emissions from vents in VI LAP
service on product accumulator vessels
and on other process vent sources (e.g.,
vents on closed accumulator tanks on
other processes). The preamble for the
proposed standard, at 52 FR 3753,
described "product accumulator
vessels" as types of equipment that
generate process emissions and include
distillate receivers, surge control
vessels, product separators, or hot-wells
that are vented to the atmosphere either
directly or through a vacuum-producing
system. Product accumulator vessels
included units used to distill and steam
or air strip volatile components from
hazardous waste*, examples include
distillation columns, steam stripping
columns, air stripping units, and thin-
film evaporation units at TSDF,
The proposed standards would have
regulated actual reclamation processes
for the first time. Only recycling units at
TSDF already subject to RCRA permit
requirements (e.g., because of storage
activity on the facility) would have been
subject to the proposed air standards.
Both new and existing units would have
been required to have add-on control
devices designed to achieve a 95-percent
reduction (based on the application of
secondary condensers) and to operate
within that design. Once in operation,
the facilities would have demonstrated
compliance by monitoring the operation
of the control device.
The proposed standards also would
have required implementation of a
monthly leak detection and repair
(LDAR) program for valves, pumps,
compressors, pressure relief devices,
and closed-vent systems used to handle
hazardous wastes and their derivatives
at TSDF. Control systems, leak
definition methodology, leak definitions,
and repair schedules were based on
existing equipment leak standards
developed under sections 111 and 112 of
the CAA,
Since proposal, EPA has made several
important changes to the standards
based on the public comments received
after proposal and analyses resulting
from these comments. The applicability
and requirements of the final standards,
including the changes made since
proposal, are discussed in section V.
The EPA's responses to the major
comments are summarized in section VI.
Additional information is presented in
the BID for the final standards.
V. Applicability and Requirements of
Today's Final Standards
This section provides a detailed
summary of the final standards as they
apply to the affected TSDF community
and to process vents and equipment
subject to today's rule. Also summarized
is the relationship of the final standards
to existing exemptions under the RCRA
regulatory program.
A. Scope of Final Standards
Today'* final standards limit organic
air emissions as a class at TSDF that are
subject to regulation under subtitle C of
RCRA. This action is the first part of a
multiphaaed regulatory effort to control
air emissions at new and existing
hazardous waste TSDF. These rules
establish final standards limiting
organic emissions from (1) process vents
associated with distillation,
fractionation, thin-film evaporation.
solvent extraction, and air or steam
stripping operations that manage
hazardous wastes with 10 pprnw or
greater total organics concentration on
an annual average basis, and (2) leaks
from equipment that contain or contact
hazardous waste streams with 10
percent by weight or greater total
crganics.
The final standards do not expand tht
RCRA-permitted community for the
purposes of air emissions control. As
promulgated, the final standards control
organic emissions only from process
vents and equipment leaks at hazardoui
waste TSDF that are subject to
permitting requirements under RCRA
section 3005 and are applicable only to
specific hazardous waste management
units. The rules apply to hazardous
waste management units that are
subject to the permitting requirements of
part 270 and to hazardous waste
recycling units that are located at
facilities otherwise subject to the
permitting requirements of part 270.
Exempt units, other than recycling units
(e.g., 90-day accumulation tanks and
wastewater treatment units as specified
in 5 270.1{c)(2)), are not subject to the
rules even when they are part of a
permitted facility. Permitting aspects are
further discussed in section DC
The term "organics" is used in the
final standards instead of "volatile
organics" to avoid confusion with
"volatile organic compounds" (VOC)
that are regulated as a class under the
CAA. To be subject to the standards, a
TSDF: (!) Must have equipment that
contains or contacts hazardous wastes
that are 10 percent or more by weight
total organics, or [2] must have
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations that treat or
process hazardous wastes with total
organics concentrations of 10 ppmw or
greater on a time-weighted annual
average basis.
The final regulations require the
facility owners or operators to
determine whether their equipment is
subject to the equipment leak rules,
subpart BB of parts 284 and 265. The
owner or operator of a facility may rely
on engineering judgment for this
determination, or, if the waste's organic
content is questionable, the owner or
operator may choose any of the test
methods identified in the final rule for
-------
25460 Federal Register / Vol. SS. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
determining whether a piece of
equipment contains or contacts
hazardous wastes that are 10 percent or
more total organics by weight As
proposed, these methods include: ASTM
Methods D-2267-88, E169-87, E168-88.
and E 260-85 and Methods 9060 and
8240 of SW-846. The owner or operator
also may use any other test method for
determining total organic content that is
demonstrated to be equivalent to the
test methods identified in the rule using
the petition process described in 40 CFR
260.21. The test method selected should
be the one best suited for the
characteristics of the waste stream.
Regardless of the method chosen, the
final standard requires the facility
owner or operator to determine that the
organic content is never expected to
exceed 10 percent The determination of
organic content of the waste must at all
times be appropriate to the wastes
currently being managed in the relevant
units. If any action is taken that would
result in the determination no longer
being appropriate to the facility's or a
particular unit's operations (e.g., an
upstream process change that results in
a change in a waste's organic content),
then a new determination is required.
To determine whether a particular
hazardous waste management unit of
the type specified in the rule (e.g., a
steam stripping or air stripping unit) is
subject to the provisions of subpart AA
of parts 284 and 265, the owner/operator
is required to determine the total
organic concentration of the waste
managed in the unit initially (by the
effective date of the standards or when
the waste is first managed In the waste
management unit) and thereafter on a
periodic basis (for continuously
generated wastes). A waste
determination for subpart AA
applicability would not be necessary
when an owner/operator manages the
waste in a distillation, fractionation,
thin-film evaporation, solvent
extraction, or air or steam stripping unit
that is controlled for organic emissions
and meets the substantive requirements
of subpart AA.
Determination that the time-weighted,
annual average total organic
concentration of the waste managed in
the unit is less than 10 ppmw must be
performed by direct measurement or by
knowledge of the waste as described
later in this section. Direct measurement
of the waste's total organic
concentration must be performed by
collecting individual grab samples of the
waste and analyzing the samples using
one of the approved reference methods
identified in the rule.
The EPA is requiring that analytical
results for a minimum of four samples be
used to determine the total organic
concentration for each waste stream
managed in the unit. In setting the
minimum number of samples at four,
EPA will obtain sufficient data to
characterize the total organic
concentration of a waste without
imposing an unnecessary burden on the
owner/operator to collect and analyze
the samples.
Waste determinations must be
performed under process conditions
expected to result in the maximum
waste organic concentration. For waste
generated on site, the samples must be
collected at a point before the waste is
exposed to the atmosphere such as in an
enclosed pipe or other closed system
that is used to transfer the waste after
generation to the first affected
distillation/separation operation. For
waste generated off site, the samples
must be collected at the inlet to the first
waste management unit that receives
the waste, provided the waste has been
transferred to the facility in a closed
system such as a tank truck, and the •
waste is not diluted or mixed with other
waste.
The location where the waste's total
organic content is determined is
important because sampling location
can greatly affect the results of the
determination. This effect occurs
because the concentration level can
decrease significantly after generation
as the waste is transferred to (and
managed in) various waste management
units.
If tile waste is directly or indirectly
exposed to ambient air at any point, a
portion of the organics in the waste will
be emitted to the atmosphere, and the
concentration of organics remaining in
the waste will decrease. For example,
for highly volatile organic compounds
such as butadiene, all of the compound
would evaporate within a few seconds
of exposure to air. To ensure that the
determination of total organic
concentration is an accurate
representation of the emission potential
of a waste upon generation, it is
essential that the waste determination
be performed at a point as near as
possible to where the waste is
generated, before any exposure to the
atmosphere can occur.
For the reasons stated above, the
waste determination must be based on
the waste composition before the waste
is exposed, either directly or indirectly,
to the ambient air. Direct exposure of
the waste to the ambient air means the
waste surface interfaces with the
ambient air. Indirect exposure of the
waste to the ambient air means the
waste surface interfaces with a gas
stream that subsequently is emitted to
the ambient air. If the waste
determination is performed using direct
measurement, the standards would
require that waste samples be collected
from an enclosed pipe or other closed
system that is used to transfer the waste
after generation to the first hazardous
waste management unit. If the waste
determination is performed using
knowledge of the waste, the standards
would require that the owner or
operator have documentation attesting
to the organic concentration of the
waste before any exposure to the
ambient air.
The location where the waste
determination would be made for any
one facility will depend on several
factors. One factor is whether the waste
is generated and managed at the same
site or generated at one site and
transferred to a commercial TSDF for
management. Another important factor
is the mechanism used to transfer the
waste from the location where the waste
is generated to the location of the first
waste management unit (e.g., pipeline,
sewer, tank truck). For example, if a
waste is first accumulated in a tank
using a direct, enclosed pipeline to
transfer the waste from its generation
process, then the waste determination
could be made based on waste samples
collected at the inlet to the tank In
contrast if the waste is first
accumulated in a tank using an open
sewer system to transfer the waste from
its generation process then the waste
determination would need to be made
based on waste samples collected at the
point where the waste enters the sewer
before the waste is exposed to the
ambient air. Where the waste is
generated off site, the owner or operator
may make the determination based on
samples collected at the inlet to the first
waste management unit at the TSDF
that receives the waste, provided the
waste has been transferred to the TSDF
in a closed system such as a tank truck
and the waste is not diluted or mixed
with other waste. If a waste
determination indicates that the total
organic concentration is equal to or
greater than the applicability criterion,
then the owner or operator would be
required to comply with the standards.
As an alternative to using direct
measurement an owner/operator is
allowed to use knowledge of the waste
as a means of determining that the total
organic concentration of the waste is
less than 10 ppmw. Examples of
information that might be considered by
EPA to constitute sufficient knowledge
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25461
include: (1) Documentation that organics
are not involved in the process
generating the waste, (2) documentation
that the waste is generated by a process
that is identical to a process at the same
or another facility that has previously
been determined by direct measurement
to generate a waste stream having a
total organic content less than 10 ppmw,
or (3) previous speciation analysts
results from which the total
concentration of organics in the waste
can be computed and it can be
documented that no process changes
have occurred since the analysis that
could affect the waste's total organic
concentration. The final standards
include the provision that EPA can
require that the waste be analyzed using
Method 8240 if EPA believes that the
documentation is insufficient to
determine an exception by knowledge of
the waste (§§ 264.1034(f) and
26S.1034(f)).
To address the temporal variability
that can occur both within a particular
waste stream and within the various
waste streams managed In a hazardous
waste management unit the final rules
require a time-weighted, annual average
concentration to characterize the waste
managed in the unit. The final rules
require that an owner/operator repeat
the waste determination whenever there
is a change in the waste being managed
or a change in the process that generates
or treats the waste that may affect the
regulatory status of the waste or, if the
waste and process remain constant, at
least annually. For example, continuous
processes are more likely to generate a
more homogeneous waste than batch
operations; batch operations involve
processes that may frequently involve
change in materials or process
conditions. Batch operations, therefore,
usually generate wastes with varying
characteristics, including such
characteristics as organics content.
Ground water concentrations would
also be expected to show significant
variation if more than one well provides
Influent to a waste management unit
such as an air stripper and the wells that
feed the unit are varied over time or if
the proportions from the wells that make
up the influent are changed. This is
because there is typically considerable
spatial variability in contaminated
ground water concentrations. The
situation where feed wells are changed
and the change is not accounted for in
the initial waste determination would be
considered a process change or change
in the waste being managed that would
require a new determination.
With the time-weighted, annual
average applicability criterion, a
hazardous waste management unit
would not be subject to this rale if it
occasionally treats wastes that exceed
10 ppmw if at other times the wastes
being treated in the unit are such that
the weighted annual average total
organic concentration of all wastes
treated is less than 10 ppmw. The time-
weighted, annual average is calculated
using the annual quantity of each waste
stream managed in the unit and the
mean organic concentration of each
waste stream.
Determining the applicability of the
standards to affected processes, units,
and facilities is of paramount
importance to the TSDF owner or
operator in complying with the final
standards. A mistake even an
inadvertent one, will not excuse a
facility owner or operator from the
obligation to comply with either the
requirements of the standards or with
potential enforcement actions. Accurate
determinations of what equipment and
vents must be controlled are crucial to
ensuring that all equipment and vents
subject to this rule are in fact controlled.
When the facility owner/operator and
the Regional Administrator disagree on
the determination of emissions or
emission reduction achieved, then a
performance test conducted as specified
in the rules must be used to resolve the
disagreement. In situations where the
owner/operator and Regional
Administrator disagree on whether a
unit manages a waste with 10 ppmw or
greater organics content or a piece of
equipment contains or contacts a waste
with 10 percent or more organics
content then procedures that conform to
the test methods referenced in the rules
may be used to resolve the
disagreement
Consistent with section 3010 of RCRA,
the final standards for process vent and
equipment leak control and monitoring
became effective 8 months from today.
Owners and operators must come into
compliance with these requirements by
the effective date; however, where
compliance involves the installation of a
control device, EPA is requiring that
installation be completed as soon as
possible but no later then 24 months
from the date the regulatory action
affecting the unit is published or
promulgated. To obtain the extended
time for compliance (18 months beyond
the effective date), a facility must show
that installation cannot reasonably be
expected to be completed earlier. In
these circumstances, an owner/operator
must develop an implementation
schedule that indicates when the
installation will be completed and
shows that additional time is necessary.
The implementation schedule must be
included in the operating record by the
effective date of the rules. Changes in
the implementation schedule are
allowed within the 24-month time frame
if the owner/operator documents that
the change cannot reasonably be
avoided.
B. Standards for Process Vents
Affected Equipment
A "process vent" is a pipe, stack, or
other opening through which emissions
from a hazardous waste management
unit are released to the atmosphere
either directly, through a vacuum-
producing system, or indirectly, through
another tank. The process vents that
would have been covered by the
proposed standard included vents
associated with any hazardous waste
management process or waste
management unit.
Review of the hazardous waste TSDF
industry has shown that process vents
are most typically associated with
processes related to distillation or other
separation operations. These
technologies were also the type being
evaluated under the LDR for spent
solvents. Therefore EPA concentrated
its analysis of process vents on those
hazardous waste management units that
are involved in solvent or other organic
chemical separation or reclamation by
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations. This should
include the largest segment of process
vents at TSDF and address those
sources with the greatest emission
potential. Vents on other types of waste
management units {e.g. vents on storage
tanks) are being addressed in the Phase
II rulemaking.
Two basic changes have been made
since proposal that clarify the
applicability of the final vent standard.
First, to avoid confusion with tanks not
associated with the processing of waste
streams, the term "product accumulator
vessel" has been deleted from the final
standard and affected equipment is
more specifically defined. The
applicability of the final standard for
process vents also has been clarified
since proposal to exclude air emissions
from vents on other closed (covered)
and vented tanks not associated with
the specified distillation/separation
processes to avoid regulatory
duplication of the Phase II standards as
discussed above.
Thus, the final vent standards apply
to: (1) Vents on distillation fractionation,
thin-film evaporation, solvent
extraction, and air or steam stripping
-------
25462
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
processes and vents on condensers
serving these processes; and (2) vents on
tanks (e.g., distillate receivers, bottoms
receivers, surge control tanks, separator
tanks, and hot wells associated with
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, and air
or steam stripping processes) if
emissions from these processes are
vented through the tank. For example,
uncondensed overhead emitted from a
distillate receiver (which fits the
definition of a tank) serving a hazardous
waste distillation process unit is subject
to these Phase I air controls. On the
other hand, emissions from vents on
tanks or containers that do not derive
from a process unit specified above are
not covered by these rules. For example,
if the condensed (recovered) solvent is
pumped to an intermediate holding tank
following the distillate receiver
mentioned in the above example, and
the intermediate storage tank has a
pressure-relief vent (e.g., a conservation
vent) serving the tank, this vent will not
be subject to the process vent standards.
Emissions from vents that are not
covered under today's rules will be
addressed by Phase H of the air
standards under section 3004(n).
Second, the terms "VHAF1 and "in
VHAP service" have been deleted from
the final rule in response to public
comments. Commenters found the terms
inappropriate for transfer from
equipment leak standards developed
under section 111 or 112 of the CAA to
RCRA standards for organic emissions
from hazardous waste. The EPA agrees
with these commenters: these terms can
be confusing and they are unnecessary
for these rules. Therefore, the cross-
reference to part 91 has been eliminated
and the wording of the final regulation
has been revised to reflect applicability
based on clearly specified hazardous
waste management processes or unit
operations that manage wastes with a
10 ppmw or greater total organic
content
Requirements of Final Standard for
Process Vents
In response to public comments,
several changes have been made to the
proposed standard for process vents.
While the proposed 95-percent emission
reduction standard would have applied
to individual process vents emitting
organics with concentrations of 10
percent or greater by weight the final
process vent 95-percent emission
reduction standard applies to total
organic emissions from the combination
of all affected vents (i.e., vents subject
to the provisions of subpart AA) at the
facility. As discussed in section VI of
this preamble and in the BIO for the
final rules, the term "facility" refers to
the entire site that is under control of
the owner or operator engaged in
hazardous waste management Thus,
organic emissions from affected process
vents anywhere on the hazardous waste
management facility are subject to the
standards.
The 10-percent concentration criterion
for process vents has not been included
in the final rules because the
promulgated standards contain a
facility-based emission rate limit of 1.4
kg/h (3 Ib/h) and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr)
that is more effective in controlling
emissions from affected sources and
excluding facilities with little emission
reduction potential. Based on emissions
and health risk analyses conducted in
response to comments, this emission
rate limit represents an emission level
from process vents that is protective of
human health and the environment and
below which additional meaningful
reductions in nationwide health risk and
environmental impacts attributable to
process vents cannot be achieved.
Control of facilities with process vent
emissions less than the emission rate
Unit would not result in further
reductions of either cancer risk or
incidence on a nationwide basis.
Facilities with organic emissions from
process vents that do not exceed these
emission rates will not have to install
controls or monitor emissions from
affected process vents. Selection of the
emission rate limit is addressed in
section VLB of this preamble and in
chapters 4.0 and 7.0 of the BID.
Because the emission rate limits (3 lb/
h and 3.1 ton/yr) provide health-based
limits, EPA considered dropping
completely the organic content criterion
(i.e., at least 10 percent total organics).
However, EPA decided not to
completely eliminate the organic content
criterion because it is not clear that the
same controls can be applied to very
low concentration streams as can be
applied to the higher concentration
streams that generally are associated
with emission rates greater than the
limits. For low-concentration streams,
EPA questions whether controls are
needed on a national or generic basis
but is unable to resolve this question at
this time. Thus, EPA decided to defer
controlling very low concentration
streams until it is better able to
characterize and assess these streams
and the appropriate controls.
Once EPA decided to consider
facilities that manage very low
concentration organic wastes as a
separate category, there remained the
problem of determining the appropriate
criterion. The EPA examined existing
data on air strippers, the treatment
device most commonly used with low-
concentration streams; it appeared that
the quantity of emissions and the risk
associated with air strippers treating
streams with concentrations below 10
ppmw may be relatively small, thus
minimizing the potential harm of
deferring control until a later time.
Examples of facilities managing low-
concentration wastes are sites where
ground water is undergoing remedial
action under CERCLA or corrective
action pursuant to RCRA. Given the
limited set of precise data available, and
the comments that the 10-percent
criterion was too high, EPA determined
that an appropriate criterion would be
10 parts per million (ppm) total organics
in the waste by weight.
The 10-ppmw criterion is not an
exemption from regulation; it is intended
only as a way for EPA to divide the air
regulations into phases. The EPA is
deferring action on very low
concentration streams (i.e., ones with
less than 10 ppmw total organic content)
from the final rule today but will
evaluate and announce a decision later
on whether to regulate these waste
streams.
To comply with the final standards for
process vents, the TSDF owner or
operator is required to identify all
process vents associated with
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, and
stripping processes that are treating
hazardous waste with a 10-ppmw or
greater total organics concentration on a
time-weighted annual average basis (i.e.,
vents affected by the rules). Organic
emission rates for each affected vent
and for the entire facility from all
affected vents must be determined. The
facility process vent emission rate must
then be compared to the short- and long-
term process vent emission rate limits (3
Ib/h or 3.1 ton/yr) to determine whether
additional emission controls are
required. If the process vent emission
rate limit is exceeded, the owner or
operator must take appropriate action to
reduce total facility emissions from
affected process vents to below the
cutoff level or install additional
emission controls to reduce total facility
process vent organic emissions by 95
weight percent If an incinerator,
process heater, or boiler is used as a
control device, the volume concentration
standard of 20 ppmv can be met instead
of the 95-weight-percent reduction
(§S 264.1033(c). 264.1060, 265.1033(c),
and 265.1060).
Because the final rules could apply to
dilute process vent streams and the rule
is formatted hi terms of a weight-percent
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 /Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25463
reduction standard, it is necessary to
include the volume concentration
standard in the final control device
standards to account for the
technological limitations of enclosed
combustion devices (43 FR 48933,
October 21,1983), one of the control
technologies examined as part of the
rulemaking, treating dilute streams.
Below a critical concentration level, the
maximum achievable efficiency for
enclosed combustion devices decreases
as inlet concentration decreases; thus,
for streams with low organic vapor
concentrations, the 95-percent mass
reduction may not be technologically
achievable in all cases. Available data
show that 20 ppmv is the lowest outlet
concentration of total organic
compounds achievable with control
device inlet streams below
approximately 2,000 ppmv total
organics. Therefore, a concentration
limit of 20 ppmv has been added as an
alternative standard for incinerators,
process heaters, and boilers to allow for
the drop in achievable destruction
efficiency with decreasing inlet organics
concentration. For consistency, the 20-
ppmv concentration is expressed as the
sum of the actual individual compounds,
not carbon equivalents, on a dry basis
corrected to 3 percent oxygen. For
facilities that do not meet the emission
rate limit, the final process vent
standards require that control devices
achieve a 95-percent reduction in total
organic emissions for the facility or, in
the case of enclosed combustion
devices, a reduction of each process
vent stream to a concentration of no
more than each process vent stream to a
concentration of no more than 20 ppmv
total organic compounds.
The final standards for process vents
do not require the use of any specific
equipment or add-on control device; the
standards can be met using several
types of controls. Depending on the
characteristics of the process vent
stream, either a condenser or a carbon
adsorbar will likely be the control
technology of choice. However, other
control devices such as flares,
incinerators, process heaters, and
boilers, as well as any other device of
the owner or operator's choice, also can
be used where applicable to achieve
compliance.
Operating requirements for closed-
vent systems and control devices are
included in IS 264.1033 and 265.1033. A
closed-vent system means a system not
open to the atmosphere and composed
of piping, connections, and, if necessary.
How-inducing devices that transport gas
or vapor from a piece or pieces of
equipment to a control device. If vapor
recovery systems such as condensers
and adsorbers are used as control
devices, they must be designed and
operated to recover the organic vepors
vented to them with an efficiency of 95
percent or more unless the total organic
emission limits for affected process
vents (55 2844032 and 265.1032) can be
attained at efficiencies less than 95
percent Vapor recovery systems whose
primary function is the recovery of
organics for commercial or industrial
use or reuse (e.g., a primary condenser
on a waste solvent distillation unit) are
not considered a control device and
should not be included in the 95-percent
emission reduction determination.
If enclosed combustion devices such
as incinerators, boilers, or process
heaters are used, they must be designed
and operated to achieve a total organic
compound emission reduction efficiency
of 95 percent or more or must provide a
minimum residence time of 0.5 s at a
minimum temperature of 730 *C. The
latter are general design criteria
established by EPA, and used in
numerous rulemakings, that can be used
by facilities in lieu of conducting a site*
specific design for enclosed combustion
devices. The operating requirements for
closed-vent systems and control devices
include a provision allowing enclosed
combustion devices to reduce organic
emissions to a total organic compound
concentration of 20 ppmv, by compound,
rather than achieve the 95-wcight
percent reduction.
If flares are used, they must be
designed and operated with no visible
emissions as determined by the
procedures of Reference Method 22,
except for periods not to exceed a total
of 5 min during any 2 consecutive hours.
The final standard specifies that flares
must be operated with a flame present
at all times and must be operated at all
times when emissions may be vented to
them. In addition, flares must provide a
net heating value of the gas being
combusted of 11.2 mega joules per
standard cubic meter (M]/scm) or more,
be steam-assisted or air-assisted, or
provide a net heating value of 7.45 MJ/
•cm or more if the flare is nonassisted.
Specific design and operating
requirements for steam-assisted, air-
assisted and nonsssisted flares also are
included in the final standard.
Calculations and procedures for
determining the net heating value of the
gas being combusted the actual exit
velocity and the maximum allowed
velocity are included in the final
provisions for closed-vent systems and
control devices (see 55 264.l033(d) and
265.1033(d)).
Facilities must maintain
documentation in the operating record
supporting waste determinations,
identifying affected process vents.
affected waste management unit
throughputs and operating hours,
emission rates for each affected vent
and for the overall facility, and the basis
for determining the emission rates
(!§ 264.1035(b)(2) and 265.1035(b)(2J).
Regardless of the type of control device
used, the documentation must certify
that add-on control devices achieve the
emission rate limit by design and during
operation, or that add-on control devices
achieve a 95-percent reduction in
organics or achieve the 20-ppmv
organics concentration limit by design
and during operation where the
emission rate limit is not attained. The
design documentation must present the
basis for determining the design
emission reduction and establish the
basic values for operating parameters
used to monitor the control device a
operation and maintenance. The design
control level (i.e.. the emission reduction
needed to achieve the emission rate
cutoff or 95-percent emission reduction)
can be documented by vendor/
manufacturer certifications, by
engineering calculations, or through
source tests to show that the control
device removes the required percentage
of organics entering the device. All
required information and documentation
must be kept in the facility s operating
record. The facility's waste
determinations and process vent
emission rate determinations must at all
times reflect the facility's current waste
management unit designs and wastes
managed. If the owner/ operator takes
any action that would result in the
determination no longer being
appropriate to the facility's operations
(e.g.. if a waste of different composition
is managed, the operating hours of the
affected management units are
increased beyond what was originally
considered, cr a new affected unit is
added that may impact its regulatory
status), then a new determination is
required (§§ 264,l03o(b)(2)(ii) and
265.1035(b]{2)(ii)). In addition, certain
information regarding the facility's
emission determination, and control
device da sign must be included in the
facility's part B permit application.
The final rules require the continuous
monitoring of specific parameters on all
control devices needed to meet the
standards to ensure that the devices
perform according to their design
(!§ 264.1033(f) and 285.1033(f)). The final
rules clarify the general parameters
listed in the proposal by describing the
requirements in greater detail. Operating
-------
25464 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, [one 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
parameters are specified for condensers,
carbon adsorbers, flares, incinerators,
and other enclosed combustion devices.
Although minimum operating conditions
are identified for organic vapor
destruction devices (e.g., incinerators
and flans) to ensure 95-percent
destruction, values or ranges of values
for recovery device (i.e., condensers and
carbon adsorbers) operating parameters
cannot be specified on an industry-wide
basis. Therefore, a recovery device must
be designed for the particular
application and monitored to ensure that
it is being operated within design
specifications. Proper design shall be
determined through engineering
calculations vendor certification, and/or
emission testing.
The owner/operator is required to
record the control device monitoring
information, including the basis for the
operating parameters used to monitor
control device performance, in the
facility operating record. Periods when
monitoring Indicates control device
operating parameters are outside
established tolerances on design
specifications must be recorded.
Facilities with final permits
incorporating these standards (i.e.,
facilities subject to the provisions of 40
CFR part 264 subpart AA) must report
exceedances that are not corrected
within 24 hours to the Regional
Administrator on a semiannual basis.
The records and reports must include
the dates, duration, cause, and
corrective measures taken. (See
f§ 204.1Q36(a) and 264.1065{a){4).)
The specific monitoring requirements
for control device operating parameters
include: (1) Continuous monitoring of
coolant fluid temperature and exhaust
gas temperatures or the concentration
level of organic compounds in the exit
gas stream for condensers; (2)
continuous monitoring of exhaust gas
organic breakthrough for carbon
adsorbers; (3) continuous monitoring of
combustion zone temperature for
incinerators, boilers and process
heaters; and (4) the presence of a pilot
flame using a thermocouple or any other
equivalent device to detect the presence
of a flame for flares.
The final standards would require that
emission control equipment is properly
designed, installed, operated, and
maintained. Also, as previously
described, the standards would require
continuous monitoring of specific
control device operating parameters. A
control device monitor reading outside
the operating range allowed by the
standards (referred to hi this preamble
as a "control device exceedance")
indicates that the control device is not
operating normally or is malfunctioning
(i.e., not operating at the design setting
necessary to achieve at least 95 percent
organic emission control efficiency).
Action must be taken by the owner or
operator to return the control device to
operating at the design setting. When a
control device exceedance cannot be
corrected within 24 hours of detection,
the final standards would require the
owner or operator to record specific
information concerning the control
device exceedance. Facilities with final
RCRA permits must report this
information to EPA on a semiannual
basis; interim status facilities are not
required to report control device
exceedances. The exceedance report
would need to describe the nature and
period of each control device
exceedance and to explain why the
control device could not be returned to
normal operation within 24 hours. A
report would need to be submitted to
EPA only if control device exceedances
have occurred during the past 0-month
reporting period. These reports would
serve to aid EPA in determining the
owner's or operator's ability to properly
operate and maintain the control device.
The EPA recognizes that a control
device malfunction may occur due to
circumstances beyond the control of the
owner or operator (e.g., defective
equipment supplied by the
manufacturer). Therefore, a single
control device exceedance may not
necessarily be indicative of improper
control device operation or
maintenance.
C. Equipment Leak Standards
Affected Equipment
The final standards apply to each
valve, pump, compressor, pressure relief
device, open-ended valve or line, flange
or other connector, and associated air
emission control device or system that
contains or contacts hazardous waste
streams with 10 percent or more total
organics by weight
In response to public comments, EPA
"has changed the applicability of the final
LDAR standards for pumps and valves
to better relate to the volatility of the
wastes managed and thus to air
emission potential. The requirements for
pumps and valves have been revised to
include the heavy liquid provisions
contained in EPA's new source
performance standard (NSPS) for
equipment leaks of VOC in the synthetic
organic chemicals manufacturing
industry (SOCM1) (40 CFR part 60, part
W). The heavy liquid provisions
(§| 264.1058 and 285.1058) exempt
pumps and valves processing lower
vapor pressure substances from the
routine leak detection monitoring
requirements of thu standards. By their
nature, heavy liquids exhibit much
lower volatilities than do light liquids,
and because equipment leak rates and
emissions have been shown to vary with
stream volatility, emissions from heavy
liquids are less than those for lighter,
more volatile streams. For example, EPA
analyses indicate that emissions from
valves in heavy liquid service are more
than 30 times lower than the emissions
from valves in light liquid service.
Pumps and valves are in light liquid
service if the vapor pressure of one or
more or the components being handled
by the piece of equipment is greater than
0.3 kilopascal (kPa) at 20 *C, if the total
concentration of the pure components
having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3
kPa at 20 *C is equal to or greater than
20 percent by weight, and if the fluid is..
liquid at operating conditions. Pumps
and valves not in light liquid service are
defined to be in heavy liquid service.
The regulations governing equipment
leaks also have been incorporated and
reprinted in the final standards to
eliminate cross-referencing to part 81
regulations and to consolidate the
requirements under RCRA.
Equipment Leak Control Requirements
The control requiremanta for valves
are based on LDAR requirements.
Valves in light liquid or gas/vapor
service (f! 264.1057 and 285.1057) must
be monitored using Reference Method
21; an instrument reading at or above
10,000 ppm indicates the presence of a
leak. If a leak is detected, the valve must
be repaired as soon as practicable but
no later than 15 days after the leak is
detected. A first attempt to repair the
valve must be made no later than 5 days
after the leak is detected. First attempts
at repair include, but are not limited to.
tightening or replacing bonnet bolts
tightening packing gland nuts, or
injecting lubricant into the lubricated
packing.
Monthly monitoring is required;
however, any valve for which a leak is
not detected for 2 successive months
may be monitored the first month of
each succeeding quarter until a leak is
detected (!§ 254.1057(c) and
2fi5.1057(c)). If a leak is detected the
valve must be monitored monthly until a
leak is not detected for 2 successive
months.
In addition, monthly monitoring is not
required if; (1) A lealdess valve, such as
a sealed-bellows valve, is used to
achieve a no-detectable-emissions limit
(500 ppm above background, as
measured by Method 21, with an annual
performance test; 11254.1057(f) and
-------
QSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25465
265.1057{f); (2) the owner or operator
meets a performance level of 2 percent
of all valves leaking {55 264.1061 and
265.1061); (3) the owner or operator
elects to comply with a skip-period leak
detection and repair program as
described for valves (§5 264.1062 and
283.1062); or (4) the valve is designated
by the owner or operator as unsafe-to-
monitor or difficult-to-monitor
(§1 284.1057 (g) and [h) and 265.1057 (g)
and (h)). A valve may be designated as
unsafe-to-monitor if monitoring
personnel would be exposed to an
immediate danger as a consequence of
monitoring and if the owner or operator
adheres to a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve as frequently as
practicable during safe-to-monitor times.
A valve may be designated as difficult-
to-monitor if the valve cannot be
monitored without elevating monitoring
personnel more than 2 m above a
support surface, the valve is in an
existing hazardous waste management
unit and the owner or operator follows a
written plan that requires monitoring at
least once a year.
The EPA is continuing to study the
status of new technology available for
the control of air emissions from valves.
The EPA has Issued a separate notice in
the Federal Register that discusses
available information on leakless valve
technology (54 FR 30228, July 19,1989).
Public comments were requested in that
notice on several aspects of the
technology to assist EPA in determining
applications for which leakless valve
technology would be appropriate at
hazardous waste TSDF,
The final standards also require
monitoring for pumps at TSDF
containing or contacting wastes with
greater than 10 percent organics
(IS 264.1052 and 285.1052). Each pump in
light liquid service must be monitored
monthly with a portable vapor analyzer
following the EPA Reference Method 21
protocol. In addition, each pump in light
liquid service must be checked weekly
by visual inspection for indications of
liquids dripping from the pump seal. A
pump is determined to be leaking if an
instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or
greater is measured or there are
indications of liquids dripping from the
pump seal. When a leak is detected, it
must be repaired as soon as practicable,
but not later than 15 days after it is
detected unless the delay-of-repair
provisions specified in the rule apply.
The first attempt at repair must be made
within 5 calendar days of the leak being
detected.
Pumps in light liquid service are
exempt from the monitoring
requirements under If 264.1052 (d) and
(e) and 285.1052 (d) and (e) if: (l) The
pump is equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid between the two seals, (2) a
magnetically coupled or diaphragm
pump is used to achieve a no-detectable-
emissions limit (indicated by a portable
organic vapor analyzer reading of less
than 500 ppm above background), or (3)
the pump is equipped with a closed-vent
system capable of transporting any
leakage from the seal or seals to a 95-
percent efficient control device. If
pumps are equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system, emissions from
the barrier fluid reservoir must be
vented to a control device designed and
operated to achieve a 95-percent control
efficiency, the barrier fluid must be
purged and added to the hazardous
waste stream, or the pressure of the
barrier fluid must be maintained at a
level above the pressure in the pump or
exhauster stuffing box, A pressure or
level indicator to detect any failure of
the seal system or the barrier fluid
system is required, with the indicator
checked daily or equipped with an
alarm to signal failure of the system. If
leakless equipment is used, such as
magnetically coupled or diaphragm
pumps, the standards require an annual
performance test by Method 21 to verify
the no-detectable-emissions status of
the equipment.
Compressors must be equipped with a
seal system that includes a barrier fluid
system that prevents leakage of organic
emissions to the atmosphere. The seal
system must be operated with the
barrier fluid at a pressure that is greater
than the compressor stuffing box
pressure, be equipped with a barrier
fluid system that is connected by a
closed-vent system to a control device
that meets the design and operating
requirements established in § § 264.1060
and 265.1060, or be equipped with a
system that purges the barrier fluid into
a hazardous waste stream with zero
total organic emissions to the
atmosphere. In addition, the barrier fluid
system must be equipped with a sensor
that detects failure of the seal system,
barrier fluid system, or both. A
compressor is determined to be leaking
if the sensor indicates failure of the seal
system, the barrier fluid system, or both.
When a leak is detected, it must be
repaired as soon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected; a first attempt at repair must
be made within 5 calendar days.
Except during emergency pressure
releases, each pressure relief device in
gas/vapor service must be operated
with no detectable emissions (500 ppm
above background, as measured by
Reference Method 21) {|| 264,1054 and
265,1054). No later than 5 calendar days
after any pressure release, the device
must be returned to a condition of no
detectable emissions and be monitored
to confirm that status. Any pressure
relief device that is equipped with a
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting leakage to a control
device that meets the requirements of
|§ 264.1060 and 265.1060 is exempt from
these requirements.
Each open-ended valve or line must
be equipped with a cap. blind flange.
plug, or second valve (§5 264.1056 and
265.1056). The cap. blind flange, plug or
second valve must seal the open end at
all times except during operation
requiring hazardous waste stream flow
through the open-ended valve or hne
Operational requirements for second
valves and double block and bleed
systems also are specified in the final
regulation.
Pumps and valves in heavy-liquid
service, pressure relief devices in light-
liquid or heavy-liquid service, and
flanges and other connectors must be
monitored within 5 days by Reference
Method 21 if evidence of a potential leak
is found by visual audible, olfactory, or
any other detection method (§ f 264.1056
and 265.1058). A leak is detected if an
instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or
greater is measured. When a leak is
detected, it shall be repaired as soon as
practicable but not later than 15
calendar days after detection. The first
attempt at repair must be made within 5
calendar days of the leak being
detected.
The final standards also include
provisions for delay of repair (5 §
264.1059 and 285.1059). Delay of repair
of leaking equipment is allowed if the
repair is technically infeasible without a
hazardous waste management unit
shutdown (i.e., a work practice or
operational procedure that stops
operation of a hazardous waste
management unit or part of a hazardous
waste management unit). However,
repair of the leak must be performed
before the end of the next shutdown of
that unit Delay of repair also is allowed
for equipment (i.e.. either pumps or
valves] that is isolated from the
hazardous waste management unit and
is prevented from containing or
contacting a hazardous waste with 10
percent or more organic content. For
valves, delay of repair is allowed if: (1)
The owner or operator determines that
emissions of purged material resulting
from immediate repair are greater than
the emissions likely to result from delay
of repair, and (2) when the valve is
repaired the purged materials are
-------
25468
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
collected and destroyed or recovered in
a control device complying with the
requirements of the standards. Delay of
repair beyond a hazardous waste
management unit shutdown is allowed
only if valve assembly replacement is
necessary during the next shutdown of
the unit, valve assembly supplies have
been depleted, and valve assembly
supplies had been sufficiently stocked
before supplies were depleted (i.e., the
owner/operator has made a good-faith
effort to maintain adequate spare parts).
For pumps, delay of repair is allowed if:
(1) Repair requires the use of a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system, and (2) repair is
completed as soon as practicable, but
not later than 6 months after the leak is
detected.
The final standards also include
design and operating requirements for
closed-vent systems that may be used to
comply with the equipment leak
standards (|| 264,1060 and 265.1060).
Closed-vent systems must be designed
for and operated with no detectable
emissions, as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background by Reference Method 21. A
leak on a closed-vent system, indicated
by an instrument reading of SOD ppm or
by visual inspection, must be repaired
within 15 calendar days after detection;
a First attempt at repair must be made
no later than 5 calendar days after
detection. Monitoring must be
conducted initially, annually, and at
other times as requested by the Regional
Administrator, to confirm the no-
detectable-emissions status of the
system. Like other control devices,
closed-vent systems must be operated at
all times when any emissions may be
vented to them.
The provisions of 40 CFR 81.244,
subpart V, which provide a formal
mechanism for applying for use of an
alternative means of emission limitation,
were specifically not included in the
proposed TSDF process vent and
equipment leak rules and have not been
included in these final standards. The
alternative means of emission limitation
provisions are not considered self-
implementing; i.e., these provisions
cannot be satisfied without the need for
detailed explanation or negotiation
between the facility owner/operator and
EPA. and thus are not appropriate as
requirements for interim status facilities
under part 265. Therefore, the
alternative means of emission limitation
provisions were not included in the final
subpart AA and BB rules. An owner or
operator, however, may use an
alternative means of emission limitation
to comply with the process vent or
equipment leak standards of part 264.
The owner/operator can use part B of
the permit application to provide
information that demonstrates the
effectiveness of any alternative means
of emission limitation and can use the
negotiation process associated with
issuance of a final permit to establish
conditions for use of an alternative
means of emission limitation. The owner
or operator would be responsible for
collecting and verifying test data to
document that the emission reduction
achieved by the alternative is equal to
or greater man the emission reduction
achieved by the equipment, design, or
operational requirements in the
standard.
Additional general recordkeeping
requirements include information on
pump, valve, compressor, and pressure
relief device leak repair attempts;
reasons for repair delays; and design
criteria for sampling connection systems
and closed-vent systems and control
devices. There are also recordkeeping
and monitoring requirements for pieces
of equipment covered by alternative
requirements.
Compliance with the equipment leak
standards will be assessed through
plant inspections and the review of
records that document implementation
of the requirements as required by the
final standards.
D. Summary of Changes from Proposal
Several changes have been made to
the standards since proposal as the
result of EPA's evaluation of comments
and of additional information gathered
in response to comments. These changes
respond primarily to commenters'
concerns that additional controls are
unnecessary for TSDF process vents and
equipment with very low emissions and
that the applicability, implementation,
and compliance provisions of the
standards should be clarified. The EPA
has addressed these problems in the
final rules.
The proposed standards would have
required that organic emissions from all
process vents that emit organics in
concentrations of 10 percent or greater
on all TSDF waste management units be
reduced by 85 percent The final rules
apply to process vents on specific
hazardous waste management units that
treat wastes with total organics
concentrations of 10 ppmw or greater
and include (1) process vents on
distillation, fraciionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations and vents on
condensers serving these operations and
(2) process vents on tanks associated
with distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations if emissions
from these process operations are
vented through the tanks.
While the proposed standard would
have required 95 percent emission
reduction from each affected vent, the
final vent standard's weight-percent
reduction applies to total emissions from
the combination of all affected vents at
each facility. The final rules also add
facility-based emission rate limits for all
affected process vents of 1.4 kg/h (3 lb/
h) and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr) (||
264.1032(a)(1) and 265.1032{a)(l)J.
Facilities with organic emissions from
vents below the emission rate limits will
not have to reduce process vent organic
emissions. The owner or operator of the
facility must determine and document
that emissions from affected vests will
not exceed the emission rate limits. The
EPA estimates that baseline emissions
will be reduced by about 90 percent by
controlling process vent emissions from
about 55 percent of affected facilities,
i.e., those with emissions above the
emission rate limit.
Another major change affects the
applicability of the final standards for
pumps and valves to better relate to the
volatility of the wastes managed and
thus to air emission LDAR potential. The
proposed LDAR requirements for pumps
and valves have been revised to
distinguish between equipment in heavy
liquid service and equipment in gas/
light liquid service. The provisions
exempt pumps and valves processing
relatively low vapor pressure
substances (heavy liquids) from the
routine instrument monitoring
requirements of the standards. These
provisions are included to avoid
requiring unnecessary controls on
equipment that pcses little emission
problem even when leaking.
Because of commenters' concerns
with the administrative problems
associated with obtaining a major
permit modification, the final standards
do sot require modifications of RCRA
permits issued before the effective date
of these rules (§| 264.1030(c) and
264.1050(cl). In such cases, requirements
for affected hazardous waste
management units and associated
requirements for process vents and
equipment must be added or
. incorporated into the facility's permit at
review under § 270.50 or at reissue
under § 124.15. However, in the
forthcoming Phase II air rules, EPA will
be proposing to modify §§ 264.l030(c)
and 264.1050(c) as they apply to control
of air emissions under subparts AA and
BB. This action, if adopted, would mean
that the air rules promulgated under
RCRA section 30C4(n) would be
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25467
applicable to all facilities as of the
effective date of the Phase II rules. More
details regarding implementation are
presented in section IX of this preamble.
The proposed air emission standards
for process vents and equipment leaks
would have added part 269, Air
Emission Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities. For consistency with
standards for other TSDF sources under
RCRA, the final standards have been
incorporated into part 264, for permitted
facilities, and part 265, for interim status
facilities. In addition, whereas at
proposal the equipment leak
requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart
V, were incorporated by reference, these
provisions have been written into
subpart BB with editorial revisions
appropriate for a standard promulgated
under RCRA authority rather than CAA
authority.
£. Relationship of RCRA Exemptions to
Final Standards
Under 40 CFR 261.4(c), hazardous
wastes that are generated in process-
related equipment such as product or
raw material storage tanks or pipelines
are exempt from RCRA regulation. This
exemption applies until the waste is
physically removed from the unit in
which it was generated, unless the unit
is a surface impoundment or unless the
hazardous waste remains in the unit
more than 90 days after the unit ceases
to be operated for manufacturing, or for
storage or transportation of product or
raw materials. This exemption is not
affected by this rule. Therefore, units
such as product (not hazardous waste)
distillation columns generating
hazardous waste still bottoms
containing organics are not subject to
the standard while the wastes are in the
product distillation column. However,
distillation columns that receive
hazardous wastes and that are used in
hazardous waste treatment (i.e..
hazardous waste management units) are
subject to this standard if the waste's
organic content exceeds the 10-ppmw
applicability criterion. As discussed in
the preamble to the proposed standard.
only those recycling units that are part
of a facility already subject to RCRA
permit requirements are subject to the
air standards, The EPA's authority to
control air emissions from solvent
reclamation operations not part of
closed-loop systems is discussed further
in section VI of this preamble and in the
BID.
Totally enclosed treatment facilities
also are exempt from RCRA subtitle C
requirements under 40 CFR 264.l(g)(5),
40 CFR 2B5.1(c)(8), and 270.1{c)(2). A
"totally enclosed treatment facility" is a
hazardous waste treatment facility that
is "directly connected to an industrial
production process and which is
constructed and operated in a manner
that prevents the release of any
hazardous waste or any constituent
thereof into the environment during
treatment" (40 CFR 260.10).
Treatment facilities located off the
site of generation are not directly
connected to an industrial process.
Thus, commercial waste treatment
facilities with equipment affected by the
final standards, such as solvent
reclamation facilities, by definition
ordinarily would not be totally enclosed.
In addition, storage facilities, disposal
facilities, and ancillary equipment not
used for treating hazardous waste do
not fall within the definition of a totally
enclosed treatment facility.
The EPA believes that many on-site
treatment facilities also are not totally
enclosed. Distillation columns and other
treatment technologies typically are
designed to release emissions into the
air. Therefore, by definition, these on-
site technologies generally are not
totally enclosed. (See 45 FR 33218, May
19,1980 (no constituents released to air
during treatment).)
Two important characteristics define
a totally enclosed treatment facility. The
key characteristic of a totally enclosed
treatment facility is that it does not
release any hazardous waste or
constituent of hazardous waste into the
environment during treatment. Thus, if a
facility leaks, spills, or discharges waste
or waste constituents, or emits waste or
waste constituents into the air during
treatment, it is not a totally enclosed
treatment facility within the meaning of
these regulations. The second important
characteristic is that it must be directly
connected to an industrial production
process.
The EPA also excludes elementary
neutralization and wastewater
treatment tanks as defined by 40 CFR
260.10 from regulation under the
hazardous waste rules. The EPA
amended these definitions (see 53 FR
34060, September 2,1988} to clarify that
the scope of the exemptions applies to
the tank systems, not just the tank. For
example, if a wastewater treatment or
elementary neutralization unit is not
subject to RCRA subtitle C hazardous
waste management standards, neither is
ancillary equipment connected to the
exempted unit The amendments also
clarify that for a wastewater treatment
unit to be covered by the exemption, it
must be part of an onsite wastewater
treatment facility. Thus, emissions from
process vents associated with
distillation, fractionation thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations and ancillary
equipment (piping, pumps, etc.) that are
associated with a tank that is part of the
wastewater treatment system subject to
regulation either under sections 402 or
307(b) of the Clean Water Act are not
subject to these standards. However, air
emission sources not subject to RCRA
may be subject to CAA guidance and/or
standards.
As noted in the preamble to the
proposal, under 40 CFR 262.34.
generators that accumulate hazardous
waste in tanks and containers for 90
days or less are not subject to RCRA
permitting requirements, provided they
comply with the provisions of 40 CFR
262.34, which include the substantive
requirements for tanks and containers
storing hazardous waste, 40 CFR part
265, subparts I and ]. This remains
unchanged, and the final standards do
not apply to generator tanks that
accumulate hazardous waste for 90 days
or less. However, as part of the Phase II
TSDF air emission regulations, EPA
intends to propose to modify the
exemption conditions to require that 90-
day tanks meet the control requirements
of the Phase I and Phase II standards.
Today's final rules regulate the
activity of reclamation at certain types
of RCRA facilities for the first time. The
EPA is amending 40 CFR 281.8 under its
RCRA authority over reclamation to
allow covering reclamation of hazardous
wastes in waste management units
affected by today's final rules. It should
be recognized, however, that these final
rules apply only at facilities otherwise
needing a RCRA permit In addition, the
closed-loop reclamation exemption in
§ 261.4(a)(8) is not changed by these
rules. Therefore, not all reclamation
units will necessarily be affected by
these rules.
VI. Summary of Comments and
Responses
Numerous comments on the proposed
rule were received that relate to nearly
all aspects of the RCRA standards
development process. The comment
summaries cover topics relating to
regulatory issues, applicability of the
standards, control technologies impact
analyses and implementation and
compliance issues. Detailed responses
to these and other comments are
included in the BID for the promulgated
standards, which is available in the
public docket for this rule.
-------
25468 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
A. Regulatory Issues
Statutory Authority
Comment- Several commenters argued
that TSDF air emissions should be
regulated under the CAA rather than
RCRA because (1) CAA standards under
sections ill and 112 are already in place
in the SOCMI and petroleum refining
industries (2) air emissions at some
TSDF have already been permitted
under State implementation plans (SIP),
new source review programs, or under
State regulations for VOC or air toxics
control; (3) VOC and ozone control are
the province of the CAA, not RCRA; and
(4) a statutory mechanism already exists
under the CAA for evaluating the risk
posed by air emissions.
Response: Congress has required EPA
to promulgate air emission monitoring
and control requirements at hazardous
waste TSDF. under section 3004(n) of •
RCRA, as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
Congress was aware of the existence
and scope of the CAA when it enacted
section 3004(n) of RCRA, There is no
indication that Congress intended that
all air regulations be issued within the
confines of the CAA. On the contrary,
when adding section 3004(n), Congress
specifically recognized EPA's dual
authority to regulate these air pollutants
(S. Rep. 98-284, page 63), ,
The EPA has conducted an analysis of
current State and Federal controls and
concluded that further regulation under
section 3004(n) is necessary to protect
human health and the environment. The
EPA examined State regulations, as well
as existing Federal standards (and those
under development), to determine the
potential for overlapping rules and
permitting requirements. The EPA found
that 6 States have established air toxics
programs, 21 States have established
generic standards for VOC independent
of Federal regulations, and several
States have extended control techniques
guidelines (CTG) for VOC to TSDF.
However, the standards vary widely in
scope and application and in many
cases controls have not been required
•vhen emissions are below 40 ton/yr,
2ven in the 37 States with ozone
nonattaimr.ent areas. The EPA believes
that today's action will help alleviate
the nonuniformity among the States'
efforts and will help achieve emission
reductions necessary to protect human
health and the environment.
A few commenters also argued that
the standards would duplicate existing
CAA standards that apply to the SOCMI
and petroleum refineries. The EPA
disagrees because the standards being
promulgated today apply to waste
management sources whereas the CAA
standards previously promulgated apply
to the production process.
The EPA also disagrees with
contentions that it is outside the
province of RCRA to address VOC and
ozone. As noted, section 3004(n)
standards, like all RCRA subtitle C
standards, are to protect "human health
and the environment." VOC and ozone
are threats to human health and the
environment and thus are well within
the regulatory scope of section 3004(n).
Organic emissions from TSDF
contribute to ambient ozone formation.
In fact, TSDF are estimated to emit
nearly 12 percent of all VOC from
stationary sources, and thus any
reductions in these emissions will
contribute to reducing ozone formation
and associated health and
environmental problems.
RCRA Authority Over Recycling
Comment: Several commenters argued
that EPA does not have regulatory
authority under RCRA to control solvent
reclamation operations or units or
equipment managing materials destined
for reclamation such as spent solvent
because they are producing or managing
products and not wastes.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the
commenters regarding EPA's authority
to control solvent reclamation
operations. In response to a court
opinion (American Mining Congress v.
EPA, 824 F.2d 1177, DC Circuit Court of
Appeals, July 31,1987) concerning the
scope of EPA's RCRA authority, EPA
proposed amendments to the RCRA
definition of "solid waste" that would
clarify when reclamation operations can
be considered to be managing solid and
hazardous wastes (53 FR S19, January 8,
1988). The EPA has accepted comments
on its interpretation and proposed
amendments. The EPA has not yet taken
final action on this proposal. Thus, EPA
is addressing the scope of its authority
over reclamation operations under
RCRA in the context of that rulemaking.
This rule is based on EPA's current
interpretation of its RCRA authority, as
described in the January 1988 proposal.
The following summarizes EPA's
proposed position. In general, the
proposed amendments would exclude
from RCRA control only those spent
solvents reclaimed as part of a
continuous, ongoing manufacturing
process where the material to be
reclaimed is piped (or moved by a
comparably closed means of
conveyance) to a reclamation device,
any storage preceding reclamation is in
a tank, and the material is returned after
being reclaimed, to the original process
where it was generated. (Other
conditions on this exclusion relate to
duration and purpose of the reclamation
process. See proposed § 261.4(a)(8).)
However, processes (or other types of
recycling) involving an element of
"discard" are (or can be) within RCRA
subtitle C authority. When spent
materials are being reclaimed, this
element of discard can arise in two
principal ways. First when spent
materials are reclaimed by someone
other than the generator, normally in an
off-site operation, the generator of the
spent material is getting rid of the
material and so is discarding it. In
addition, the spent material itself, by
definition, is used up and unfit for
further direct use; the spent material
must first be restored to a usable
condition. This type of operation has
been characterized by some of the worst
environmental damage incidents
involving recycling (50 FR 658-661,
January 4,1985). Moreover, storage
preceding such reclamation has been
subject to the part 264 and 265 standards
since November 19,1980. (See generally
S3 FR 522 and underlying record
materials.) The American Mining
Congress opinion itself indicates that
such materials are solid wastes (824
F.2d at 1187).
When a spent material is reclaimed
on site in something other than a closed-
loop process, EPA also considers that
the spent material is discarded (i.e.,
spent solvents removed from the
process, transferred to an on-site
distillation unit and regenerated have
been removed from the production
process). The EPA's reasoning is that
these materials are no longer available
for use in an ongoing process and have
been disposed of from that operation,
even if the reclamation operation is on
site. Finally, EPA also considers that
when hazardous secondary materials
are reclaimed but then burned as fuels,
the entire operation—culminating in
thermal combustion—constitutes
discarding via destructive combustion
(53 FR 523). Consequently, under this
reading, any intermediate reclamation
step in these types of fuel production
operations remains within EPA's
subtitle C authority.
In summary, under EPA's current
interpretation of the court's opinion, air
emissions from distillation,
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, and stripping
processes involving reclamation of spent
solvent and other spent hazardous
secondary materials can be regulated
under RCRA subtitle C whenever the
reclamation system is not part of the
type of closed-loop reclamation system
described in proposed part 261.4(a)(8).
Any changes to this interpretation as
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25469
part of the solid waste definition final
rule may affect the scope of this rule.
Selection of Source Category
Comment: Several commenters
disagreed with the selection of TSDF
and Waste Solvent Treatment Facility
(WSTF) process vents and equipment
leaks for regulation because they
believed that (1) out-of-date data cr
extrapolated data were used in the
analysis and, as a result, the estimate of
the number of affected facilities
nationwide and the number affected by
the proposed rule is far too low; (2) the
role of State regulations was not
considered; (3) EPA should control
larger, more hazardous air emission
sources at TSDF, such as storage tanks,
before controlling process vents and
equipment leaks; and (4) air emissions
from waste solvent reclamation
operations do not pose a health risk
warranting control.
Response: The EPA generally
disagrees with the commenters that the
selection of TSDF process vents and
equipment leaks was inappropriate.
However, EPA agrees that the standards
will affect more than the 100 WSTF
estimated at proposal. To respond to
these and other comments, EPA
conducted additional technical
analyses. The EPA developed an
industry profile using results of the 1986
National Screening Survey of Hazardous
Waste Treatment Storage, Disposal,
and Recycling Facilities (hereafter
called the "Screener Survey"). The
Screener Survey data represent all of
the TSDF active in 1985 with interim
status or final RCRA permits, which
totalled about 3,000 facilities. The
Screener Survey data are for operations
in 1985, the latest year for which such
comprehensive data are available. A
review of the Screener Survey data
shows a total of about 450 facilities that
need authorization to operate under
RCRA section 3005 and report solvent
recovery by operations such as batch
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, or steam stripping at the
facility; i.e., operations that would have
process vents subject to the standards.
The EPA used these facility counts
together with the reported 1985 waste
solvent throughputs as the basis for the
final process vent standards impacts
analyses. In addition, EPA estimates
that about 1,000 on site and off site
permitted TSDF that do not practice
solvent recovery do manage hazardous
waste streams containing 10 percent or
more total organics and would be
subject to the equipment leak
requirements. In total, about 1,400
facilities are potentially subject to the
provisions of subpart BB.
State and Federal regulations also
were reviewed to help EPA better
estimate baseline emission control
levels. Although a few States have
controls in place, it appears that there
are no general control requirements for
TSDF process vents. Moreover, because
TSDF with solvent recycling generally
are small operations, any new waste
management units with process vents
would likely have potential VOC
emissions of less than 40 ton/yn thus,
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) permit requirements would not
apply. In addition, EPA sent section 3007
information requests to several large
and small TSDF; respondents to the EPA
section 3007 questionnaires did not
indicate control requirements for
process vents. Several of the facilities
that were asked to provide information
reported requirements for obtaining air
contaminant source operating permits,
but they reported no permit
requirements for controlling process
vent emissions. Therefore, the revised
emission estimates (that are based on
site-specific emission data) should
reasonably reflect the current level of
control of process vent emissions.
With respect to those commenters
who argued that other air emission
sources should be controlled instead of
process vents and equipment leaks, it
should be pointed out that section
3004(n) of RCRA requires EPA to
promulgate regulations for the
monitoring and control of air emissions
from hazardous waste TSDF, including
but not limited to open tanks, surface
impoundments, and landfills, as may be
necessary to protect human health and
the environment. Organic emissions are
generated from process vents on
distillation and separation units such as
air strippers, steam strippers, thin-film
evaporators, fractionation columns,
batch distillation units, pot stills, and
condensers and distillate receiving
vessels that vent emissions from these
units. Distillation and separation
processes may be found in solvent
reclamation operations, wastewater
treatment systems, and in other
pretreatment processes. Organic
emissions also are released from
equipment leaks associated with these
processes as well as from nearly all
other hazardous waste management
units.
As discussed in section 1II.D of this
preamble, the EPA chose to develop the
process vent and equipment leak portion
of its TSDF rulemaking as the first phase
of ihe TSDF air emission rules partly to
prevent uncontrolled air emissions from
LDR treatment technologies since these
technologies were likely to have
increased use. In addition. EPA already
had control technology information to
support these regulations, and thus
earlier development of these rules was
possible. This is principally because
effective controls now in place under the
CAA to control emissions from the same
types of emission points in chemical
production facilities and petroleum
refineries can be applied to reduce the
health risk posed by air emissions from
uncontrolled distillation, fractionation,
thin-film evaporation, solvent
extraction, and stripping processes and
equipment leaks at TSDF. The EPA has
limited the applicability of today's final
standards to those types of process
vents for which control techniques are
well developed, i.e., those associated
with processes designed to drive the
organics from the waste, such as
distillation, fractionation. thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, and
stripping operations.
Organic emissions also are generated
from numerous other sources at TSDF.
Preliminary estimates indicate that
nationwide organic emissions (after
control of process vents associated with
distillation/separation units and
equipment leaks) are about 1.8 million
Mg/yr, The EPA is in the process of
developing standards for these sources
under section 3004(n) of RCRA, and the
standards are scheduled for proposal in
1990, Source categories being examined
include tanks, surface impoundments,
containers, and miscellaneous units.
These other TSDF source categories
require different data and engineering
evaluations; thus, standards for these
other sources are on a separate
rulemaking schedule. The emissions and
risk analyses needed to support
extension of the process vent standards
to other closed (covered), vented tanks
are also being developed in conjunction
with this future rulemaking. These
include vent emissions that are
incidental to the process, such as
emissions caused by loading or by
agitation/ aeration of the waste in a
treatment tank.
The EPA has determined that organic
emissions from TSDF/WSTF process
vents and equipment leaks pose a
significant risk to human health and the
environment and that section 3004(n)
provides authority to control TSDF air
emissions from these sources. Therefore,
EPA has decided to take measures to
reduce the atmospheric release of
organic air pollutants from these sources
as quickly as possible. The fact that
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, and
stripping processes and equipment leaks
are regulated before other sources is not
-------
25470 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
germane. There is no reason to delay
these rules while others are under
development.
Other commenters criticized the
selection of the source category for
regulation because their process vent
emissions either are already controlled
or are low enough so as not to pose a
threat to human health and the
environment However, EPA's analysis
of process vent emissions and impacts
indicates that for a large segment of the
industry, TSDF process vent emissions
can pose significant environmental and
health risks. These facilities are the
target of the subpart AA process vent
standards. As discussed in section VJJ3
of this preamble, the final standards
include facility process vent emission
rate limits designed to avoid control of
facilities where meaningful reductions in
nationwide risk to human health and the
environment cannot be achieved.
Several commenters also criticized the
source category for regulation because
emissions from generators who conduct
en-site reclamation and off-site
reclaimers with no prior storage (i.e.,
those recycling activities conducted at
facilities not requiring a RCRA permit)
would not be controlled.
The standards being promulgated
today (under section 3004[n]) apply only
to waste management facilities that
need authorization to operate under
section 3005 of RCRA. Air emissions
from subtitle C waste management
facilities that are excluded from RCRA
permit requirements will be subject to
regulation under either the CAA or
RCRA authority as appropriate. Waste
management facilities that fall under the
requirements of subtitle D (i.e..
nonhazardous waste operations) will
also be subject to regulation under the
CAA. The EPA limited the scope of the
standards at proposal and in this final
rule to facilities required to have a
permit under RCRA to minimize
disruption to the current permitting
system [i.e., not expand the permit
universe) and not impose a permit
burden on facilities not otherwise
subject to RCRA permits. Although EPA
is controlling only some sources in this
rule, other sources of significant levels
of air emissions will also be controlled;
i.e., it is a matter of timing rather than a
decision not to control these other
sources. This phased regulatory
approach is discussed in section I1I.C of
this preamble.
RCRA Decision Criteria
Comment: Several commenters
alleged that the standards do not meet
the mandate of RCRA section 3004(n)
because (1) the standards are not
protective in all cases; (2) the standards
are inconsistent with RCRA section
3004(m) that requires treatment
standards based on best demonstrated
available technology (BOAT); and (3)
neither the RCRA statute nor its
legislative history allows consideration
of costs.
Response: Hie EPA believes that the
standards promulgated today
appreciably reduce health risks that are
presented by air emissions at TSDF and
provide protection to human health and
the environment as required by section
3004(n) of RCRA. for the vast majority of
the air emissions affected by these
standards. The EPA's analysis of
residual cancer risk after
implementation of the standards for
process vents indicates that maximum
individual risk, even at the upper-bound
emission rate, is well within the residual
risk for other standards promulgated
under RCRA, which historically has
been in the range of 1X 1Q~4 to 1 x 10"*.
On the other hand, the analysts
indicates that residual cancer risk after
implementing the equipment leak
standards is higher than the residual
risk for other standards promulgated
under RCRA. However, EPA believes
that the equipment leak standards
achieve significant reductions in
emissions and risk and. that after
control, the vast majority of facilities are
well within the risk range of other RCRA
standards.
As was already described. EPA will
be promulgating regulations to control
TSDF air emissions in phases. Thus, in
Phase IE EPA will be evaluating the
need for additional control (e.g., control
of individual toxic constituents after
implementation of these standards) for
cases where the risk from air emissions
after implementation of the Phase I and
II standards is higher than desirable.
(This regulatory approach is discussed
in section III.C of this preamble.) During
the interim, permit writers should use
EPA's omnibus permitting authority to
require more stringent controls at
facilities where a high residual risk
remains after implementation of the
standards for volatile organics. The
permitting authority cited by section
3005 of RCRA and codified in
§ 270.32(b)(2) states that permits
"* * * shall contain such terms and
conditions as the Administrator or State
Director determines necessary to protect
human health and the environment."
This section allows permit writers to
require emission controls that are more
stringent than those specified by a
standard.
As has been described above, the
approach that EPA is using to control
TSDF air emissions is to proceed with
promulgation of regulations to control
organic emissions as a class (Phases I
and II) and to follow this with
regulations that would require more
stringent controls for cases where the
risk after implementing the organic
standards remains high. The EPA
believes that this approach wiil
ultimately be protective of human health
and the environment for all TSDF air
emissions on a nationwide basis.
The question of whether these
standards implement the requirements
of RCRA section 3004(m) is irrelevant.
Regulations implementing section
3004(m), which is a pretreatment-based
program that defines when hazardous
wastes can be land-disposed, have been
(and will continue to be) separately
promulgated by EPA. For example, see
40 FR 268 {November 7,1986) and 52 FR
25787 (July 8,1987). fa contrast, today's
regulations under section 3004(n) of
RCRA do not specify technology-based
treatment levels for hazardous wastes
but regulate air emissions from
treatment units as necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
Therefore, in developing today's rule
EPA has focused on achieving
acceptable levels of health and
environmental protection rather than on
specifying pretreatment levels for
hazardous wastes. The two regulatory
efforts (i.e., 3004(m) and 3004(n) rules)
are integrated and coordinated to the
extent possible to reduce duplicate and
conflicting regulations. Furthermore,
today's rules are designed to ensure that
treatment required under 3004(m) is
protective of human health and the
environment.
The role of costs as a decision
criterion under RCRA in subtitle C is not
explicitly addressed in the statute. The
EPA's position is that it can consider
cost information as a basis for choosing
among alternatives either (1) when they
all achieve protection of human health
and the environment or (2) for
alternatives that are estimated to
provide substantial reductions in human
health and environmental risks but do
not achieve the historically acceptable
levels of protection under RCRA, when
they are equally protective. However,
EPA does not believe that the cost
burden on industry is a basis for
reducing the stringency of standards
EPA considers necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
Total Organics Approach
Comment: Commenters argued that
applicability should be limited to known
or suspected carcinogens; In addition,
several commenters argued that
applicability of the standards should be
based on volatility and not on total
xrv
-------
OSWER DIR. NO.
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25471
organic content because the relative
amount of organic content by weight
does not determine potential air
emissions and subsequent health effects.
Response: First, it should be pointed
out that ozone presents a threat to
human health and the environment that
warrants control under RCRA. The EPA
agrees that total organic content may
not be a completely accurate gauge of
potential environmental (e.g., ozone] or
health (e.g., cancer) impacts for a source
such as process vents, but it is a readily
measurable indicator. In addition, the
final rule's substantive control
requirements do apply only to vents and
equipment containing volatile
components.
The final vent standard applies to
certain process vents emitting organics
if the vent is associated with one of the
processes specified in the rule. A
process vent is determined to be
affected by the standard if the vent is
part of a hazardous waste distillation,
fractionation, thin-film evaporation.
solvent extraction, or air or steam
stripping unit that manages wastes with
10 ppmw or more total organics: this
includes vents on tanks (e.g., distillate
receivers or hot wells] if emissions from
the process operations are vented
through the tank. Total organic content
of the vent stream (i.e., the emissions to
the atmosphere] is not a consideration
in determining process vent
applicability. As public commenters
pointed out, the 10-percent total
organics concentration cutoff for the
vent stream does not limit total
emissions or relate to emissions that
escape capture by existing control
devices and therefore was not included
in the final rules.
Furthermore, the process vents
covered by this rule are typically
associated with distillation/separation
processes used to recycle spent solvents
and other organic chemicals. By
definition, distillation is a process that
consists of driving gas or vapor from
liquids or solids by heating and then
condensing the vaporfs) to liquid
products. Wastes treated by distillation
are expected to contain organics that
are driven off in the process. Thus, by
their nature, process vent emissions
contain volatile organics.
Under the final standards, the term
"organic emissions" is used in lieu of
"volatile organic emissions" to avoid
confusion with "volatile organic
compounds." As at proposal, the final
rule applies to total organics. Because of
the hundreds of hazardous constituents
that could be contained in and
contacted by the equipment covered by
today's rules, EPA recognizes the
potential for the residual risk at some
facilities to remain higher than the
residual risk for other standards
promulgated under RCRA. Regulations
based only on specific constituents will
therefore be developed, as necessary, in
Phase III of EPA's regulatory approach.
The constituents to be evaluated will
include those reported as being present
in hazardous wastes managed by
existing TSDF for which health effects
have been established through the
development of unit risk factors for
carcinogens and reference doses for
noncarcinogens.
As is discussed in section VLB of this
preamble, emission potential from
equipment leaks also was considered by
incorporating the light-liquid definition
in the section 111 CAA standards. Light
liquids exhibit much higher volatilities
than do heavy liquids, which are
relatively nonvolatile. Equipment leak
rates and emissions have been shown to
vary with stream volatility; emissions
from heavy liquids are far less than
those for lighter, more volatile streams.
For example, EPA analyses indicate that
emissions from valves in heavy-liquid
service are more than 30 times lower
than the emissions from valves in light-
liquid service (see the BID. § 4.6]. The
EPA examined the emissions and risk
associated with light- and heavy-liquid
waste streams and found that light-
liquid streams are the overwhelming
contributors to both emissions and risk.
Thus, the final standards take into
account the volatility of emissions and
the subsequent impact on health and the
environment.
Application of CAA Equipment Leak
Standards
Comment: Several commenters did
not agree that the standards should be
based on the transfer of technology from
the section 112 standards for benzene
(40 CFR, subpart V) because TSDF
waste streams and processes differ from
the chemical plants and petroleum
refineries upon which the CAA
standards are based.
Response: Data used in establishing
the benzene fugitive standards under
CAA section 112 are based on extensive
emission and process data collected at a
variety of petroleum refinery and
SOCMI operating units. Data were
obtained for equipment and chemical
component mixtures that include many
of the same organic compounds that are
treated, stored, and disposed of in
hazardous waste management units.
Because hazardous waste management
units such as distillation units have the
same sources of fugitive organic
emissions (such as pumps and valves]
and handle the same chemicals as do
chemical manufacturing plants and
petroleum refineries, it is reasonable to
expect similar performance and
efficiency of the technology for
controlling organic emissions at
hazardous waste management units. The
EPA has no reason to believe that the
equipment standards would not be
applicable to TSDF. Moreover, although
EPA has not conducted actual
equipment leak testing at TSDF,
observations of equipment during plant
visits have confirmed that the
assumptions and analyses used in other
equipment leak standards apply to
TSDF as well.
Changes have been made in the final
standards and analyses to incorporate
provisions included in the CAA
standards that reflect the effect of
volatility on emissions. As is discussed
in section V of this preamble, the LDAR
requirements for pumps and valves have
been revised to include the light-liquid
provisions in EPA's NSPS for VOC
equipment leaks in the SOCMI.
Correspondingly, the emission and
health risk analyses have been revised
to reflect this change to the standards.
Additional information on the
appropriateness of the CAA data on the
SOCMI and petroleum refineries is
presented in the next section.
B. Standards and Applicability
Standards for Accumulator Vessels
Comment: Commenters contended
that the regulatory approach of applying
a single standard to the wide varieties of
accumulator vessels irrespective of the
chemical constituents that are present
and the size of the vessel is not
appropriate because the proposed
standards result in the control of
already low emission rates at
disproportionately high costs. Standards
for tanks (whether accumulation or
storage tanks] should be conditioned by
the size of the vessel, the vapor pressure
of the material being stored, and the
type of units that pose a risk to human
health and the environment. The EPA's
approach should be similar to or
consistent with the CAA NSPS for
petroleum liquid storage vessels (40 CFR
part 60, subpart Ka). These standards
exempt vessels that store liquids less
than 1.5 psia or that store less than
40,000 gal.
Response: Commenters recommending
that the air emission standards be
conditioned by the size of the tank and
the vapor pressure of the material being
stored have misinterpreted the
applicability of the proposed standards.
To clarify the applicability of the
standards, the term "product
accumulator vessel" has been dropped
, t "'•
- -f .a
-------
25472 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
from the promulgated rule, including the
equipment definition, and the process
vent definition has been revised to be
specific to the applicable emission
sources. "Process vent" is defined to
mean "any open-ended pipe or stack
that is vented to the atmosphere either
directly, through a vacuum-producing
system, or through a tank (a.g,, distillate
receiver, condenser, bottoms receiver,
surge control tank, separator, tank, or
hot well) associated with distillation
fractionation, thin-Film evaporation,
solvent extraction, or air or steam
stripping operations." Similarly, the
definition of "vented" has been revised
to specifically exclude the passage of
liquids, gasss, or fumes "caused by tank
loading and unloading (working
losses)." Because tank working and
breathing losses are not considered
process emissions, the comments
concerning vapor pressure and tank size
exemptions are not relevant. (!t should
be noted, however, that EPA intends to
regulate hazardous waste storage tanks,
along with various other TSDF air
emission sources in the Phase II, section
3004(n), TSDF air standards now being
developed and evaluated by the
Agency.)
In conducting the impact analysis of
the WSTF/TSDF process vent
standards, EPA considered and took
into account the relative size of WSTF
process units and the wide range of
chemicals processed in the WSTF
industry. For example, three sizes of
WSTF model units were defined for
analysis of emissions, health risks, and
economic impacts in the final
ralemaking (see section VI.D). In
addition, the final standards for process
vents promulgated by EPA contain
emission rate limits and require controls
only at facilities whose total process
vent emissions are greater than 1.4 kg/h
(3 Ib/h) and £8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr). More
detailed descriptions of the model units
and the process vent emission rate
limits are provided in chapters 5.0 and
7.0, respectively, of the BIO.
Comment: Several commenters
objected to the proposed standard for
process vents that requires a fixed 83-
percent emission reduction. They
believe that the process vent standard i*
inequitable because some operations
could reduce emissions by 95 percent
and still have higher emissions than
some small uncontrolled operations and
because facilities would have to install
control devices on all condenser and •
still vents regardless of emissions or risk
posed to human health or the
environment A few commenters asked
EPA to consider exemptions for small
solvent operations that have low
emissions and thus nose little health
risk.
Response: In response to these
comments. EPA estimated the TSDF/
WSTF air quality and health impacts
using updated model unit emission rate,
and facility throughput data. Although
total facility waste solvent throughputs
were available, the data base did not
contain any information on the number
or capacities of process units at each
site. Therefore, the risk analysis is
based on overall facility operations and
total facility process vent emissions as
opposed to individual process vent
emissions. The impacts analysis results
show that nationwide reductions in
emissions, maximum individual risk
{MIR), and cancer incidence level off
(i.e., yield only insubstantial incremental
reductions) at a facility emission rate of
about 2,8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr). At a typical
rate of 2.080 h/yr of operation, this
annual emission rate corresponds to 1.4
kg/h (3 !b/h) of organic emissions.
Control of facilities with process vent
emissions less than these values does
not result in further reductions of
nationwide MIR or cancer incidence. At
this emission level, larger facilities (i.e.,
those with uncontrolled emissions
above the emission rate limit) that are
controlled to a 95-percent emission
reduction result in MIR values higher
than the remaining uncontrolled small
facilities (i.e., those with uncontrolled
emissions below the limit). The same
holds true for nationwide cancer
incidence. The reduction in cancer
incidence achieved by controlling
facilities below the limit is not
significant relative to the nationwide
reductions achieved by controlling the
larger facilities.
Consequently, the analysis results
indicate that provision of small facility
emission rate limits of 1.4 kg/h (3 lb/h)
and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr) for process
vent emissions provides essentially the
same level of protection for human
health and the environment (in terms of
risk, incidence, and emissions) as does
covering all facilities. In addition, the
MIR after control is within the range of
residual risk for other standards
promulgated under RCRA. As a result
the final rule requires control of only
those facilities emitting greater than 1.4
kg/h (3 lb/h) and 2A Mg/yr (3.1 !on/yr)
organic emissions from all process
vents. A more detailed discussion of the
process vent emission rate limits is
contained in chapter 7,0 of the BID.
Because the final standards contain
process vent emission rate limits, it is
anticipated that small solvent recovery
operations would not be substantially
affected by the final process vent
standards. The EPA estimates, based on
the high emission rates and 1985 waste
solvent throughput data, indicate that
about 45 percent of the WSTF identified
in the industry profile will have process
vent emissions of less than 2.3 Mg/yr
(3.1 ton/yr]. Consequently, it is expected
that a large number of small facilities
would not be required to install
additional process vent controls.
Selection of 10-Percent Cutoff
Comment Commenters believed that
the 10-porcent level proposed is
comparable to 100.000 ppm and may be
too high, particularly when compared to
the 10,000-ppm level that defines an
equipment leak, and that EPA should
evaluate the health and environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
limit. The 10-percent limit will allow
excessive emissions from leaking
equipment and is based on costs, nut
technical limitations, Commenters also
argued that the 10-percent limit does nut
adequately protect the environment
because emissions could be substantial
if there are numerous leaking
components with relatively dilute
streams and that controls, such as
carbon adsorbers, are available to
capture emissions from dilute streams.
Response: First, for clarification, the
10-percent organic content limit for
equipment leaks in no way relates to the
10,000-ppm leak definition. The leak
definition, which is a Method 21
instrument reading used to define when
a leak is detected, is discussed in a later
comment As proposed, the 10-percent
total organies cutoff level for
applicability of the standards covered
both equipment leak (fugitive) emissions
and process vent emissions. Control
technologies for fugitive emissions
comprise the use of control equipment.
inspection of equipment and repair
programs to limit or reduce emissions
from leaking equipment. These control
technologies have been studied and
evaluated for equipment containing
fluids with more than 10 percent
organics (EPA-430/3-80-32b, EPA-JSf)/
3-3Q-33b, EPA-4Sn/3-32-O10, and EPA-
430/3-88-002). The 10-percent criterion
was chosen in EPA's original benzene/
SOCMI studies to focus the analyses on
air emissions from equipment containing
relatively concentrated organics and
presumably having the greatest potential
for air emissions. Available data from
the original benzene/SOCMI studies do
not suggest that fugitive emissions from
leaking equipment (e.g., pumps and
valves) handling streams containing less
than 10 percent organics are significant
or that the 10-percent cutoff allows
excessive emissions from dilute streams
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25473
However, to reevaluate this would
require several years to conduct field
studies to collect and analyze additional
emissions and control effectiveness data
for equipment leaks. Because available
data support the need for. and
effectiveness of, standards for
equipment handling streams containing
at least 10 percent organics. the EPA
does not believe that a delay in
rulemaking to assess emissions and
controls for equipment handling streams
containing less than 10 percent organics
is warranted.
The effectiveness of fugitive emission
control technologies has been
thoroughly evaluated for equipment
containing fluids with at least 10 percent
organics, and fugitive emission
standards have been proposed or
established under both sections 111 and
112 of the CAA. (See 46 FR 1136, January
5.1981; 46 FR 1165. January 5.1981:48
FR 279. January 4.1983; 48 FR 37598,
August 18,1983; 48 FR 48328. October IB.
1983; 49 FR 22598, May 30,1984; 49 FR
23498, June 8.1984; and 49 FR 23522,
June 6,1984.) As elaborated in these
rulemakings, a 10-percent cutoff deals
with the air emissions from equipment
most likely to cause significant human
health and environmental harm.
With regard to process vent
emissions. EPA agrees with the
commenter. Emission test data show
that the 10-percent cutoff potentially
may allow significant emissions from
process vents on a mass-per-unit-time
basis (e.g.. kg per hour or Mg per yr). As
public commenters pointed out, the 10-
percent cutoff for process vents does not
limit total emissions, nor does it relate
to emissions that escape capture by
existing control devices. Therefore the
10-percent cutoff may not be
appropriate; as a result. EPA has
eliminated the 10-percent cutoff as it
applies to process vents. The EPA
believes that an emission rate limit more
effectively relates to emissions,
emission potential, and health risks than
does a 10-percent organic concentration
cutoff. Accordingly, a health-risk-based
facility process vent emission rate limit
has been added to the final rules in lieu
of the 10-percent cutoff.
Because the emission rate limits (3 lb/
h and 3.1 ton/yr) provide health-based
limits, EPA considered dropping
completely the organic content criterion
(i.e., at least 10 percent total organics).
However. EPA decided not to eliminate
completely the organic content criterion
because it is not clear that the same
controls can be applied to very low
concentration streams as can be applied
to the higher concentration streams that
generally are associated with emission
rales greater than the limits. For low-
concentration streams, EPA questions
whether controls are needed on a
national or generic basis, but is unable
to resolve this question at this time.
Thus, EPA decided to defer controlling
very low concentration streams until it
is able to better characterize and assess
these streams and the appropriate
controls.
Once EPA decided to consider
facilities that manage very low
concentration organic wastes as a
separate category, there remained the
problem of determining the appropriate
criterion. The EPA examined existing
data on air strippers, the treatment
device most commonly used with low-
concentration streams; it appeared that
the quantity of emissions and the risk
associated with air strippers treating
streams with concentrations below 10
ppmw may be relatively small, thus
minimizing the potential harm of
deferring control until a later time.
Examples of facilities managing low-
concentration wastes are sites where
ground water is undergoing remedial
action under CERCLA or corrective
action pursuant to RCRA. Based on the
limited set of precise data available, and
the comments that the 10-percent
criterion was too high, EPA determined
that an appropriate criterion would be
10 ppm total organics in the waste by
weight.
The 10-ppmw criterion is not an
exemption from regulation; it is intended
only as a way for EPA to divide the air
regulations into phases. The EPA is
deferring action on very low
concentration streams (i.e.. ones with
less than 10 ppmw total organic content)
from the final rule today but will
evaluate and announce a decision later
on whether to regulate these waste
streams.
Exemptions
Comment: Several commenters
disagreed with EPA's interpretation that
the definition of "totally enclosed
treatment units" (which are exempt from
regulation) may in certain circumstances
include on-site treatment units that use
engineered controls to prevent the
release of emissions. One commenter
stated that on-site treatment facilities
directly tied with process equipment
have the same potential for emissions as
do other sources not exempted by the
proposed regulation.
Response: This rule does not create or
modify any exemption for totally
enclosed treatment facilities; rather, the
existing definition of an exemption for
totally enclosed treatment facilities
remains in effect, and existing
regulatory interpretations remain in
effect as well. Although the preamble to
the proposed rule repeated the existing
definition, it also contained a request for
comments on an interpretation of the
totally enclosed facility exemption
whereby the "use of effective controls
such as those required by the proposed
standards" would meet the criteria of 40
CFR 260.10. Upon consideration of the
comments, EPA has determined that this
interpretation would have conflicted
with the regulatory definition and
previous interpretations of the
exemption and, therefore, has decided to
withdraw it.
As presented in the preamble to the
proposed rule, under 40 CFR 264.1(g)(5)
and 40 CFR 2S5.1(c)(9), totally enclosed
treatment facilities are exempt from
RCRA regulation. A "totally enclosed
treatment facility" is a facility treating
hazardous waste that is "directly
connected to an industrial production
process and which is constructed and
operated in a manner which prevents
the release of any hazardous waste or
constituent thereof into the environment
during treatment" (40 CFR 280.10).
Therefore, as stated in the proposal
preamble, process equipment designed
to release air emissions are not "totally
enclosed."
The EPA agrees with the commenter
that on-site treatment facilities
associated with process equipment
generally are designed to release air
emissions and. thus, are not "totally
enclosed." The EPA specifically stated
this in the preamble to the proposed
rule. To be considered "totally
enclosed." units must meet the test of
preventing the release of any hazardous
constituent from the unit not only on a
routine basis but also during a process
upset. Thus, the risks from these units
are expected to be less than from units
that are not totally enclosed.
Comment: Commenters stated that the
exemption for tanks storing or treating
hazardous wastes that are emptied
every 90 days and that meet the tank
standards of 40 CFR 262.34 is not
justified based on risk, as RCRA
requires. The exclusion of less-than-90-
day storage tanks from air emission
control requirements will increase the
use of the 90-day storage exemption and
the resultant air emissions.
Response: In 40 CFR part 270,
hazardous waste generators who
accumulate waste on site in containers
or tanks for less than the time periods
provided in § 282.34 are specifically
excluded from RCRA permitting
requirements. To qualify for the
exclusions in i 262.34. generators who
accumulate hazardous waste on site for
up to 90 days must comply with 40 CFR
-------
25474 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, ]une 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
265, subpart I or J (depending on
whether the waste is accumulated in
containers or tanks) and with other
requirements specified in § 262.34.
Small-quantity generators (i.e.,
generators who generate more than 100
kilograms but less than 1,000 kilograms
per calendar month) are allowed to
accumulate waste on site for up to 180
days or, if they must ship wasteoff site
for a distance of 200 miles or more, and
if they meet certain other requirements
set out in 1262.34, for up to 270 days.
The promulgated regulation does not
create a new exemption for 90-day
accumulation, nor does it modify the
existing regulation. As the commenter
notes, EPA is considering what changes
(if any) should be made to §262.34 (the
"90-day rule") under a separate
rulemaking (SI FR 25487, July 14,1986).
As part of that effort EPA currently is
evaluating whether air emissions from
these and other accumulator tanks,
mentioned above, at the generator site
should be subject to additional control
requirements. Preliminary analysis
indicates that 90-day tanks and
containers may have significant organic
air emissions; consequently, as part of
the second phase of TSDF air emission
regulations, EPA is considering
proposing to modify the exemption to
require that 90-day tanks meet the
control requirements of the Phase I and
II standards. (The multiphased
standards development approach for
regulating organic air emissions is
discussed in section III.C of this
preamble.) Until a final decision is made
on regulating the emissions from these
units, they will not be subject to
additional controls. However, EPA does
not believe that more generators will
use the 90-day exemption if air emission
controls are not imposed on these units.
Those generators who are eligible for
inclusion under § 262.34 are probably
already taking advantage of the
provision now by storing their
hazardous wastes for less than 90 days.
LDAR Program
Comment Several commenters
criticized the incorporation of the
national emission standard for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for
benzene because of differences in scope
from the SOCMINSPS in that (1) the
NSPS distinguishes between light and
heavy liquids and the proposed
standards based on the benzene
NESHAP do not; (2) the NSPS does not
require testing of all SOCMI units
because process fluid vapor pressure is
the overriding consideration in
predicting leak frequencies and leak
rates (the proposed standards
incorporating the NESHAP do not
recognize vapor pressure and require
testing of all SOCMI units); and (3) the
NSPS exempts facilities from routine
fugitive emission monitoring, inspection,
and repair provisions if a heavy-liquid
product from a heavy-liquid raw
material is produced and limits
monitoring of equipment in heavy-liquid
service only to where there is evidence
of a potential leak.
Response; The EPA agrees with the
commenters that the provisions for light
and heavy liquids in the SOCMI NSPS
should be incorporated in the section
3004(n) standards, even though the
subpart V NESHAP does not contain the
distinction. No distinction was made for
the benzene NESHAP because benzene
is a light liquid. By their nature, heavy
liquids exhibit much lower volatilities
than do light liquids and because
equipment leak emissions have been
shown to vary with stream volatility,
emissions for heavy liquids are less than
those for lighter and more volatile ones.
As previously noted, EPA analyses have
determined that the emission rate for a
valve in heavy-liquid service is more
than 30 times less than the emission rate
for a valve in light-liquid service. In
response to these comments, EPA
examined the emission and risk
associated with light- and heavy-liquid
waste streams and found that light-
liquid streams are the overwhelming
contributors to both emissions and risk.
Therefore, a routine LDAR monthly _
inspection is not necessary for heavy
liquids.
Thus, the final regulations have been
changed to incorporate the light/heavy-
liquid service provisions for pumps and
valves (40 CFR parts 264 and 265,
subpart BB, || 264.1052,264.10S7
265.1052, and 265.1057). Equipment is in
light-liquid service if the vapor pressure
of one or more of the components is
greater than 0.3 kPa at 20 "C, if the total
concentration of the pure components
having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3
kPa at 20 "C is equal to or greater than
20 percent by weight, and if the fluid is a
liquid at operating conditions. The 0.3-
kPa vapor pressure criterion is based on
fugitive emission data gathered in
various EPA and industry studies (EPA-
450/3-82-010). Equipment processing
organic liquids with vapor pressures
above 0.3 kPa leaked at significantly
higher rates and frequencies than did
equipment processing streams with
vapor pressures below 0.3 kPa.
Therefore, EPA elected to exempt
equipment processing lower vapor
pressure substances (i.e., heavy liquids)
from the routine LDAR requirements of
the standards. In addition, monitoring of
equipment in heavy-liquid service is
required only where there is evidence
by visual audible olfactory, or any other
detection method of a potential leak.
Comment: Several commenters asked
EPA to consider exemptions from
fugitive emission monitoring for small
facilities based on volume (as was done
in the benzene NESHAP and the SOCMI
NSPS), emission threshold, product
applicability threshold or equipment
component count, or equipment size. In
support, the commenters pointed to
similar exemptions in the CAA rules
that were in the proposed standards,
Response: The commenters suggest
that EPA consider other exemptions for
fugitive emission monitoring that are
applied in the benzene NESHAP or
SOCMI NSPS (e.g., small facilities with
the design capacity to produce less than
1,000 Mg/yr). The EPA recognizes thai
estimated emissions and health risks
from small facilities should be
considered in the final rules. With
regard to the SOCMI NSPS small-facilifj
exemption, the cutoff was based on a
cost-effectiveness analysis. Under
section 111 of the CAA, EPA may
exempt units where costs of the
standards are unreasonably high in
comparison to the emission reduction
achievable. Under RCRA, the statutory
criterion is protection of human health
and the environment. Therefore, any
cutoff for RCRA standards must be risk-
based. Cost effectiveness is only a
relevant factor for choosing among
alternatives either (1) when they all
achieve protection of human health and
the environment or (2) for alternatives
that are estimated to provide substantial
reductions in human health and
environmental risks but do not achieve
the historically acceptable levels of
protection under RCRA, when they are
equally protective.
In the benzene NESHAP (49 FR 23498.
June 6,1984), EPA concluded that
control of units producing less than 1.000
Mg/yr did not warrant control based on
the small health-risk potential. The
benzene standards, however, did not
have to deal with the many different
pollutants covered by the TSDF process
vent and equipment leak standards.
some of which are much more
carcinogenic than benzene. In addition
to unit size (or throughput), fugitive
emissions are also a function of the
chemical characteristics of the
hazardous wastes being handled.
Typically, TSDF have a variety of
hazardous waste management processes
(e.g., container storage, tank storage,
treatment tanks, incinerators, injection
wells, and terminal loading operations)
located at the same facility, all of which
have associated pumps, valves.
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25475
sampling connections, etc.. and
therefore, fugitive emissions from
equipment leaks. Also, several different
types of hazardous waste typically are
managed at a facility. Because of the
various factors affecting facility fugitive
emissions from equipment leaks (e.g.,
equipment leak emissions are a function
of component counts rather than waste
throughput), it would be very difficult to
determine a small-facility exemption
based on risk but expressed as volume
throughput For these reasons. EPA did
not include exemptions for fugitive
emission monitoring such as those
applied in the benzene NESHAP or
SOCMI NSPS (i.e., small process units
with the design capacity to produce less
than 1,000 Mg/yr).
Comment Coaunenters stated that the
TSDF fugitive emission standards
should conform to the benzene
NESHAP, which allows exemptions for
vacuum systems, systems with no
emissions, and systems whose leakage
rate is demonstrated to be below 2
percent
Response: The EPA has included in
the final TSDF standards (§§ 264.1050
and 265.1050} the exemption for
equipment "in vacuum service" found in
the benzene NESHAP (40 CFR part 61,
subpart V, 61.242-1). Also included are
the identification requirements
contained in the regulation, "In vacuum
service" means that equipment is
operating at an internal pressure that is
at least 5 kPa below ambient pressure.
The EPA has concluded that it is
unnecessary to cover equipment "in
vacuum service" because such
equipment has little if any potential for
emissions and, therefore, does not pose
a threat to human health and the
environment Accordingly, this
equipment has been excluded from the
equipment leak fugitive emission
requirements.
The proposed standards stated that
owners and operators of facilities
subject to the provisions of the rule must
comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
part 61. subpart V [equipment leak
standards for hazardous air pollutants),
except as provided in the rule itself. The
provisions of the proposed rule did not
exclude §§ 61.243-1 and 61,243-2
(alternative standards for valves la
VHAP service), and the alternative
standards have been incorporated as
II 204.1061, 264.1062,285.1061. and
265.1062 of the final rule. Therefore, an
owner or operator may elect to have all
valves within a TSDF hazardous waste
management unit comply with an
alternative standard that allows a
percentage of valves leaking of equal to
or less than 2 percent (§ § 264.1061 and
265.1061), or may elect for all valves
within a hazardous waste management
unit to comply with one of the
alternative work practices specified in
paragraphs (b) (2) and (3) of II Z64.1062
and 265.1062,
Comment: One commenter suggested
that releases from pressure relief
devices in gas service should be
directed to control equipment at least
equal in performance to those for other
process sources or an alternative means
provided to prevent an uncontrolled
discharge. According to the commenter,
rupture discs or closed-vent systems
restrict small leaks but not major
releases; a closed-vent system
connected to a control device is needed
to capture releases. The commenter
concluded that EPA has provided no
data to support exempting flanges and
pressure relief devices in liquid service
from LDAR requirements and should not
rely on operators to see, hear or smell
leaks from this equipment.
Response; Pressure relief devices
allow the release of vapors or liquids
until system pressure is reduced to the
normal operating level. The standards
are geared toward control of routine
low-level equipment leaks that may
occur independently of emergency
discharges. Pressure relief discharges
are an entirely different source of
emissions than equipment leaks or
process vents and were not covered in
the original equipment leak standards
under the CAA. The new subpart BB
rules require that pressure relief devices
in gas service be tested annually by
Method 21 (and within 5 days of any
relief discharge) to ensure that the
device is maintained at no detectable
emissions by means of a rupture disc. In
addition, because a pressure discharge
constitutes a process upset that in many
cases can lead to hazardous waste
management unit downtime and might
also pose a risk to workers, a facility
has the incentive to minimize the
occurrence of these events.
The frequency, duration, and air
emissions associated with such
emergency discharges at TSDF waste
management units currently cannot be
estimated with any certainty on a
nationwide basis. However, if a
pressure discharge does occur, records
and reports (maintained at the site
under §5 264.1054,264.1064,265.1054.
and 265.1064 of subpart BB) will indicate
the frequency of such discharges, the
estimated volume of excess emissions
and other relevant information. If
pressure discharges appear to be a
problem at any facility the RCRA
permitting system provides State or EPA
permit writers the flexibility to require
closed-vent systems for these discharges
on a site-specific basis.
The LDAR program transferred from
the CAA standards does not exempt
pressure relief devices in light liquid or
heavy liquid service and flanges, but
requires formal monitoring of these
sources if operators see, smell, or hear
discharges. The EPA considers that this
is the most practical way to manage
these sources. Although scheduled
routine maintenance may be a way of
avoiding the need for formal monitoring,
it may not be a successful method for all
sites in eliminating leaks due to the
numerous variables affecting leak
occurrence. For example, flanges may
become fugitive emission sources when
leakage occurs due to improperly chosen
gaskets, poorly assembled flanges, or
thermal stress resulting in the
deformation of the seal between the
flange faces. In these situations.
operators will be able to detect such
leaks by sight, smell, or sound. Support
foe this approach was presented and
evaluated in developing several CAA
rulemakings fEPA-450/3-63-016b. EPA-
450/3-6Q-033b, and EPA-450/3-61-
015b).
Comment: One commenter stated that
the LDAR program should require
preventive maintenance, such as the
periodic replacement of valve packings,
before waiting for the valve to fail. In
support the commenter argued that
EPA's own data show that directed
maintenance could reduce leaks from
valves to below 10,000 ppm. The
commenter also criticized the 10.000-
ppra leak definition as being too high
and states that EPA must consider the
level in terms of the health effects.
Response: The key criterion for
selecting • leak definition is the overall
mass emission reduction demonstrated
to be achievable. The EPA has not
concluded that an effective lower leak
definition has been demonstrated. Most
data developed for current CAA
standards (EPA-450/3-82-010) on leak
repair effectiveness have applied 10,000
ppm as the leak definition and therefore
do not indicate the effectiveness of
repair for leak definitions between 1,000
and 10,000 ppm. Even though limited
data between these values were
collected for support of CAA standards,
they are not sufficient to support a leak
definition below 10,000 ppm. Data are
insufficient to determine at what
screening value maintenance efforts
begin to result in increased emissions.
As the commenter noted, although
there is some evidence that directed
maintenance is more effective, available
data are insufficient to serve as a basis
-------
25476 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
for requiring directed maintenance for
all sources.
(Note IB "directed maintenance" efforts,
the tightening of the packing is monitored
simultaneously and is continued only to the
extent that it reduces emissions. In contrast,
"undirected" repair means repairs such a*
tightening valve packings without
simultaneously monitoring the result to
determine whether the repair is increasing or
decreasing emissions.)
The EPA's rationale for selecting the
10,000-ppmv leak definition and for not
requiring directed maintenance under
the CAA LDAR program also has been
discussed in the proposal and
promulgation BIDs for benzene
emissions from coke by-product
recovery plants (EPA-450/3-83-016 a
and b), for SOCMI fugitive emissions
(EPA-450/3-80-033 a and b), for
petroleum refinery fugitive emissions
(EPA-450/3-81-O15 a and b), and for
benzene fugitive emissions (EPA-450/3-
80-032 a and b). (See also the "Response
to Public Comments on EPA's Listing of
Benzene Under section 112" (EPA-450/
5-82-003) "Fugitive Emission Sources of
Organic Compounds—Additional
Information on Emissions. Emission
Reductions, and Costs" (EPA-4SO/3-82-
010). and EPA's "Response to Petition
for Reconsideration" (50 FR 34144,
August 23,1885).)
The commenter also criticizes EPA for
not reanalyzing the health effects of the
10,000-ppmv level before applying the
limit to TSDF under RCRA. Because
section 112 of the CAA and 3004 (n) of
RCRA are comparable in their
recognition of health risk as the
predominant decision factor, the EPA
believes that the leak definition has
been adequately analyzed under the
CAA and that further evaluation is not
needed prior to transferring it as part of
the LDAR program under RCRA. It must
also be pointed out that transfer of the
CAA equipment leak standards is only
the first phase of EPA's regulatory
actions related to control of TSDF air
emissions. In thisphase, EPA transferred
a known technology to reduce
emissions. If new data show that a
lower leak definition is appropriate,
EPA will then consider whether it is
appropriate to change the rules.
C, Control Technology
Feasibility of Condensers
Comment Several commenters did
not agree that condensers provide a
feasible means of meeting the 05-percent
emission reduction requirement for
affected process vents in the proposed
standard. Problems cited by the
commenters limiting the application of
condensers included the presence of
water in the waste stream in the TSDF
portion of the facility and the wide
variety of waste solvents treated by
WSTF. One commenter claimed that a
higher emission reduction efficiency
could be achieved through an increased
condenser area or a different condenser
refrigerant with a lower boiling point
than was used in the analysis for the
proposal.
Response: In response to this
comment, the feasibility of using
condensers to achieve a 85-percent
reduction of emissions from WSTF
process vent streams was reexamined
using a state-of-the-art chemical
engineering computerized process
simulator that includes a refrigeration
unit capable of producing a coolant at a
temperature as low as — 29 *C (—20 *F)
and a primary water-cooled heat
exchanger to remove water vapor from
the vent stream.
A variety of chemical constituents
and operating conditions were
examined to determine the organic
removal efficiency achievable through
condensation. The constituents selected
for the condenser analysis (toluene,
methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), 1,1,1
trichloroethane (TCE), and methylene
chloride) were judged to be
representative of the solvents recycled
by the WSTF industry, based on a
review of a National Association of
Solvent Recyders (NASR) survey,
numerous site-specific plant trip reports,
and responses to EPA section 3007
information requests. Three of these four
solvents had been used in the proposal
analysis; methylene chloride, at the
lower end of the solvent boiling point
range (i.e., more difficult to condense),
was added to provide a broader range of
volatilities for the condenser analysis. A
total of 40 WSTF model unit cases
consisting of combinations of organic
emission rates, concentrations, and
exhaust gas flows representing the wide
range of operating conditions found at
WSTF were included in the condenser
analysis.
The results of the condenser analysis
indicate that condensers cannot
universally achieve a 95-percent
emission reduction when applied to
WSTF process vents. With regard to
increasing organic removal efficiency by
increasing condenser area or changing
the condenser refrigerant, the analysis
shows that there are technical limits on
condenser efficiency that go beyond the
condenser design and operating
parameters. Specifically, the physical
properties of the solvents being
condensed and the solvent
concentration in the gas stream affect
condenser efficiency. In some situations,
the partial pressure of the organic
constituent in the vapor phase was too
low to support a liquid phase
thermodynamically regardless of the
refrigerant used or condensation area;
as a result, no appreciable condensation
could occur. Therefore, the analysis
shows that condensers are not
universally applicable to the control of
WSTF process vents. However, the
facility process vent emission reduction
requirements are not based solely on the
use of condensers; carbon adsorption
and incinerators/flares are capable of
attaining a 85-percent control efficiency
for all WSTF organics, including cases
where condensation is not feasible. In
summary, although condensers may not
by themselves achieve a 95-percent
emission reduction at all process vents,
condensers do provide a practical and
economic means of reducing process
vent emissions, and these devices will
likely be the initial choice of control
technology for cases where
condensation is feasible.
Feasibility of Carbon Adsorbers
Comment* Several commenters
objected to the identification of carbon
adsorption as a control technique
because of technical and safety
concerns related to the application of
carbon adsorbers to low organic
concentration and multicomponent
solvent streams. However, one
commenter did cite authorities that
support a 98-percent removal for this
type of control device.
Response: First it should be noted that
carbon adsorption is one of several
control technologies that could be used
to attain the standards. Other
technologies include condensers, flares,
incinerators, and any other device that
the owner or operator can show will
meet the standards.
Regarding carbon adsorption
applications, EPA acknowledges that
safety is an important consideration, but
concludes that any safety problems can
be avoided through proper design and
sorbent selection. Multicomponent
systems potentially can lead to
excessive heat buildup (hot spots),
particularly in large carbon beds with
low flow rates, which in turn can lead to
fire and explosion hazards.
Multicomponent vapor streams can also
lead to reduced removal efficiencies for
particular components. However, these
technical and efficiency problems can
be overcome through proper design,
operation, and maintenance.
In general, coal-based carbons have
fewer heat generation problems than do
wood-based carbons, and small
diameter beds promote good heat
transfer. The bed must be designed with
• I »--
•TV
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25477
consideration for the least heat
adsorbent (or fastest) component in the
mix, as well as the component
concentrations and overall flow rate.
Other considerations include component
interaction, gas stream relative
humidity, and close monitoring of the
bed effluent for breakthrough.
In response to these comments, the
EPA examined carbon adsorption
design, operation, and performance data
from a number of plants in a wide
variety of industries; in addition, the
EPA has reexamined, with the help of
carbon manufacturers and custom
carbon adsorption equipment designers,
the elements that affect carbon
adsorption efficiency. This analysis has
reinforced EPA's original conclusion
that a well-designed, -operated, and -
maintained adsorption system can
achieve a 95-percent control efficiency
for all organics under a wide variety of
stream conditions over both short-term
and long-term averaging periods. The
major factors affecting performance of
an adsorption unit are temperature,
humidity, organics concentration,
volumetric flow rate "channelling"
(nonuniform flow through the carbon
bed), regeneration practices, and
changes in the relative concentrations of
the organics admitted to the adsorption
system. The WSTF/TSDF process vent
stream characteristics are typically well
within design limits in terms of gas
temperature, pressure, and velocity for
carbon adsorbers. For example, the bed
adsorption rate decreases sharply when
gas temperatures are above 38 "C (100
*F); a review of plant field data showed
no high-temperature streams in WSTF/
TSDF process vents. If high-temperature
gas streams are encountered, the gas
stream can be cooled prior to entering
the carbon bed Also, gas velocity
entering the carbon bed should be low
to allow time for adsorption to take
place. The WSTF/TSDF stream flows
are typically quite low and, as a result.
bed depth should not be excessive.
Therefore. EPA concluded that for
WSTF/TSDF process vent streams,
carbon adsorption can reasonably be
expected to achieve a 95-percent control
efficiency provided the adsorber is
supplied with an adequate quantity of
high-quality activated carbon, the gas
stream receives appropriate
conditioning (e.g.. cooling or filtering)
before entering the carbon bed, and the
carbon beds are regenerated or replaced
before breakthrough. The data gathered
in the EPA carbon adsorption
performance study do not support a
higher control efficiency (i.e., 98 percent
as opposed to 95 percent) for carbon
adsorption units applied to WSTF/TSDF
process vents on an industrywide basis,
particularly in light of the design
considerations related to controlling
multicomponent vent streams when the
organic mix is subject to frequent
change.
When carbon adsorption is used to
remove organics from a gas stream, the
carbon must periodically be replaced or
regenerated when the capacity of the
carbon to adsorb organics is reached.
When either regeneration or removal of
carbon takes place, there is an
opportunity for organics to be released
to the atmosphere unless the carbon
removal or regeneration is carried out
under controlled conditions. There
would be no environmental benefit in
removing organics from an exhaust gas
stream using adsorption onto activated
carbon if the organics are subsequently
released to the atmosphere during
dosorption or during carbon disposal.
The EPA therefore expects that owners
or operators of TSDF using carbon
adsorption systems to control organic
emissions take steps to ensure that
proper emission control of regenerated
or disposed carbon occurs. For on-site
regencrable carbon adsorption systems,
the owner or operator must account for
the emission control of the desorption
and/or disposal process in the control
efficiency determination. In the case of
off-site regeneration or disposal, the
owner or operator should supply a
certification, to be placed in the
operating file of the TSDF, that all
carbon removed from a carbon
adsorption system used to comply with
subparts AA and BB is either (1)
regenerated or reactivated by a process
that prevents the release of organics to
the atmosphere. (Note: The EPA
interprets "prevents" as used in this
paragraph to include the application of
effective control devices such as those
required by these rules) or (2)
incinerated in a device that meets the
performance standards of subpart 0.
Feasibility of Using Controls in Series
Comment: One commenter stated that
EPA should evaluate carbon adsorption
in series with a condenser because
condensers work best with concentrated
streams and carbon adsorbers with low
concentration streams. The two systems
together could yield an overall
efficiency of 99 percent, even if each
unit were only 90-percent effective.
Response: As discussed in section
VILE, the MIR from process vents after
control (i.e., 4X10'•) is within the range
of what has been considered acceptable
under RCRA. Consequently, no further
control for process vents was
considered necessary at this time.
Nonetheless, in response to these
comments, EPA evaluated the feasibility
of using a carbon adsorber in series with
a condenser to control WSTF/TSDF
process vent emissions. The objective of
the analysis was to determine if the
combination of control devices would
yield an overall control efficiency
greater than the 95 percent that is
achievable using a single device. For
example, if a 99-percent overall control
efficiency is desired and it is assumed
that the carbon adsorber is capable of
achieving a 95-percent control efficiency
in all cases (a reasonable assumption
for a properly designed, operated, and
maintained system), then a minimum
efficiency of 80 percent would be
required for the condenser followed in
series by the 95-percent efficient carbon
bed. However, in the EPA condenser
analysis conducted for the WSTF model
unit cases, an 80-percent control was not
achieved for 16 of the 40 cases
examined. (See section 7.7 of the BID.)
In 7 of the 40 cases, the analysis showed
that no appreciable condensation would
occur because of low solvent
concentration and/or the high volatility
of some solvents. Because the model
unit cases are considered representative
of current WSTF operations, EPA does
not believe that the use of carbon
adsorption and condensation in series to
achieve a 99-percent control is a
technically feasible control option on an
industrywide basis. Such control
strategies will be considered further for
Phase III standards for individual
facilities, if necessary, should additional
analyses reveal unexpectedly high risks
in specific situations.
Feasibility of Flares
Comment: Several commenters
objected to the use of flares at recycling
facilities because of technical and safety
concerns. A few commenters cite the
requirement of a constant emission
source for efficient flare operation, and
other commenters contend that flares
are not suitable on intermittent sources
or the low-level emissions typical of
recycling operations. With regard to
safety, flares present the danger of
explosion, especially if they
malfunction: according to one
commenter, many State laws prohibit
the use of flares at recycling facilities.
Response: Available information on
WSTF operations indicates that
condensers, carbon adsorbers, and
incinerators are the most widely used
control technologies: therefore, they are
expected to be the technologies of
choice to reduce organic emissions at
WSTF. The final technical analyses
show that a 95-percent control efficiency
can be achieved with secondary
-------
25478 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
condensers for many WSTF process
vents or with carbon adsorbers in cases
where secondary condensers are not
feasible. Flares are not required
controls, but are an available option for
facilities so equipped provided they
meet the criteria established in the final
rules. Where State laws prohibit the use
of flares at recycling facilities, other
technologies are available.
With regard to the safety of flares,
EPA has determined that the use of
flares to combust organic emissions
from TSDF process vents would not
create safety problems if engineering •
precautions such as those used in the
SOCMI are taken in the design and
operation of the system. The following
are typical engineering precautions.
First, the flare should not be located in
such proximity to a process unit being
vented that ignition of vapors is a threat
to safety. In the analysis conducted for
this standard at proposal, it was
assumed that the Care would be located
as far as 122 meters from the process
unit Second, controls such as a Quid
seal or flame arrester are available that
would prevent flashback. These safety
precautions were considered in EPA's
analysis for the proposed rule. Finally,
the use of a purge gas, such as nitrogen,
plant fuel gas, or natural gas and/or the
careful control of total volumetric Cow
to the flare would prevent flashback in
the flare stack caused by low off-gas
flow.
Feasibility of LDAR Program
Comment One eommenter opposed
the fugitive standards as proposed
because they failed to require the proper
technology to control releases from
pumps and valves. The eommenter
claimed that the standards should
require a 100-percent control, based on
what available technology (e&. sealed
bellows valves, sealless pumps, or dual
mechanical seals for pumps) can
achieve. According to the eommenter,
superior emission controls cannot be
rejected under RCRA solely on the basis
of cost effectiveness.
Response: Control technologies for
fugitive emissions from equipment leaks,
as required by the proposed standards,
include the use of control equipment,
inspection of process equipment, and
repair programs to limit or reduce
emissions from leaking equipment that
handle streams with total organic
concentrations of greater than 10
percent These control technologies have
been studied and evaluated extensively
by EPA for equipment containing fluids
with 10 percent or more organics and
are similar to those required by national
emission standards for dutmieal.
petrochemical, and refining facilities
under the CAA.
A monthly LDAR program was
proposed for WSTF/TSDF pumps and
valves. Based on results of the EPA's
LDAR model, once a monthly monitoring
plan is in place, emission reductions of
73 percent and 59 percent can be
expected for valves in gas and light
liquid service, respectively, and a Si-
percent reduction in emissions can be
achieved for pumps in light-liquid
service. For compressors, the use of
mechanical seals with barrier fluid
systems and control of degassing vents
(95 percent) are required, although
compressors are not expected to be
commonly used at WSTF/TSDF. The
use of control equipment (rupture disc
systems or closed-vent systems to flares
or incinerators) is the technical basis for
control of pressure relief devices. Closed
purge sampling is the required control
for sampling connection systems and is
the most stringent feasible control For
open-ended valves or lines the use of
caps, plugs, or any other equipment that
will close the open end is required; these
are the most stringent controls possible.
Flanges and pressure relief devices in
liquid service are excluded from the *
routine LDAR requirements but must be
monitored if leaks are indicated. For
operations such as those expected at
WSTF/TSDF, total reductions in fugitive
emissions from equipment leaks of
almost 75 percent are estimated for the
entire program.
The EPA agrees with the eommenter
that the level of control required by the
LDAR program does not result in the
highest level of control that could be
achieved for fugitive emissions from
pumps and valves in certain
applications. In some cases, there are
more stringent, technologically feasible
controls. For example, leakless
equipment for valves, such as
diaphragm and sealed bellows valves,
when usable, eliminates the seals that
allow fugitive emissions; thus, control
efficiencies in such cases are virtually
100 percent aa long as the valve does not
fall, in appropriate circumstances,
pumps can be controlled by dual
mechanical seals that would capture
nearly all fugitive emissions. An overall
control efficiency of 95 percent could be
achieved with dual mechanical seals
based on venting of the degassing
reservoir to a control device.
With regard to leakless valves, the
applicability of these types of valves Is
limited for TSDF, as noted by EPA in the
proposal preamble. The design problems
associated with diaphragm valves are
the temperature and pressure limitations
of the elastomer used for the diaphragm.
It has been found that both temperature
extremes and process liquids tend to
damage or destroy the diaphragm in the
valve. Also, operating pressure
constraints will limit the application of
diaphragm valves to low-pressure
operations such as pumping and product
storage facilities.
There are two main disadvantages to
sealed bellows valves. First they are,
for the most part only available
commercially in configurations that are
used for on/off valves rather than for
flow control As a result they cannot be
used in all situations. Second, the main
concern associated with this type of
valve is the uncertainty of the life of the
bellows seal. The metal bellows are
subject to corrosion and fatigue under
severe operating conditions.
Over 150 types of industries are
included in the TSDF community, and
EPA does not believe that leakless
valves can be used in an
environmentally sound manner on the
wide variety of operating conditions and
chemical constituents found nationwide
in TSDF waste streams, many of which
are highly corrosive. Corrosivity is
influenced by temperature and such
factors as the concentration of corrosive
constituents and the presence of
inhibiting or accelerating agents.
Corrosion rates can be difficult to
predict accurately, underestimating
corrosion can lead to premature and
catastrophic failures. Even small
amounts (trace quantities) of corrosives
in the stream can cause corrosion
problems for sealed bellows valves;
these tend to aggressively attack the
metal bellows at crevices and cracks
(including welds) to promote rapid
corrosion. Sealed bellows valves
particularly are subject to corrosion
because the bellows is an extremely thin
metallic membrane.
At proposal, it was estimated that 20
percent of all plants process
halogenated compounds, which tend to
be highly corrosive. The subsequently
obtained 1986 Screener Survey data
show that, of the TSDF indicating
solvent recovery operations, at least 33
percent of the total handle halogenated
organics. Furthermore, of the 12 major
chemicals determined from site-specific
data to be commonly occurring is waste
solvent streams, all of the chemicals
determined to be carcinogenic are
halogenated (Le.. methylene chloride,
chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride).
Similarly, of the 52 constituents in TSDF
waste streams contributing to the
emission-weighted unit risk factor.
about SO percent are halogenated and
account for the vast majority of the
estimated nationwide emissions of
-------
UbWbK LU.K. MJ.
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25479
carcinogens. Thus, TSDF are known to
routinely handle and treat chemicals
that may destroy sealed bellows and
diaphragm valves.
The durability of metal bellows is
highly questionable if the valve is
operated frequently; diaphragm and
bellows valves are not recommended in
the technical literature for general
service. The EPA does not believe that
the application of sealed bellows and
diaphragm valves is technologically
feasible for all TSDF valve conditions or
that their application would lead to a
significant reduction in emissions and
health risks. Valve sizes, configurations,
operating temperatures and pressures,
and service requirements are some of
the areas in which diaphragm, pinch,
and sealed bellows valves have
limitations that restrict service. With
regard to the emission reductions
achieved by sealed bellows, diaphragm,
and pinch valve technologies, these
valves are not totally leakless. The
technologies do eliminate the
conventional seals that allow leaks from
around the valve stem; however, these
valves do fail in service from a variety
of causes and, when failure occurs,
these valves can have significant
leakage. This is because these valves
generally are not backed up with
conventional stem seals or packing. The
EPA currently is reevaluating the control
efficiencies assigned to these
technologies. Because these leakless
types of equipment are limited in their
applicability and in their potential for
reducing health risks, EPA did not
consider their use as an applicable
control alternative at this time for
nationwide TSDF standards. The EPA
has requested, in a separate Federal
Register notice (54 FR 30220, July 19,
1989), additional information on the
applicability and use of leakless valves
at TSDF.
For pumps, the most effective controls
that are technologically feasible (e.g.,
dual seals] in some cases also were not
selected as the basis for equipment leak
standards. The impact analysis
indicates that including LDAR results in
less emission and risk reduction than
does including equipment requirements
for pumps. However, the difference in
the emission and health risk reductions
attributable to implementing a monthly
LDAR program rather than the more
stringent equipment standards for
pumps appears to be small in
comparison to the results of the overall
standards (about 5 percent). The overall
standards, including a LDAR program
for pumps and valves, would achieve an
expected emission reduction for TSDF
equipment leaks of about 19,000 Mg/yr
(21.000 ton/yr). The estimated MIR from
equipment leak emissions would be
reduced to 1X10~" from 5X10~S based
on the TSDF equipment leak emission-
weighted unit risk factor; cancer
incidence would be reduced to 0.32
case/yr from 1,1 cases/yr. In
comparison, including dual seals for
pumps could achieve an additional
fugitive emission reduction of about
1,200 Mg/yr (1,320 ton/yrj and an
additional incidence reduction of about
0,08 case/yr. The MIR, with leakless
controls for pumps, at 1x10"* would
be unchanged from that achieved by the
LDAR program.
Given the small magnitude and the
imprecise nature of the estimated
emission and risk reductions associated
with including dual seals for pumps in
the overall standard, EPA considers the
two control alternatives (i.e., LDAR and
dual seals) as providing essentially the
same level of protection. The data and
models on which the risk estimates are
based are not precise enough to quantify
risk meaningfully to a more exact level.
The data and models include
uncertainties from the emission
estimates, the air dispersion modeling',
and the risk assessment that involves
unit risk factor, facility location,
population, and meteorologic
uncertainties (see section VILE).
The EPA considered these factors
when deciding whether to require TSDF
to install dual seals on pumps to control
air emissions rather than to rely on
monthly LDAR. Considering the limited
applicability of additional equipment
controls and the low potential for
additional reductions in health risks of
applying equipment controls for valves
at TSDF and the estimated emissions
and risk reductions if leakless
equipment for pumps were required,
EPA is not requiring leakless equipment
at this time.
In Phase III, EPA will further examine
the feasibility and impacts of applying
additional control technology beyond
the level required by today's standards.
For example, dual mechanical seals may
be an appropriate emission control
method when applied selectively to
wastes with high concentrations of toxic
chemicals. In such applications, the
reduction in toxic emissions (and
consequently the reduction in residual
risk) may be significant for select
situations. A summary of the health
impacts is presented in section VILE of
this preamble.
D. Impact Analyses Methodologies
Environmental Impacts Analysis
Comment: Numerous commenters
criticized the environmental impact
estimates for the proposed standards
because (1) no actual data from
operating facilities were used; (2)
emission estimates were not supported
by any technical data base; and (3) the
waste constituents used in the analyses
were not representative of waste solvent
recycling operations and TSDF
operations in general. Commenters also
stated that the model plant solvent
reclamation rates (throughputs), vent
flow rates, and emission rates used at
proposal were not representative of the
industry.
Response: In response to these
comments, EPA reviewed all available
site-specific data on WSTF and TSDF,
data submitted by commenters. and
information generated through RCRA
section 3007 questionnaires mailed to a
limited number of small and large
facilities. Based on all this information,
EPA has revised both the TSDF model
units and emission factors that serve as
the bases for the impacts analyses.
With regard to the model unit
revisions, the industry profile developed
by EPA includes a frequency
distribution of the waste volumes
processed during 19S5, Of the 4SO
facilities in the Screener Survey
reporting solvent recovery by operations
such as batch distillation, fractionation,
or steam stripping that involved some
form of hazardous waste, 385 reported
the total quantity of waste recycled in
1985. The median facility throughput
was slightly more than 189,000 L/yr
(50,000 gal/yr); the mean throughput was
about 4.5X10* L/yr (1.2X108 gal/yr),
Based on the industry profile, three sizes
of model units (small, medium, and
large) were defined to facilitate the post-
proposal analyses for control costs,
emission reductions, health risks, and
economic impacts.
The organic emission rates also were
revised for the model units based on
emission source testing conducted for
EPA. The test data show that organic
emission rates for primary condensers
varied from a few hundredths of a
kilogram (pound) to nearly 4.5 kg/h (10
Ib/h). with six of the nine measurements
less than 0.45 kg/h (1 Ib/h). The two
secondary condensers tested showed
emission rates of 0.9 and 2.3 kg/h (2 and
5 Ib/h), respectively.
The flow rate of 28 standard cubic feet
per minute (scfm) used at proposal was
found not to be generally valid for
application to waste solvent recyclers.
The flow rates specified for the revised
model units. 3.9,0.6, and 0.3 L/s.
equivalent to 8.3,1.2. and O.S scfm for
the large, medium, and small model
units, respectively, are based on a
review of site-specific data from field
-------
25480 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Kulea ana Keguiauona
tests documented In site visit reports.
The large and medium TSDF process
vent unit flow rates also agree with
those documented in the SOCM1
Distillation NSPS BID (see Docket No.
F-88-AESP, item S0008) as
characterizing distillation units with low
overhead gas flows. The revised impact
analyses are based on actual data from
the industry and provide a reasonable
characterization of the industry's
operations aad environmental impacts.
The constituents selected for the
analysis of control technologies are
considered to be representative of the
industry, based on a review of relevant
information and literature, including (1)
a survey of member companies
submitted by NASR, (2) 23 site-specific
plant visit reports, (3) responses to the
EPA section 3007 Questionnaires from 6
small and 11 large facilities (two
respondents provided information for 4
facilities each), (4) the Industrial Studies
Data Base (ISDB) and (5) a data base
created by the Illinois EPA. The NASR
survey provided information on the
types of solvents most frequently
recycled at member facilities; the site-
specific information and EPA survey
responses included waste composition
data. The ISDB is a compilation of data
from ongoing, in-depth surveys by EPA's
Office of Solid Waste (OSW) on
designated industries that are major
waste generators. The Illinois EPA data
base contains information from about
35,000 permit applications. Generators
must submit one application for each
hazardous and special nonhazardous
waste stream managed in the State of
Illinois. Each of these data bases
contains waste stream characterization
data for numerous generic spent solvent
waste streams (EPA Hazardous Wastes
FOO1-F005) and D001 wastes (ignitable),
which information from the Screener
Survey indicates also are recycled.
The three constituents used for the
model facilities in the proposal analysis
were toluene (with a boiling point (bp)
of 110 *q, MEK (bp of 79 *C), and TCE
(bp of 74 *Q. Methylene chloride (bp of
40 *C) was added to the list of
constituents evaluated in the final
analysis to provide an even greater
range of solvent volatilities for the
analysis. Therefore, the technical
feasibility and costs of applying the
recommended control techniques were
evaluated for constituents representing
the range of characteristics and
volatilities of commonly recycled
solvents at TSDF.
Comment: Commenters also stated
that it is inappropriate to apply the
fugitive emission factors to TSDF that
were developed to estimate leaks from a
typical hydrocarbon plant because they
do not relate to the design, operating
conditions, maintenance practices, or
controls associated with processing of
waste solvents and other toxic wastes.
According to the commenters, the
emission factors and model units also
need adjustment to account for volatility
because not accounting for differences
in vapor pressure overestimates risk as
well as emissions and underestimates
costs for controls.
Response: The EPA disagrees; the
data used in establishing the fugitive
emission standards for TSDF are based
on emission and process data collected
at a variety of petroleum refinery and
SOCMI operating units. The EPA -
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory (1ERL) coordinated a study
to develop information on fugitive
emissions in the SOCML A total of 24
chemical process units were tested;
these data covered thousands of
screened sources (pumps, valves,
flanges, etc.) and included units
handling such chemicals as acetone,
phenol, MEK, ethylene dichloride, TCE.
trichloroethylene, and
perchloroethylene.
Refinery studies on fugitives also "
include tests on units handling both
toluene and xylene. These same
chemicals are included in those listed by
the NASR as solvents commonly
recycled by member facilities and are .
found in other sources of waste solvent
constituent information that are
described in the BID. The chemicals
commonly recycled at TSDF are those
produced in SOCMI operating units and
handled in petroleum refineries, and the
equipment involved in these industries
is typically the same (pumps, valves,
etc.). Therefore, it is reasonable to
conclude that the emissions associated
with these chemicals and equipment are
similar and to expect similar emission
control performance and efficiencies at
hazardous waste management units.
The EPA agrees that the equipment
leak standards should take component
volatility into consideration. Previous
EPA and industry studies have shown
that the volatility of stream components,
as a process variable, does correlate
with fugitive emission and leak rates.
An analysis of the vapor pressures and
emission rates has shown that
substances with vapor pressures of 03
kPa or higher had significantly higher
emission and leak rates than did those
. with lower vapor pressures (EPA-450/3-
82-010). This result led to the separation
of equipment component emissions by
service: gas/vapor, light liquid, and
heavy liquid. These classifications have
been used in most CAA fugitive
emission standards to effectively direct
the major effort toward equipment most
likely to leak. Therefore the rules have
been revised to account for volatility.
For example, pumps and valves in
heavy-liquid service must be monitored
only if evidence of a potential leak is
found by visual, audible, olfactory, or
any other detection method. The
determination of light- and heavy-liquid
service is based on the vapor pressure
of the components in the stream (less
than (L3 kPa at 20 *C defines a heavy
liquid).
All of the constituents used in the
model unit analysis, representing the
ranges of characteristics of commonly
recycled solvents, are light liquids to
which the benzene and SOCMI fugitive
emission factors are applicable.
Therefore, the revised risk and cost
analyses for WSTF equipment leak
fugitive emissions are based on the
fugitive emission factors used in the
proposal analysis. The analyses of risk
and cost impacts on TSDF with affected
fugitive emission sources also were
revised after proposal to account for tb*
differences in light and heavy liquids.
Health Risk Impacts Analysis
Comment: Several commenters
objected to the limited support provided
for selection and derivation of the unit
risk factors used in the analysis of
cancer risks and contend that the risk
analysis and unit risk factors are not
representative of the wide variety of
wastes handled. A few of the
commenters stated that the upper-bound
risk factor was too high, and others
stated it was too low.
Response: The selection of the range
of unit risk factors (Le* 2X10"* and
2 x 10~* fjig/m *)' * used at proposal to
estimate the cancer risk resulting from
TSDF emissions was based on an
analysis of the organic chemicals
associated with TSDF operations. This
analysis found that carbon tetrachlorida
is the organic chemical with the most
individual impact vis-a-vis emissions
and risk. Thus, it was used as the upper
bound on the range of unit risk factors
used to calculate health impacts (Le-
cancer risk) at proposal. However, this
range of unit risk factors was not used in
the final analysis.
Based on public comments, EPA
revised its health risk impacts analysis.
To estimate the cancer potency of TSDF
air emissions in the revised analysis, an
emission-weighted composite unit
cancer risk estimate approach was used
by EPA to address the problem of
dealing with the large number of toxic
chemicals that are present at many
TSDF. Use of the emission-weighted
-------
OSWER D1R. NO. yi?41.UU-i4
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25181
composite factor rather than individual
component unit cancer risk factors
simplifies the risk assessment so that
calculations do not need to be
performed for each chemical emitted.
The composite unit cancer risk factor is
combined with estimates of ambient
concentrations of total organics and
population exposure to estimate risk due
to nationwide TSOF emissions. In
calculating the emission-weighted
average unit risk factor, the emission
estimate for a compound is first
multiplied by the unit cancer risk factor
for that compound; then the emission-
weighted average is computed by
summing these products and dividing
the sum by the total nationwide TSDF
emission value, which includes both
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
organic emissions. Using this type of
average would give the same results as
calculating the risk for each chemical
involved. However, only those
carcinogens for which unit risk factors
are available were included in the
analysis of cancer risk under this
approach.
Through use of the EPA's TSDF Waste
Characterization Data Base (WCDB)
(discussed in appendix D of the BID]
and a computerized model developed for
analysis of the regulatory options for
TSDF emission sources, EPA estimated
total nationwide TSDF organic
emissions by specific waste constituent
Thirty-nine chemicals were identified as
TSDP organic air pollutant emission
constituents emitted from equipment
leaks at all types of TSDF waste
management processes. Unit cancer risk
factor* for these constituents were then
averaged based on both individual
constituent and total nationwide TSDF
equipment leak organic emissions to
calculate an emission-weighted
composite mean TSDF cancer unit risk
factor.
Numerous constituents with higher
unit risk factors than carbon
tetrachloride (including acrylonitrile and
ethylene oxide) were included in the
calculation of the emission-weighted
unit cancer risk factor for TSDF
equipment leaks. This emission-
weighted unit risk factor value was
determined to be 4.5 x NT* (fig/mT1
and was used to determine the health-
related impacts associated with TSDF
equipment leak (fugitive) emissions
rather than the range of the unit cancer
risk factors used at proposal that
represented a limited number of
chemical compounds emitted at WSTF.
A more detailed discussion of the
hazardous waste TSDF unit risk factor
determination is contained in appendix
B of the BID.
Characterization of WSTF waste
streams in the final analysis indicates
that the constituents used at proposal in
the risk analysis are appropriate and
representative of the waste solvent
recycling industry. However, insufficient
nationwide data on WSTF (a subset of
the TSDF industry) waste stream
chemical constituent quantities and
concentrations were available to
develop an emission-weighted,
arithmetic mean cancer unit risk factor
for WSTF process vents. While
information on a small number of
process vent streams was available for
the revised analysis, the data were too
limited to support the conclusion that
the mix and percentage of constituents
found were representative of the entire
industry.
The WSTF waste streams and their
associated process vent emissions were
found to contain a variety of chemical
constituents. Those constituents with
established risk factors were, in all
cases for the plant-specific data, the
halogenated organics; these halogenated
organic constituent concentrations
tended to be quite low, generally less
than 1 percent of organics emitted.
Therefore, EPA judged, based on the
limited data available, that use of a
midrange unit risk factor would be
appropriate in estimating nationwide
health impacts associated with WSTF
process vents. The unit cancer risk
factor assumed at proposal, 2x10"* (^ig/
m *)~ ', was the geometric midrange
between the highest and lowest unit risk
factor for the constituents found in the
WSTF process vent streams. The
composite unit cancer risk factor
calculated for the equipment leak
emissions agrees favorably with the
process vent number used at proposal.
Because it is not unreasonable to
assume a similar mix of constituents hi
process vents as in equipment leaks,
and because available data do not
suggest otherwise, for the purpose of
estimating impacts, the same unit cancer
risk factor was used for both process
vents and equipment leaks, 4.5X10'*
Comment Several commenters also
stated that the failure to address the
weight of evidence for carcinogenic* ty is
inconsistent with EPA's risk assessment
guidelines and the principles for
assessing cancer risk.
Response: Early in the nil ema king for
TSDF. EPA looked at the contribution to
total estimated risk (annual incidence)
by weight of evidence. At that time, "C~
carcinogens accounted for about 5
percent of the total risk, and "A"
carcinogens about 10 percent. Thus, for
all practical purposes, calculating
separate risk estimates for chemicals in
each weight of evidence category adds
little to the risk assessment. Moreover,
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment (51FR 33982) and
Guidelines for the Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (51
FR 34O14) do not describe a means to
quantitatively incorporate weight of
evidence into risk assessments. Thus,
there is no inconsistency between the
risk assessment guidelines and the
presentation of health risk in this
rulemaking.
Comment: Other commenters believed
that the risk assessment for the
proposed standards was flawed because
EPA did not consider noncancer health
effects and because large uncertainties
are introduced when the additive or
synergistic effects of carcinogens and
the interindividual variability in
response are not factored in.
Response: The EPA does recognize
that health effects other than cancer
may be associated with both short-term
and long-term human exposure to the
organic chemicals emitted to the air at
WSTF/TSDF. The EPA believes,
however, that a risk assessment based
on cancer serves as the dearest basis
for evaluating the health effects
associated with exposure to-air
emissions from TSDF. A quantitative
assessment of the potential nationwide
noncancer health impacts (e.g.,
developmental, neurological,
immunological, and respiratory effects)
was not conducted due to deficiencies at
this time in the health data base for
these types of effects.
Although unable to numerically
quantify noncancer health risks, EPA
did conduct a screening analysis of the
potential adverse noncancer health
effects associated with short-term and
long-term exposure to individual waste
constituents emitted from TSDF. This
analysis was based on a comparison of
relevant health data to the highest short-
term or long-term modeled ambient
concentrations for chemicals at each of
two selected TSDF. (A detailed
presentation of the screening analysis is
contained in the BID, appendix B.)
Results of this analysis suggest that
adverse noncancer health effects are
unlikely to be associated with acute or
chronic inhalation exposure to TSDF
organic emissions. It should be noted
that the health data base for many
chemicals was limited particularly for
short-term exposures. The conclusions
reached in this preliminary analysis
should be considered in the context of
the limitations of the health data; the
uncertainties associated with the
characterization of wastes at the
-------
25482 Federal Register / Vol. 5S. No.120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
facilities; and the assumptions used in
estimating emissions, ambient
concentrations, and the potential for
human exposure. Additional evaluation
of noncancer health effects may be
undertaken as part of the third phase of
the TSDF regulatory program. To that
effect, in the proposal preamble for the
Phase II TSDF air rules, EPA is
specifically requesting comments from
the public on methodologies and use of
health data for assessing the noncancer
health effects of TSDF organic
emissions. In addition, because there is
a potential for cancer and noncancer
health effects from TSDF chemicals from
indirect pathways such as ingestion of
foods contaminated by air toxics that
have deposited in the soil EPA will
evaluate the need to include an indirect
pathway element in the TSDF health
risk analysis in the future.
The EPA is aware of the uncertainties
inherent in predicting the magnitude and
nature of toxicant interactions between
individual chemicals in chemical
mixtures. In the absence of toxicity data
on the specific mixtures of concern, and
with insufficient quantitative
information on the potential interaction
among the components (i.e., additivity.
synergism, or antagonism), the EPA has
assumed additivity to estimate the
carcinogenicity of the mixtures of
concern. This is consistent with
guidance provided in the 1986 "EPA
Guidelines for the Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures" [SI
FR 34014).
• The EPA also recognizes that there
are uncertainties associated with the-
variability of individual human
responses following exposures to
toxicants. As stated in the 1988 "EPA
. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment" (51 FR 33992) human
populations are variable with respect to
genetic constitution, diet occupational
and home environment, activity
patterns, and other cultural factors.
Because of insufficient data, however,
the EPA is unable to determine the
potential impact of these factors on the
estimates of risk associated with
exposure to carcinogens emitted from
TSDF. - .
Cost Impacts Analysis
Comment- Various commenters
questioned the cost estimates used in
the analysis for carbon adsorbers and
condensers as well as the nationwide
recovery credits for WSTF and TSDF.
Commenters contend that the costs for
carbon adsorbers estimated at proposal
are low because a device is needed for
each vent if manifolding is not practiced
as a result of (1) the potential for cross-
contamination of new or recycled
materials and (2) additional incurred
costs when the carbon is regenerated or
disposed of.
Response: In response to these
comments EPA evaluated controls for 40
model unit cases representing ranges
and combinations of solvent physical
properties, total flow rates, and organic
concentrations in the vent stream. Both
carbon canisters and fixed-bed
regenerate carbon systems were coated
for process vent streams where
condensers would not achieve a 95-
percent reduction because of stream
conditions. The analysis showed that,
for a stream with an emission rate
greater than 0.45 kg/h (l Ib/h), a carbon
bed can achieve the same emission
reduction at lower cost than can a
carbon canister. Thus, there is a level of
emissions at which the facility owner or
operator for economic reasons will
switch from the use of replaceable
carbon canisters to the use of a fixed-
bed regenerable carbon adsorption
system. The capital costs (1988 $) of the
fixed-bed regenerable carbon systems
ranged from $97,300 up to $202,000, and
annual operating costs ranged from
$40,200 to $43,500 (from $33.100 to
$43,100 when a recovery credit is
included). The capital cost (1986 $] of a
carbon canister was $1,050, and annual
operating costs ranged from $7,890 to
$24,800 (carbon canisters are not
regenerated on site and a recovery
credit is not included). The fixed-bed.
regenerable carbon system operating
costs include regeneration/disposal of
spent carbon; carbon canister operating
costs include carbon replacement and
disposal. Thus, these costs were used in
conducting the final impact analyses.
With regard to the requirement of *
control device for each vent, EPA
acknowledges that there are instances
where vent manifolding is not allowed
because of potential product
contamination. However the product
has already been recovered from the
process prior to exhaust gases passing
to the vents, which are sources of
organic emissions to the atmosphere;
therefore, manifolding of the vent
streams should not lead to a product
contamination problem.
In the absence of the site-specific
information needed to determine control
device requirements, for the purposes of
estimating cost impacts, it was assumed
in the revised analysis that one control
device would be needed per WSTF.
Although this assumption may
underestimate the control cost for a
facility that chooses to install carbon
adsorbers on more than one vent it is
potentially a very small underestimate •
because the total annual cost of a
carbon canister, for example, is
comprised almost totally of annual
operating costs, which are directly
proportional to the emissions removed.
Thus the potential underestimate in total
annual cost resulting from assuming one
carbon adsorber per facility is not
significant. Furthermore, the addition of
the process vent emission limit to the
rules based on the total facility emission
rate lessens the likelihood that a facility
will need to control multiple process
vents to attain the allowable emission
rate of 1.4 kg/h (3 Ib/h) and 2.8 Mg/yr
(3.1 ton/yr).
Several commenters also questioned
the nationwide cost credit for secondary
condensers estimated at proposal
stating that secondary condensers
actually would result in substantial
costs and that the cost estimates do not
account for the more sophisticated
systems needed hi high-humidity areas
to allow for equipment deicing or water
removal. In response to concerns
regarding the estimated condenser
yields and the requirement for more
sophisticated systems in high-humidity
areas, EPA utilized a state-of-the-art
computerized process simulator known
as the Advanced System for Process
. Engineering (ASPEN) for reevaluating
analyses of condenser design and cost.
The ASPEN condenser configuration
included an optional primary water-
cooled heat exchanger to reduce the size
of the refrigeration unit and to remove
water vapor in order to avoid freezing
problems because the condenser
temperature is low enough to cause ice
buildup on heat transfer surfaces.
Therefore, the revised cost estimates
account for water removal
The model unit cases represent
Industrywide ranges and combinations
of vent stream characteristics. For the
large model unit cases (3.9 L/s total flow
rate), total annual cost with recovery
credit ranged from a credit of $4,980 up
to a net of no cost For the medium
model unit cases (0.8 L/s total flow
rate), the total annual cost with recovery
credit ranged from $830 up to $2,000. For
the small model unit cases (0.3 L/s total
flow rate), the total annual cost with
recovery credit ranged from $1,770 up to
$2,000. Therefore, in many cases, the use
of secondary condensers does result in
positive costs; these costs, however do
not result in adverse economic impacts.
The model unit control cost estimates
and the WSTF industry profile were
used to generate nationwide control cost
estimates of implementing the process
vent regulations. The cost estimates are
for 73 large facilities and 187 medium
facilities. The 208 small facilities (less
than 188,000 L (50.000 gal) throughput/yr
-------
U1K. JNU.
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 /Rules and Regulations
25493
as defined in the post-proposal analysis)
would not have to install additional
controls because their emissions are less
than the facility process venl cutoff.
Because there was insufficient site-
specific information available to
determine which facilities could apply
condensation rather than carbon
adsorption, upper- and lower-bound
estimates were generated. The
upperbound cost estimate is based on
the assumption that fixed-bed,
regenerable carbon adsorption systems
would be required to control process
vents at all facilities with emissions
above the emission rate cutoff. Similarly
the lower-bound cost estimate is basad
on the assumption that condensers
could be used to control process vents at
all facilities with emissions above the
emission rate cutoff. Tht range in
estimates of nationwide total annual
cost is from a credit of $68,000 up to a
cost of $12.9 million, assuming the
installation of one control device per
facility.
Finally, EPA agrees that a recovery
credit is not applicable to TSDF in
general because most of the hazardous
wastes handled at TSDF are destined
for disposal. In contrast, at a WSTF, the
air emissions resulting from equipment
leaks are potentially recyclable
solvents. Thus, no recovery credit was
applied for TSDF other than WSTF in
the analyses for the final equipment leak
standards.
E. Implementation and Compliance
Test Methods
Comment: Commenters argued that
the test methods proposed for use in
determining whether waste streams
contain more than 10 percent total
organics are inappropriate primarily
because they do not measure volatile
organics. One commenter objected to
the use of weight percent when defining
"in VHAP service" based on liquid
sample analyses.
Response: The EPA recognized that
each of the various test methods
proposed for determining the organic
content of waste streams had limitations
and that none was universally
applicable. The determination of subpart
BB applicability should not require
precise measurement of the 10 percent
total organics by weight in most cases.
The EPA anticipates that most waste
streams will have an organic content
much lower or much higher than 10 •
percent. Furthermore, because the
regulation requires control if the organic
content of the waste stream ever equals
or exceeds the 10-percent value. EPA
believes that few owners or operators
will claim that a waste stream is not
subject to the requirements of the
standard based on a sample analysis
with results near 10 percent. Therefore,
a precise measurement of waste stream
total organic content is not likely to be
needed to determine applicability of the
equipment leak standards.
If the facility does decide to test the
waste, the choice of the appropriate
method must be based on a knowledge
of the process and waste. The EPA has
prepared a guidance document that
includes information to aid TSDF
owners/operators and enforcement and
permitting personnel in implementing
the regulations. Additional detail is
provided in the guidance document to
aid in choosing the most appropriate test
method. (Refer to "Hazardous Waste
TSDF—Technical Guidance Document
for RCRA Air Emission Standards for
Process Vents and Equipment Leaks."
EPA-4SO/3-89-21.)
In response to the commenlers*
concerns that volatility of the waste
stream should be considered, the LDAR
provisions of the regulation were
changed to establish two potential
levels of required monitoring. Those
processes with the greater emission
potential are designated to be in light-
liquid service and are required to
implement a more restrictive LDAR
program. Those processes with a lesser
emission potential are designated to be
in heavy-liquid service and are required
to implement a less restrictive LDAR
program. The determination of being in
light-liquid service is based on the
concentration of organic components in
a waste whose pure vapor prescu*v
exceeds 0.3 kPa. This a Jdresses the
commenters' concerns that volatility of
the waste stream should be considered.
For the process vent portion of the
regulation, if an organic is present at the
vent it is presumed to be volatile.
Therefore, volatility is considered by
virtue of where the determination of
applicability is made.
With reference to the use of weight
percent when defining "in VHAP
service" (a term that has been dropped
from the promulgated regulations), EPA
believes that weight percentage is the
unit of choice when the determination of
organic content is made on a solid,
liquid, or sludge waste. It is also
commonly associated with those types
of wastes. For gaseous streams that
exceed 10 percent organics by weight,
the commenter's point is well taken.
Volume fractions are more commonly
reported for gaseous streams. However,
it is not easier to calculate the volume
percent rather than weight percent.
Additional information on the
calibration standard used, the carrier
gas in the standard, and both the
organic and other inorganic gases in the
sample are required in both cases. For
simplicity, the units of the standard are
uniformly weight percent regardless of
waste type.
Implementation Schedule
Comment: Several commenters
objected to the time periods contained
in the proposed standards for
implementation schedules and
requested that EPA not dictate a step-
.by-step schedule.
Response: The EPA agrees with the
commenters that EPA should not dictate
step-by-step implementation schedules
for installing the control devices and
closed-vent systems required to comply
with these regulations because each
affected facility needs some flexibility
to budget funds, perform engineering
evaluations, and complete construction.
Therefore, EPA has dropped the interim
dates in the schedule and retained only
the final period of 2 years from the
promulgation for completing engineering
design and evaluation studies and for
installing equipment The final rules
require that all affected facilities comply
with the standards on the effective date;
however, the rules allow up to 24
months from the promulgation date (i.e.,
18 months after the effective date) for
facilities to comply if they are required
to install a control device and they can
document that installation of the
emission controls cannot reasonably be
expected to be cr>TipJeted earlier.
Esii'tSng tVSSlc »iieu.a£C~"««t tioifj that
become newly regulated units subjccn io
the provisions of subpart AA or BB
because of a new statutory or regulatory
amendment under RCRA (e.g., a new
listing or identification of a hazardous
waste) will have up to 18 months after
the effective date of the statutory or
regulatory amendments that render the
facility subject to the provisions of
subparts AA or BB to complete
installation of the control device. New
hazardous waste management units
starting operation after the effective
date of subparts AA and BB must meet
the standards upon startup. This subject
is discussed further in section DC
Implementation, of this preamble. The
final standards require that both
permitted and interim status facilities
maintain the schedules and the
accompanying documentation in their
operating records. The implementation
schedule must be in the operating record
on the effective date of today's rule,
which is 6 months after promulgation.
No provisions hsve been made in the
standards for extensions beyond 24
months after promulgation.
-------
25484
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Permitting Requirements
Comment- Several conunenters
suggested that RCRA part B information
requirements be limited to the units
already included in the part B
application. Units that must comply with
this regulation because the facility is
subject to RCRA permit requirements for
other reasons should not be required to
be added to the part B permit
application. Other commenters objected
to statements in the preamble regarding
the role of the omnibus permitting
authority under RCRA section 3005(c)(3).
The commenters questioned the absence
of criteria for establishing when such
authority would be applied to require
more stringent controls and argued that
authorizing permit writers to impose
more stringent controls based on
unenforceable guidance is not a
substitute for regulations.
Response: The EPA is aware that
extending specific part B information"
requirements to those hazardous waste
management units that are not subject
to RCRA permitting but are located at
facilities that are otherwise subject to
RCRA permit requirements could result
in the need for those facilities to modify
RCRA permits or their part B
applications. However, EPA believes
that extending the part B information
requirements to hazardous waste
management uirns not subject to RCRA
permitting is ne \~sary to ensure
compliance wits; tne subpart AA and
aubpart BB standards.
Th? EPA also s—«>es fhs* requiring a
-:.~~.».«.»f
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
in research, development, and
demonstration units as described in 40
CFR 270.85.
The promulgated standards liir.it
organic emissions frora (1) hazardous
waste management unit process vents
associated with distillation,
fractionaticn, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, and air and stream
stripping operations that manage waste
with 10 ppmw or greater total organics
concentration, and (2) leaks from
equipment at new and existing
hazardous waste management units that
contain or contact hazardous waste
streams with 10 percent or more total
crganics. The final equipment leak
standards apply to each pomp valve,
compressor, pressure relief device,
sampling connection, open-ended valve
or line, flange, or other connector
associated with the affected hazardous
v/aste management unit. About 1,400
facilities are estimated to be potentially
subject to the equipment leak standards
(i.e., TSDF managing hazardous waste
containing at least 10 percent organics).
Of these, 430 are estimated to have
process vents subject to the vent
standards in subpart AA.
B. Use of Models in the Regulatory
Development Process
In estimating baseline (i.e.,
unregulated] emissions, emission
impacts of the regulatory options, and
control costs for the options for
equipment leaks, EPA made use of a
combination of analytical and physical
models of waste management processes.
This approach was selected because
insufficient facility-specific data are
available to conduct a site-specific
characterization of the entire TSDF
industry. For example, the
physicalmodels of waste management
processes (or units) were used as
simplified representations of the
equipment component mix expected to
be associated with each particular
hazardous waste management process.
The model unit provides an estimate of
the number of pumps, valves, open-
ended lines, pressure relief valves, and
sampling connections that are used in
the waste management process.
Although these models ara not exact for
each type of process, they provide a
reasonable approximation of what can
be expected on average; precise
equipment counts for each unit at each
facility are not available.
In the absence of sufficient site-
specific data, EPA developed a model to
calculate nationwide health,
environmental, and cost impacts
associated with hazardous waste TSDF.
Details of the national impacts model
can be found in the BID. appendix D.
This national impacts model was used
to estimate the nationwide impacts
necessary for comparison of the various
TSDF equipment leak emission control
options. The national impacts model is a
complex computer program that uses a
wide variety of information and data
concerning the TSDF industry to
calculate nationwide impacts through
summation of approximate individual
facility results. Information processed
by the model includes results of TSDF
industry surveys as well as
characterizations and simulations of
TSDF processes and wastes, emission
factors of each type of management unit.
the efficiencies and costs of emission
control technologies, and exposure and
health impacts of TSDF pollutants. This
information is contained in several
independent data files developed by
EPA for use as inputs to the model.
These data files are briefly described
beiovv.
Industry profile data identify the
name, location, primary standard
industrial classification (SIC) code,
waste management processes, waste
types, and waste volumes for each
TSDF. The industry data were obtained
from three principal sources: A 1936
National Screening Survey of Hazardous
V/aste Treatment, Storage, Disposal,
and Recycling Facilities; the Hazardous
Waste Data Management System's
RCRA part A permit applications; and
the 1931 National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators and Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities
Regulated Under RCRA. The industry
data are used in the model to define the
location and the SIC code for each
facility and to identify the waste
management units at each facility as
well as the types and quantities of
waste managed in each unit.
The hazardous waste characterization
consists of waste data representative of
typical wastes handled by facilities in
each SIC code. The waste data are
linked to specific facilities by the SIC
code and the RCRA waste codes
identified for that facility in tha industry
profile. The waste characterization data
include chemical properties information
that consists of constituent-specific data
on the physical, chemical, and biological
properties of a group of surrogate waste
constituents that were developed to
represent the more than 4,000 TSDF
waste constituents identified in the
waste data base. The surrogate
categories were defined to represent
actual organic compounds based on a
combination of their vapor pressures,
Henry's law constants, and
biodegradability. The use of surrogate
properties was instituted to compensate
far a lack of constituent-specific
physical and chemical property data
and to reduce the number of chemicals
to be assessed by the model.
The emission factors data consist of
emission factors, expressed as
emissions per unit of waste throughput.
for each combination of surrogate waste
constituent and model waste
management process. Each model waste
management process was, in effect, a
"national average model unit" that
represented a weighted average of the
operating parameters of existing waste
management units. The EPA's LDAR
model was used to develop emission
control efficiencies and emission
reductions for the TSDF equipment leak
emission factors used in the analysis.
This LDAR model is based on the
Agency's extensive experience with
equipment leaks in the petrochemical
and synthetic organic chemical
manufacturing industries.
Incidence data consist of estimates of
annual cancer incidence for the
population within 50 km of each TSDF.
This information was developed using
EPA's Human Exposure Model, 1980
census data, and local meteorological
data summaries. Because some of the
data used in the national impacts model
are based on national average values
rather than actual facility-specific data,
maximum risk numbers generated by the
model are not considered to be
representative of facility-specific risks.
Maximum individual risk has meaning
only at the facility level. Therefore, EPA
chose to use another methodology for
estimating MIR for equipment leaks.
This is discussed further in section
VILE
Data related to emission control
technologies and costs include
information that describes control
efficiencies, capital investment, and
annual operating costs for each emission
control option that is applicable to a
particular waste management process.
These data were obtained through
engineering analyses of control device
operations and the development of
engineering cost estimates.
To make use of all of these data, the
national impacts model contains
procedures that (1) identify TSDF
facilities, their waste management
processes, waste compositions, and
annual waste throughputs; (2) assign
chemical properties to waste
constituents and assign control devices
. to process units; and (3) calculate
uncontrolled emissions, emissions
reductions, control costs, and health
impacts. Results produced by the modal
include, on a nationwide basis,
uncontrolled emissions, controlled
-------
2548S Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
emissions, capital investment costs,
annual operating costs, annualized costs
for controls, and annual cancer
incidence. As previously stated, these
nationwide values are obtained by
summing the results of individual
facility analyses across all facilities.
The primary objective and intended
use of the national impacts model are to.
provide reasonable estimates of TSDF
impacts on a nationwide basis. Because
of the complexity of the hazardous
waste management Industry and the
current lack of detailed information for
individual TSDF, the model was
developed to utilize national average
data where site-specific data are not
available. As a result, the estimated
emissions and cancer incidence from the
model do not represent the impacts for a
specific Individual facility. However,
with national average data values used
where site-specific data were missing,
EPA believes that the estimates are
reasonable on a nationwide basis and
are adequate for decisionmaking.
C. Emission Impacts
Since proposal in February 1987. EPA
has reviewed all available site-specific
information and data on WSTF and
TSDF, much of which has only become
available since proposal. For example,
EPA is conducting a multiyear project to
collect information on the Nation's
generation of hazardous waste and the
capacity available to treat, store.
dispose of, and recycle that waste. The
initial phase of the project was the 1980
National Screening Survey of Hazardous.
Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal and
Recycling Facilities, which identified
and collected summary information from
all hazardous waste treatment, storage.
disposal, and recycling facilities in the
United States. The results of this
"Screener Survey" together with data
from other existing data bases (such as
the Hazardous -Waste Data Management
System's RCRA part A applications; the
National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators and Treatment Storage, and
Disposal Facilities Regulated Under
RCRA in 1981; the Industry Studies
Database: a data base of 40 CFR 261.32
hazardous wastes from specific sources;
the WET Model Hazardous Waste Data
Base; and a data base created by the
Illinois EPA) were used to support the
development and analysis of these air
emission regulations for hazardous
waste TSDF. Additional sources of data
on TSDF and waste solvent recycling
operations included EPA field reports on
hazardous waste facilities and
responses to RCRA section 3007
information requests sent to a limited
number of both large and small
facilities. Based on all of this .
information. EPA has revised and
expanded the impact analyses, including
estimates of emissions, risks, costs, and
the economic impact on small
businesses and on the industry as a
whole.
Using the revised impact analyses,
nationwide (unregulated) baseline
equipment leak organic emissions from
TSDF waste streams of 10 percent or
greater total organics are estimated at
28JOO Mg/yr. This estimate includes .
equipment leak emissions from waste
solvent treatment facilities and from
other TSDF with hazardous waste
management processes handling wastes
with organic concentrations of 10
percent or greater, a total of about 1,400
facilities. The bases for these estimates
are contained In the BID, appendix D.
Nationwide (unregulated) organic
emissions from process vents at about
450 TSDF with solvent recovery
operations range from 300 Mg/yr (based
on lower-bound emission rates) to 8,100
Mg/yr (based on upper-bound emission
rates). This wide emission range occurs
because of variations in primary
condenser recovery efficiencies and the
use of secondary condensers at some
sites. The lower-bound rate represent!
high recovery efficiencies at all
facilities, and the upper-bound rate
represents low recovery efficiencies at
all facilities. Actual nationwide
emissions should fall between these
values.
With the implementation of the
standards, nationwide TSDF equipment
leak emissions will be reduced to about
7.200 Mg/yn nationwide organic
emissions from process vents will be
reduced to a range from 270 Mg/yr
(lower-bound emission rates) to 900 Mg/
yr (upper-bound emission rates).
D. Ozone Impacts
Reductions in organic emissions from
TSDF sources will have a positive
impact on human health and the
environment by reducing atmospheric
ozone formation as a result of
reductions in emissions of ozone
precursors, primarily organic
compounds. Ozone is a major problem
in most larger cities, and EPA has
estimated mat more than 100 million
people live in areas that are in violation
of the ambient ozone standards. Ozone
is a pulmonary irritant that can impair
the normal functions of human lungs,
may increase susceptibility to bacterial
infections, and can result in other
detrimental health effects. In addition.
ozone can reduce the yields of citrus.
cotton, potatoes, soybeans, wheat
spinach, and other crops, and can cause
damage to conifer forests and a
reduction in the fruit and seed diets of
wildlife. Because TSDF organic
emissions account for about 12 percent
of total nationwide organic emissions
from stationary sources, today's rules
will contribute to a reduction in ozone-
induced health and environmental
effects and will assist in attainment and
maintenance of the ambient air quality
standards for ozone. Table 1
summarizes the emissions and health
risk impact estimates.
Ozone precursors and'
chlorofluorocarbons, whose emissions
will be reduced by this rulemaking, are
botli considered greenhouse gases (i.e..
gases whose accumulation in the
atmosphere has been related to global
wanning). Although the regulation's
direct impact on global warming has not
been quantified, the direction being
taken is a positive one. Implementation
of these rules will reduce troposphertc
ozone, which contributes to global
wanning.
E. Health Risk Impacts
Human health risks posed by
exposure to TSDF air emissions are
typically quantified in two forms:
Annual cancer incidence and MIR.
Annual cancer incidence is the
estimated number of cancer cases per
year due to exposure to TSDF emissions
nationwide. The MIR, on the other hand.
represents the potential risk to the one
hypothetical individual who lives'
closest to a reasonable worst-case TSDF
for a lifetime of 70 years. The MIR is
derived from modeling a reasonable
worst-case scenario and is not based on
actual measurement of risk. It is not
representative of the entire industry,
and, in fact may be experienced by few,
if any, individuals. As explained in
appendix B of the BID. there are great
uncertainties in both these types of
health risk estimates. These two health
risk forms were used as an index to
quantify health Impacts related to TSDF
emissions and emission controls. As
discussed in section VLD- an
equipment-leak-specific, emission-
weighted unit risk factor of 4.5X10"*
fjig/m1)"1 was used to estimate the
nationwide annual cancer incidence and
the MIR of contracting cancer
associated with TSDF equipment leak
organic emissions. See appendix B of the
BID for « detailed analysis of the health
risk impacts. .
At proposal order-of-magnitude
health impacts were estimated for
cancer risks from exposure to organic
air emissions from WSTF and TSDF.
The Human Exposure Model (HEM) was
used to calculate the magnitude of risks
posed by WSTF at both typical and
maximum emission rates. Based on an
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
2S487
estimated urban/rural distribution. EPA
selected six WSTF to represent the
nationwide WSTF industry in
performing the risk assessment. Using
the results of the analysis of these
"typical" facilities, health impacts were
extrapolated to all WSTF and TSDF in
general to provide nationwide estimates.
In the revised heallh impacts analysis
for the fine! rules, annual cancer
incidence and MIR were again used to
quantify health impacts for the control
alternatives for process vents and
equipment leaks. However, in this
foliowup analysis, the KEM was ran
using site-specific data on facility -wasts
throughputs, emission rates,
meteorology, and population density for
each WSTF and TSDF r.etSonwide
identified in the various data bases,
The facility-speciuc information was
obtained from three principal sources.
Waste quantity and solvent/ecycling
data were taken from the 1986 National
Screener Survey; waste management
processing schemes and waste types
managed in each facility were based on
the Hazardous Waste Data Management
System's (HWDMS) RCRA part A
applications; the National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Generators and
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities Regulated Under RCRA in
1901 (Wesiat Survey); and the 1330
National Screener Survey.
In revising the methodology applied in
asssssing cancer risks, EPA conducted
facility-specific HEM computer runs for
nearly all of the 443 WSTF that
reported, in ths 1966 National Screener
Survey, recycling and/or reuse 01
solvents and other organic compounds
(i.e.. TSDF expected to have the
specified process vents) and for each of
the more than 1,400 TSDF in the industry
profile of 2,300 TSDF that were
datermuiod to manage wastes with at
least 10 percent organic content. Thesa
HEM results were used to estimate
nationwide cancer incidence for both
TSDF equipment leaks and process
vents.
The nationwide annual incidence
resulting from uncontrolled TSDF
equipment leaks is estimated at 1.1
cases of cancer per year. Eased on the
estimated lower-bound emission rates.
tha nationwide cancer incidence from
uncontrolled process vents is 0.013 cass/
yr. Based on the upper-bound emission
rste, the incidence from process vents is
0.33 case/yr. With the application of •!•*
final process vent standards, based cr-.
lower-bound emission raies, the an.-. •'
cancer incidence will be reduced to
O.COl from 0.015 case/yr. Based un
upper-bound emission rates, ar.nu«;
incidence will be reduced to 0.027 i,,»
yr from 0.38 case/yr. With the
implementation of the LDAR preg-i~«
for equipment leak emissions, the
annual cancer incidence associated •» •>
fugitive emissions will be reduced to
about 0.32 case/yr.
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF NATIONWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH RISK IMPACTS OF TSDF AIR EMISSION REGULATIONS
ESDF source category
Process ver.ts *
Lower bound . ,...,., .. „«.., .„, .. _
Upper bound . . „., .. . ™ ,.„ « .. .
Equipment teaks.. , ......... ™..™™.™«~«_«,_ ™«~™ , ™™
Nationwide emissions, Mg/
V
Uncon-
trolled
300
8.100
26,200
Controlled
270
goo
7^00
Annual incidence », cases/
yr
Uncon-
trolled
0,015
0.38
1.1
Controlled
0,001
0.027
0.32
Maximum axftvxju* n*» *
Uncon-
trolled
3x10"'
8x10"
5x10-'
Control
2* 10 •
4 « 10'"
1 » 10' '
* ArnuaJ incidence and MIR are based on an emission-weighted average unit risk facto; tor TSOF.
'The tower- and uopef-bound process vent amsaon estimates reflect me range ol primary condensers' removal efficiefciss and the use of seconrary
condensers on some pnmaiy condenser vwu.
The HEM results were also used to
estimate the MIR for process vents. For
estimates of MIR associated with TSDF
equipment leaks, a separate
methodology was used for reasons
discussed below.
There are three major problems in
applying the methodology used to
estimate cancer incidence, a nationwide
value, to estimate MIR from equipment
leaks, a site-specific value. The first
problem concerns the emission
estimation technique. Equipment count,
and not the amount of waste handled, is
the major determining factor for
emission estimates from equipment
leaks. Equipment counts do not double
or triple accordingly as throughput is
increased. Because the size of the model
plant (and thus the equipment count]
assigned to a waste management
process was based on the amount of
waste handled, emissions from
equipment leaks wil! be overstated for
larger facilities and understated for
smaller facilities. This averages out on a
nationwide basis, but individual facility
estimates are not considered accurate
for estimates of MIR.
The second problem deals with the
waste compositions and forms (e.g.,
wastewater and concentrated organics]
attributed to each RCRA waste code
(e.g., FOOl). A waste code may involve
wastes in several forms. The
determination of impacts was based on
the national average waste form
distribution for each particular waste
code occurring at each facility. For
example, if on average across the
Nation, a particular organic waste
solvent appears as an aqueous waste
(very dilute organics) 20 percent of the
time, as a sludge 50 percent of the time,
and as an organic liquid 30 percent of
the time, those percentages were applied
to every facility that was identified to
handle that type of waste regardless of
the actual percentages of waste form
found at the facility. In some cases, this
resulted in larger facilities being
assigned a much greater percentage of
an organic liquid form than would
actually be the case. Again, this
averages out on a nationwide basis, but
for site-specific estimates such as MIR
more refined determinations are
required.
The third problem with using the HEM
far equipment leaks is that the HEM
does not model area sources directly: it
collocates all emission sources at one
central point and models the emissions
as point sources. This is appropriate for
estimates for process vents that are
actual point sources, but not for
equipment leaks, A typical TSDF would
have several hundred equipment
components with the potential for leaks
that could be located over the entire
facility area.
In estimating MIR for equipment
leaks, EPA based its hypothetical.
reasonable worst-case facility, in large
part on an actual facility. The EPA was
able to characterize the facility in
sufficient detail that dispersion
estimates could be generated using a
true area source dispersion model. This
was possible because more detailed
site-specific information has become
-------
25488 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 /Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules andRegulations
available on a limited basis since
proposal The preliminary results of a
multiyear project to collect information
on the Nation's generation of hazardous
waste and the capacity available to
treat, store, dispose of, and recycle that
waste were used as the basis of the
analysis. In the survey, all active
treatment storage, disposal, and
recycling facilities (TSDR) were sent a
detailed package of questionnaires
appropriate to the processes they
operate. The completed questionnaires
were reviewed for technical accuracy;
after independent verification, the
information collected was entered into a
complex data base. The TSDR survey
questionnaire responses contain the
most detailed up-to-date nationwide
information regarding the hazardous
waste management technologies each
facility has on site. For each facility,
detailed information is available in the
data base, including facility area,
numbers of hazardous waste
management units by process type (i.e.,
number of surface impoundments,
incinerators, recycling units), annual
throughput by process unit, and types of
waste (i.e.. RCRA waste codes)
managed by each unit at the facility-
The availability of this information in •
computerized format made it possible to
use the TSDR survey data base to
identify facilities that represent the
population of worst-case facilities with
regard to equipment leak emissions and
the potential for high MIR values. A
detailed discussion of the health impacts
" methodologies is presented in appendix
B of the BID. . •
The MIR estimate was made first by
screening detailed TSDR Survey data for
more than 1,400 TSDF to identify the
facility that has the highest potential
equipment leak emissions and the
highest potential for these emissions to
result in high ambient air concentrations
(i.e.. high emissions on a small facility -
area). Next it was assumed that this
facility handles hazardous wastes that
have carcinogens with an emission-
weighted potency equal to that of the
nationwide average and that an
individual was residing at the shortest
distance from the TSDF management
units to the nearest apparent residence.
The highest annual-average ambient
concentration, resulting from this high
emission-rate facility, predicted to occur
at the residence nearest the facility was
then determined by dispersion modeling.
The Industrial Source Complex Long-
Term (1SCLT) dispersion model was
used in the equipment leak MIR analysis
to model the worst-case facility as a true
area source with the actual facility area
of about 1 acre as input The highest
annual average out of the results of S
years of meteorological data modeled
for each of the eight cities used to
characterize nationwide meteorology
was selected for use in the MIR
calculation. Thus, this MIR estimate is
considered a reasonable worst-case
estimate for the industry and should not
be interpreted to represent a known risk
posed by any actual facility in the
industry. ;~
The MIR resulting from TSDF baseline
(or uncontrolled) equipment leak
emissions is estimated at 5X10"J, i.e., S
chances in 1,000. Based on the estimated
lower-bound emission rates for process
vents, the MIR for uncontrolled process
vents is about 3 chances in 100,000
(3X10"*); based on the upper-bound
emission rate, the MIR is 8X10'4.
Because of the uncertainties inherent in
nationwide emission and risk estimates
that must characterize the many
different constituents present in a
variety of TSDF operations, EPA
considered the upper-bound estimates in
its decisionmaking.
With the application of the final
process vent standards, based on lower-
bound emission rates, the MIR will be
reduced to 2X10"*from 3X10"*. Based
on the upper-bound emission rates, the
MIR will be reduced to 4 X10'1 from
8X10'4. With the implementation of
control requirements for equipment leak
emissions that include monthly LDAR
requirements for pumps and valvea,
caps for open-ended lines, closed-purge
sampling, and rupture discs for pressure
relief devices, the MIR associated with
fugitive emissions will be reduced to
about 1 xlO~* from 5X10"*. Appendix B
of the BID, EPA 450/3-69-009, presents a
detailed explanation of the derivation of
these risk estimates.
The MIR estimate for equipment leaks
is sensitive to several factors. Emissions
are the most obvious factor controlling
risk. The facility associated with the
reported MIR for equipment leaks is one
of the highest emitting TSDF in terms of
equipment leaks, in the upper 99.5
percent for potential equipment leak
emissions. If the analysis .were to use
the 85-percentile emissions (i.e., 85
percent of the TSDF nationwide have
lower equipment leak emissions than
this value), then MIR would drop from
lX10"*to 5X10** with all other factors
held constant
Another factor affecting the MIR
estimates is area of the emitting source.
For these types of sources, risk is
inversely proportional to the area of the
emitting source. For example, given
equal emissions, • facility located over
10 acres generally poses less risk than a
facility on l acre. For the facility
presenting the highest risk in this rule,
the MIR would drop from 1 xlO~* to
2xiO"*if 10 acres were used in the
estimate rather than 1 acre. It should
also be pointed out that for the more
than 1,400 TSDF surveyed in the EPA
1987 TSDR Survey, the median facility
area was greater than 50 acres.
Distance to the nearest resident is
another key variable in the risk
estimate. The actual distance to the
nearest residence (i.e., 250 ft) for the
worst-case facility was used in
calculating the reported MIR value;
however, the median distance in a
random sample of distances to the
nearest residence reported in a survey
of the hazardous waste generators was
1,000 ft If this median distance were
used in the estimate, even with the high
emissions and the small area, the
maximum risk value would drop from
1X10'* to 2X10"4. Meteorology is also a
factor; the worst-case dispersion was
used in the reported estimate. If an
average case were used, then risk would
drop to 8X10"' with all other factors
held constant
As the above examples show,
facilities with anything other than the
combined worst-case factors would
pose significantly less risk than the MIR
reported for equipment leaks. The MIR
estimates presented are, for the most
part, based on worst-case or
conservative assumptions; the one
exception is the weighted-average
cancer potency value, or unit risk factor
(URF). used. The EPA believes it is
unreasonable to make all worst-case
assumptions for a single facility.
However, because of the overall
conservative nature of the analysis, for
the industry as a whole, the vast
majority of TSDF would pose
significantly lower risk from equipment
leak emissions than the reported
reasonable, worst-case value.
F. Cost Impacts
The EPA developed a detailed
estimate of the total capital investment
annual operating costs, and total annual
costs of each emission control
technology applied to each affected
waste management unit Total capital
investment represents the total original
cost of the installed control device.
Total annual cost represents the total
payment each year to repay the capital
investment for the control device as well
as to pay for the control device (or work
practice) operating and maintenance
expenses. The costs of attaining the 95-
percent control or emission reduction for
process vents are based on the use of
condensers to control process vent
streams for which condensation is
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25429
technically feasible and on the use of
carbon adsorption systems to control
the remaining process vent streams
subject to the regulations. Because site-
specific information was insufficient to
determine which facilities could apply
condensers rather than carbon
adsorbers industry-wide, upper- and
lower-bound cost estimates were
generated for process vent controls. The
upper-bound cost estimates are based
on the assumption that fixed-bed,
regenerate carbon adsorption systems
would be required to control process
vents at all facilities with emissions
above the emission rate limit. Similarly,
the lower-bound cost estimate is based
on the assumption that condensers
could be used to control process vents at
all facilities with emissions above the
emission rate limit.
The nationwide capital investment
and total annual cost of implementing
the requirements of today's rule for
process vent controls are estimated at
$24.8 million and $12.9 million/year,
respectively, for the upper-bound case.
For the lower-bound case, capital
investment is $1.5 million and total
annual costs represent a small savings
of $70,000/yr. These costs are based on
an industry profile that includes 73 large
recycling facilities and 167 medium-
sized recycling facilities. The more than
200 small recycling facilities are not
included in the cost estimates because
they are projected not to have to install
additional controls to meet the facility
emission rate limit.
The capital investment and total
annual costs of controlling TSDF
equipment leak emissions with the
LOAR program together with some
equipment specifications are estimated
at $128.0 million and $32.9 million/yr,
respectively. Table 2 summarizes capital
and annual costs associated with the
final rules.
Further information on the economic
impacts of the final standards for
organic control from TSDF process vents
and equipment leaks is presented in
section VIQ of this preamble. Details of
the analysis are presented in the BID,
chapter 9.0.
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF NATIONWIDE
COST IMPACTS OF TSDF AIR EMISSION
REGULATIONS
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF NATIONWIDE
COST IMPACTS OF TSDF Aw EMISSION
REGULATIONS—Continued
TSDF source category
Upper bound „,!),,!„!„,!,,.--,,,,
Equipment leeks — ..._„..
Nation.
capital
cost S
million*
(1986)
24.6
126.6
Nation-
wide
annua-
fe»d
cost*. $
millions/
yr
12.9
32.9
TSDF source category
Process vents*
Lower bound _: n, „,„„.„,
Natton-
wide
capital
cost.$
mHions
(1986)
1.5
Nation-
wide
annua-
teed
cost*. $
millions/
(0.1)
( ) indicates « cost credit
* Induces • recovery credit for recycling. No re-
covery credit was applied tor TSOF wttnout recycling
processes.
•The lower-bound cost estimates assume that
condensers could be used to control process vents
at all facilities with emissions above the emission
rate limit; the upper-bound cost estimates assume
mat carbon adsorfiers would be required to control
process vents at all facilities with emissions above
the emission rata limit
VIII. State Authorization
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to .
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. (See 40 CFR
part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization, EPA retains
enforcement authority under sections
3008, 7003, and 3013 of RCRA. although
authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility under
section 7002.
Prior to the HSWA of 1984. a State
with final authorization administered its
hazardous waste program entirely in
lieu of EPA administering the Federal
program in that State. The Federal
requirements no longer applied in the
authorized State, and EPA could not
issue permits for any facilities in the
State 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 Umeframes. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law.
In contrast, under section 3006(g)(l) of
RCRA. 42 U.S.C. 6926(g). new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized States. The EPA
is directed to carry out those
requirements and prohibitions in
authorized States, including the issuance
of permits, until the State is granted
authorization to do so. While States
must still adopt HSWA-related
provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, the HSWA requirements
apply in authorized States in the interim.
B, Effect on State Authorizations
Today's rule is promulgated pursuant
to section 3004(n) of RCRA, a provision
added by HSWA. Therefore. EPA is
adding the requirements to Table 1 in 40
CFR 271.103. which identifies the
Federal program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
take effect in all States, regardless of
authorization status. States may apply
for either interim or final authorization
for the HSWA provisions identified in
Table 1, as discussed in this section of
the preamble.
The EPA will implement today's rule
in authorized States until (l) they
modify their programs to adopt these
rules and receive final authorization for
the modification or (2) they receive
interim authorization as described
below. Because this rule is promulgated
pursuant to HSWA, a State submitting a
program modification may apply to
receive either interim or final
authorization under section 3006(g)(2) or
section 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 all HSWA interim
authorizations will expire automatically
on January 1,1993 (see 40 CFR
271.24(C)),
Section 271<21(e)(2) requires that
authorized States must modify their
programs to reflect Federal program
changes and must subsequently submit
the modifications to EPA for approval.
The deadline for State program
modifications for this rule is July 1,1991
(or July 1.1992, if a State statutory
change is needed}. These deadlines can
be extended in certain cases 140 CFR
271.21(e}(3)). Once EPA approves the
modification, the State requirements
become subtitle C RCRA requirements.
A State that submits its official
application for final authorization less
than 12 months after the effective date
of these standards is not required to
include standards equivalent to these
standards in its application. However.
the State must modify its program by the
deadlines set forth in 40 CFR 271.2I(e).
States that submit official applications
for final authorization 12 months after
the effective date of these standards
must include standards equivalent to
these standards in their applications.
Section 271.3 sets forth the requirements
a State must meet when submitting its
final authorization application.
-------
25490 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
States that are authorized forRCRA
may already have requirements under
State law similar to those in today's
rules. 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 cooperative agreements to
minimize duplication of efforts. In many
cases, EPA will be able to defer to the
States in their efforts to implement their
programs rather than take separate
actions under Federal authority.
IX, Implementation
As proposed, the air emission
standards for process vents and
equipment leaks were included as
subpart C of part 289, Air Emission
Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities. Part 269 was to
be added to the CFR with the
promulgation of these standards. For
consistency with standards for other
TSDF sources under RCRA, the final
standards have been incorporated into
parts 264 and 265. Subpart AA applies to
process vents and subpart BB to
equipment leaks. In addition, whereas at
proposal the equipment leak
requirements of 40 CFR part 61, subpart
V, were incorporated by reference, these
provisions have been included in
subpart BB with revisions appropriate
for a standard promulgated under RCRA
authority rather than CAA authority.
Under the current RCRA permitting
system, a facility that has received a
final permit must comply with all of the
following requirements as specified in 40
CFR 270.4: (!) The specific conditions
written into the permit (including
conditions that demonstrate compliance
with part 284 regulations); (2) self-
implementing statutory requirements;
and (3) regulations promulgated under
40 CFR part 268 restricting the
placement of hazardous waste in or on
the land. When new regulations are
promulgated after the issuance of a
permit, EPA may reopen the permit to
incorporate the new requirements as •
stated in § 270.41. Otherwise, the new
regulatory requirements are ' '
incorporated into a facility's permit at
the time of permit reissuance, or at the
5-year review for land disposal • -
facilities. •.-•=•
Facilities that have not been issued a
final permit and that have fully
complied with the requirements for
interim status must comply with the
regulations specified in CFR part 265.
New regulations that are added to part
285 become applicable to interim status
facilities on their effective dates.
Although EPA has the authority to
reopen permits to incorporate the
requirements of new standards, EPA is *
concerned about the resource burdens of
this approach. To reopen permits for
each new regulation at the time it is
promulgated would impose a large
administrative burden on both EPA and
the regulated community because a
major permit modification would
generally require the same
administrative procedures as are
required for initial permits (e.g.,
development of a draft permit, public
notice, and opportunity for public
hearing). As a consequence, the
requirements of new standards are
usually incorporated into a permit when
it is renewed. For standards
implemented through the RCRA permit
system, the effect of this policy is to -
"shield" facilities that have been issued
a final permit from any requirements
promulgated after the issuance of the
permit until the time that the permit
must be renewed and the new
requirements are written into the permit
Thus, this policy is often referred to as
the "permit-as-a-shield" policy.
Although this policy is generally
applied, EPA may evaluate the need to
accelerate the implementation of
standards developed under RCRA and,
if warranted, make exceptions to the
permit-as-a-shield policy. In today's
rules, the permit-as-a-shield provision
applies to control of air emissions from
process vents and equipment leaks
regulated under section 3004(n).
However, as previously noted, in the
Phase 11 TSDF air rules, EPA intends to
propose modifications to permit-as-a-
shield provisions as they apply to
control of air emissions under these new
subparts. With this proposed action, air
rules promulgated under RCRA section
3004(n) would be applicable to all
facilities, regardless of permit status.
Both interim status and permitted
facilities must comply with the
substantive control requirements of the
final standards. However, facilities that
have already been issued a final permit
prior to the effective date of today's
final rules are not required to comply
with the rules until such time as the
permit is reviewed or is reissued.
Interim status facilities that have
submitted their part B permit application
are required to modify their part B
applications to incorporate the
requirements of today's rules.
The EPA considers that the part 265
standards promulgated here can be
satisfied without die need for detailed
explanation or negotiation between the
facility owner/operator and EPA and
therefore, interim status facilities can
comply without awaiting permit action.
The self-implementing nature of these
roles is achieved by including specific
criteria for facility owners or operators
to identify waste management units that
are subject to the regulation and by
clearly specifying the emission control
and administrative requirements of the
rules.
The criteria for applicability are that
certain hazardous waste management
units at new and existing TSDF that
need authorization to operate under
RCRA section 3005 are covered by the
rules. The applicability includes all
hazardous waste management units and
recycling units at facilities that require
RCRA permits. For the equipment leak
standards to apply, the equipment must
contain or contact hazardous wastes
with a 10-percent-or-more total organics
concentration. For the process vent
standards to apply, the vents must be
associated with specific hazardous
waste management units, i.e..
distillation, fractionation. thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations, that manage
wastes with 10 ppmw or greater total
organics concentration.
Control requirements in the final
regulation include specific design
requirements for equipment and specific
performance criteria (i.e., a weight-
percent reduction and a volume
concentration limit) for emission control
devices. Provisions of the final
standards also list specific types of
equipment required. Owners and
operators who use one of the listed
types of equipment within the specified
design and operational parameters
would therefore be in compliance with
the regulation as long as the required
design, inspection, monitoring, and
maintenance provisions were met.
Specifications for emission controls that
achieve at least a 95-weight-percent
reduction In volatile organic emissions
are somewhat less specific, but
engineering design practices are
sufficiently established that the
combination of a good control device
design and subsequent monitoring of
operating parameters, as required by the
final regulation, would offer reasonable
assurance that the specified emission
reduction is being achieved. Regardless
of the type of control selected, owners
and operators must maintain their own
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25491
records of control device design,
installation, and monitoring and must
submit reports identifying exceeders of
monitored control device parameters.
Periodic review of the required reports •
and records by EPA may be used to
ensure compliance.
Because today's rules are promulgated
under HSWA, al! affected facilities must
comply with these requirements on the
effective date of the rule, regardless of
the authorization status of the State in
which they are located. In addition,
because EPA will implement these rules
in every State on the effective date, all
reports should be sent to the EPA
Regional Offices until the State receives
authorization to implement these rules.
Therefore, owners and operators of
TSDF with existing waste management
units subject to the provisions of
subparts AA and BB must achieve
compliance with the process vent and
equipment leak control and monitoring
requirements on the effective date of
these rules (i.e., 6 months following
promulgation) except where compliance
would require the installation of a
closed-vent system and control device.
Information developed under other EPA
regulations has shown that in some
cases, the design, construction, and
installation of a closed-vent system and
control device can take as long as 24
months to complete. As a result, EPA is
allowing up to 24 months from the
promulgation date of the regulation for
existing facilities to complete
installation if they are required to install
a closed-vent system and control device
and if they can document that
installation of the emission controls
cannot reasonably be expected to be
completed earlier. In these
circumstances, owners/opera tors are
required to develop an implementation
schedule that indicates dates by which
the design, construction, and operation
of the necessary emission controls will
be completed. This implementation
schedule must document that
installation of closed-vent systems and
control devices required by the final
standards would be achieved within a
period of no more than 2 years from
today and must be included as part of
the facility's operating record on the
effective date of these final rules (i.e.. 6
months after promulgation}. Changes in
the implementation schedule are
allowed within the 24-month timeframe
if the owner or operator documents that
the change cannot reasonably be
avoided.
This extension would also apply to
those existing facilities that are brought
under regulation because of new
statutory or regulatory amendments
under RCRA that render the facility
subject to the provisions of subpart AA.
or BB (e.g., units handling wastes newly .
listed or identified as hazardous by
EPA), That is, the owner or operator
may be allowed up to 18 months from
the effective date of the statutory or
regulatory amendment to complete
installation of a control device.
However, for facilities adding new
waste management units, EPA believes
that the lead time involved in such
actions provides adequate time for
owners and operators to design, procure,
and install the required controls.
Therefore, all new units must comply
with the rules immediately (i.e., must
have control equipment installed and
operating upon startup of the unit).
Under the approach discussed above,
the standards promulgated today for
process vents and equipment leaks
would be implemented on the following
schedule for existing TSDF:
—180 days following promulgation, the
new subparts AA and BB standards
become effective; all facilities become
subject to the new standards.
—On the effective date of the standards,
compliance with the standards is
required. Each facility that does not
have the control devices required by
the standards in place and operating
must have one of the following in the
facility's operating record: (1) An
implementation schedule indicating
when the controls will be installed, or
(2) a process vent emission rate
determination that documents that the
emission rate limit is not exceeded
(therefore, controls are not required).
—No later than 18 months following the
effective date (2 years following
promulgation), any control devices
required by the standards for process
vents and equipment leaks must be
installed at all facilities.
—All permits issued after the effective
date must incorporate the standards.
An existing solid waste management
unit may become a hazardous waste
management unit requiring a RCRA
permit when a waste becomes newly
listed or identified as hazardous.
Owners and operators of facilities not
previously requiring a RCRA permit who
have existing units handling newly
listed cr identified hazardous waste can
submit a part A application and obtain
interim status. The air emission
standards promulgated today would be
Implemented at these newly regulated
facilities on the following schedule;
—180 days following the date the
managed waste is listed or identified
as hazardous, the standards become
effective; facilities become subject to
the subpart AA and/or BB standards.
—On the effective date of the standards,
each facility that does not have the
control devices required by the
process and/or equipment leak
standards in place must have one of
the following in the facility's operating
record: (1) An implementation
schedule indicating when the controls
will be installed, or (2) a process vent
emission rate determination that
documents that the emission rate limit
is not exceeded (therefore, controls
are not required).
—No later than 18 months following the
effective date (2 years following
promulgation), the controls required
by the standards must be installed at
all facilities.
Newly constructed TSDF are required
to submit part A and part B permit
applications and to receive a final
permit prior to construction as required
by 1270.10. Following the effective date
of the standards promulgated today, a
part B application for a new facility
must demonstrate compliance with the
standards as contained in part 284, if
applicable. Therefore, all controls
required by the standards would have to
be in place and operating upon startup.
Similarly, new waste management
units added to existing facilities would
have to be equipped with the required
controls prior to startup. For a new unit
added to an existing permitted facility, a
permit modification would be necessary.
Where a new unit is added to a facility
in interim status, the owner or operator
must submit a revised part A application
(§ 270.72[c]), including an explanation of
the need for the new unit, and then
receive approval from the permitting
authority.
For facilities with hazardous waste
management units that previously were
not subject to control requirements
because the wastes in the units did not
contain organics in concentrations
greater than the applicability criterion of
10 ppmw or 10 percent the owner or
operator would be required to comply
with all subpart AA or BB requirements
on the date that the facility or waste
management unit becomes affected by
the rules (i.e., the date the facility begins
to manage wastes in the units with
organic concentrations greater than 10
ppmw for subpart AA or greater than 10
percent for subpart BB) irrespective of
any change in permit status that is
required by the change in waste
concentration. In this situation, should
the facility owner or operator elect to
use a control device to comply with the
process vent or equipment leak
provisions, the control device must be
installed and operating on the date
when the unit becomes subject to the
-------
25492 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
rules; the 24-month extension is cot - •
applicable in this case. For the process
vent emission rate limit, the situation is
somewhat different TSDF process vents
associated with the distillation/
separation operations specified in the
rule that manage wastes with organics
concentrations of 10 ppmw or greater
are affected by the regulation regardless
of whether the facility emissions are
above or below the emission rate limit/
Therefore, any change in the facility
operations that results in a TSDF going
above or below the emission rate limit
does not cause a change in the
applicability of the facility to subpart
AA. The rules require that affected
TSDF reduce total process vent organic
emissions from all affected vents by 95
percent or reduce the facility's total
process vent emissions to or below 1.4
kg/h and 2.8 Mg/yr. One of these
conditions must be met at all times; the
facility's emission rate determination,
which documents the facility's status
regarding compliance with the process
vent standards, must also at all times
reflect current design and operation and
wastes managed in the affected units.
The permitting authority cited by
section 3005 of RCRA and codified in
§ 270.32(b)(2) states that permits issued
under this section "" * * shall contain
such terms and conditions as the
Administrator or State Director
determines necessary to protect human
health and the environment." This - .
section, in effect, allows permit writers
to require, on a case-by-case basis,
emission controls that are more -
stringent than those specified by a
standard. This omnibus authority could
be used in situations where.in the permit
writer's judgment there is an
unacceptably high residual risk after
application of controls required by an
emission standard. As has been stated.
the approach that EPA Is using in
today's regulatory action is to proceed
with promulgation of regulations to
control organic emissions and to follow
this with regulations that would require
more stringent controls for individual
hazardous constituents or would
otherwise reduce risk where necessary.
Until then, permit writers should use
their omnibus permitting authority to
require more stringent controls at
facilities where a high residual risk
remains after implementation of the
standards for volatile organics.
X. Administrative Requirements
A, Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Order No. 12291 (E.O.
12291) requires each Federal agency to
determine whether a regulation is a
"major" rule as defined by the order
and, "to the extent permitted by law," to
prepare and consider a Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) in connection
with every major rule. Major rules are
defined as those likely to result in:
1. An annual cost to the economy of
$100 million or more; or
2. A major increase in costs or prices
for consumers or individual industries;.
or
3. Significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment
productivity, innovation, or
international trade.
The final rule establishes the specific
emission levels and emission control
programs that facilities must meet in
reducing air emissions from hazardous
waste management units, A complete
assessment of the costs,impacts, and
benefits of these rules has been
conducted by EPA. This analysis
indicates that the requirements of the
rules for TSDF equipment leaks and
process vents result in none of the
economic effects set forth in section 1 of
the E.0.12291 as grounds for finding a
regulation to be major. The industry-
wide annualized costs of the standards'
are estimated to be $46 million, which is
less than the $100 million established as
the first criterion for a major regulation
in E.0.12291. Price increases associated
with the final standards are not •
considered a "major increase in costs or
prices" specified as the second criterion
in E.0.12291. The final standard's effect
, on the industry would not result in any
significant adverse effects on
competition, investment productivity,
employment innovation, or the ability of
U.S. firms to compete with foreign firms
(the third criterion in E.0.12291).
The final rule was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by E.O.
12291.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
whenever an Agency publishes any
proposed or final rule in the Federal
Register, it must prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (RFA) that
describes the impact of the rule on small
entities (i.e.. small businesses,
organizations, and governmental
Jurisdictions). This analysis is not
necessary, however, if the Agency's
Administrator certifies that the "rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The EPA has established
guidelines for determining whether an
RFA is required to accompany a
rulemaking package. The guidelines
state that if at least 20 percent of the
universe of "small entities" is affected
by the rule, then an IFA is required. In
addition, the EPA criteria are used to
evaluate if a regulation will have a
"significant impact" on small entities. If
any one of the following four criteria is
met, the regulation should be assumed
to have a "significant impact:"
1. Annual compliance costs increase
the relevant production costs for small
entities by more than 5 percent
2. The ratio of compliance costs to
sales will be 10 percent higher for small
entities than for large entities.
3. Capital costs of compliance will
represent a significant portion of the
capital available to small entities, taking
into account internal cash flow plus
external financing capabilities.
4, The costs of the regulation will
likely result in closures of small entities.
At proposal, EPA's Administrator
certified that the rule would not have a
significant impact on small businesses
because the only entities subject to the
rule are those required to have* a permit
for treatment storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste. Few, if any, of these
facilities are small entities. Based on
comments received at proposal EPA
reviewed this conclusion in light of the
revisions made to the proposed
standards and closely examined the
potential impacts on the industry
segment comprised primarily of small
commercial reeyclers. As a result of the
revisions made to exempt small
facilities from having to install control
devices, EPA again concluded that the
economic impact on small businesses
will be minimal and did not prepare a
formal RFA In support of the rule.
Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
regulation will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, this regulation does
not require an RFA.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements contained in this rule have
been approved by OMB under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have
been assigned OMB control number
2060-0195.
Public reporting burden resulting from
this rulemaking is estimated to be about
9 hours per response (on average),
including time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Recordkeeping requirements are
estimated to require ISO hours a year for
each facility.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
23493
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-
223, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 2048ft and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(Paperwork Reduction Project (2060-
0195)), Office of Management and
Budget. Washington. DC 20503, marked
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."
D, Supporting Documentation
The dockets for this rulemaking
(Docket No. F-86-AESP-FFFFF, which
cavers the development of the rules up
to proposal, and Docket No. F-90-
AESF-FFFFF, which covers
development of the final rules from
proposal to promulgation] are available
for public inspection at the EPA RCRA
Docket Office (OS-300) in room 2427M
of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 204CO. The docket room is open from
9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except for Federal holidays. The public
must make an appointment to review
docket materials and should call (202)
475-9327 for appointments. Docket A-
79-27, containing support information
used in developing the National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Benzene Fugitive Emissions,
is available for public inspection and
copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section, room 29030,
Waterside Mall. 401 M Street SW.,
Washington. DC 20460. The public may
copy a maximum of SO pages of material
from any one regulatory docket at no
cost. Additional copies cost $0.20/page.
The docket contains a copy of all
references cited in the BID for the
proposed and final rules, as well as
other relevant reports and
correspondence.
E. List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 260
Air stripping operation. Closed-vent
system, Condenser, Control device,
Distillation operation, Equipment,
Fractionation operation. Process vent
Solvent extraction operation. Steam
stripping operation, Thin-film
evaporation operation. Vapor
incinerator. Vented, Incorporation by
reference,
40 CFR Pan 281
Hazardous waste, Recyclable
materials. Recycling, Hazardous waste
management units.
40 CFR Parts 264 and 265
Hazardous waste. Treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, Air emission
standards for process vents. Air
emission standards for equipment leaks,
Incorporation by reference. Process
vents, Closed-vent systems, Control
devices' Pumps. Valves, Pressure relief
devices. Sampling connection systems,
Open-ended lines, Alternative
standards. Test methods. Recordkeeping
requirements. Reporting requirements.
40 CFR Part 270
Administrative practices and
procedures, Hazardous waste permit
program, Process vents. Equipment
leaks. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 271
Hazardous waste. State hazardous
waste programs, Process vent and
equipment leak air emission standards
forTSDF.
Dated June 13.1990.
William K. Reilly,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, chapter I, title 40, of the Code
of Federal Regulations, parts 280, 261,
264,265,270, and 271, are amended as
follows.
PART 260— HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1. The authority citation for part 260
continues to read as follows:
Authority. 42 U.S.C. 6905. 8912(a), 6921
through 6927,6930,6934. 6935. 6937,6938. and
8939.
2. Section 260.11 is amended by
adding the following references to
paragraph (a):
§260.11 References.
"ASTM Standard Method for Analysis
of Reformed Gas by Gas
Chromatography," ASTM Standard D
1946-32, available from American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1916
Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
"ASTM Standard Test Method for
Heat of Combustion of Hydrocarbon
Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (High-
Precision Method)," ASTM Standard D
2362-63, available from American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1916
Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
"ASTM Standard Practices for
General Techniques of Ultraviolet-.
Visible Quantitative Analysis," ASTM
Standard E169-67, available from
American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
"ASTM Standard Practices for
General Techniques of Infrared
Quantitative Analysis," ASTM Standard
E 168-88, available from American
Society for Testing and Materials. 1916
Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
"ASTM Standard Practice for Packed
Column Gas Chromatography," ASTM
Standard E 260-65, available from
American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1918 Race Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
"ASTM Standard Test Method for
Aroma tics in Light Naphthas and
Aviation Gasolines by Gas
Chromatography," ASTM Standard D
2237-38, available from American
Society for Tasting and Materials. 1916
Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 191C3
"ASTM Standard Test Method for
Vapor Pressure-Temperature
Relationship and Initial Decomposition
Temperature of Liquids by Isoteriscop*."
ASTM Standard D 2879-88, availabit
from American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1918 Race Street,
Philadelphia, PA 18103.
"APTI Course 415: Control of Caseous
Emissions," EPA Publication EPA-450/
2-81-005, December 1981, available from
National Technical Information Service.
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield. VA
22161.
PART 231— IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
3. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. 691Z. 6921. esn.
and 6937.
Subpart A—General
4. In | 261.3, paragraph (c)(l) is
revised and paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (d)
are added to read as follows:
§ 281.6 Requirements for recyclable
materials.
(c)(l) Owners or operators of facilities
that store recyclable materials before
they are recycled are regulated under all
applicable provisions of subparts A
through L, AA, end BB of parts 254 and
26S. and under parts 124, 266, 268, and
270 of this chapter and the notification
requirements under section 3010 of
RCRA, except as provided in paragraph
(aj of this section. (The recycling
process itself is exempt from regulation
except as provided in | 261.6(d).)
(2) • * '
(iii) Section 281.8(d) of this chapter.
-------
25494 Federal Register /Vol. 55. No. 120 /Thursday. }une 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(d) Owners or operators of facilities
subject to RCRA permitting
requirements with hazardous waste
management units that recycle
hazardous wastes are subject to the
requirements of subparts AA and BB of
part 264 or 265 of this chapter,
PART 264— STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
5. The authority citation for part 284
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(a), 6924. and
C92S.
Subpart B— General Facility Standards
B. Section 284.13 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as
follows:
§264.13 Genera) wmt* analysis.
P>) * * *
(6} Where applicable, the methods
that will be used to meet the additional
waste analysis requirements for specific
waste management methods as
specified in § § 264.17, 204.314, 284.341,
284.1034[d), 264.1063(d). and 268.7 of this
chapter. ••_• . . " . . '
* * * • * •
7. Section 264.15 is amended by
revising the last sentence of paragraph
(b)(4) to read aa follows:
§264.15 Gwwrsl inspection tvquirwnvnta.
(4) * * * At a minimum, the
inspection schedule must Include the
terms and frequencies called for in
S i 284.174, 284.194, 264.228. 264.253.
264.254. 264.303. 264.347, 264.602,
264.1033, 284.1052, 264.1053. and
264.1058, where applicable.
Subpart E—Manifest System,
Recordke«ping, and Reporting
8. Section 264.73 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)[6) to
read as follows:
f 264.73 Operation record.
«•*,*«
(bj* • •
(3) Records and results of waste
analyses performed as specified in
! { 264.13, 264.17,264314, 254.341.
264.1034,204.1083,26S.4(a). and 20B.7 of
this chapter.
* * _ * * »
(6) Monitoring, testing or analytical
data, and corrective action where
required by subpart F and §i 264.226,
294.253,264-254, 284.278, 204478, 264.260,
264,303,264.309.264.347,204.602,
264.1034(c>-264.1034(f], 284.1035.
284.1063(d)-264.1063(i), and 264.1064.
* • * « * *
9. Section 264.77 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
§264.77 Additional report*.
« » » * * ^
(c) As otherwise required by subparts
F, K through N, AA, and BB.
10.40 CFR part 284 is amended by
adding subpart AA to read as follows:
Subpart AA—Air Emission Standards for
Process Vents
284.1030 Applicability.
264.1031 Definitions.
284.1032 Standards: Process vents.
204.1033 Standards: Closed-vent system*
and control devices.
264.1034 Test methods and procedures.
264.103S Recordkeeping requirements.
264.1038 Reporting requirements.
264.1037-264.1049 [Reserved]
Subpart AA—Air Emission Standards
for Process Vents ~
§284.1030 Applicability.
(a) The regulations in this subpart
apply to owners and operators of
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes (except as provided
in §2641).
(b) Except for f 1264.1034(d) and
2S4.1035fe), this subpart applies to
process vents associated with
distillation, fractionatkm, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations that manage
hazardous wastes with organic
concentrations of at least 10-ppmw, if
these operations are conducted iiu
(1} Units that are subject to the
permitting requirements of part 270, or
(2) Hazardous waste recycling units
that are located on hazardous waste
management facilities otherwise subject
to the permitting requirements of part
270.
(c) If the owner or operator of process
vents subject to the requirements of
! § 264.1032 through 264.1036 has
received a permit under section 3005 of
RCRA prior to December 21.1990 the
requirements of JS 264.1032 through
264.1036 must be incorporated when the
permit is reissued under } 124.15 or
reviewed under i 270-50.
[Note: The requirements of J J 284,1032
through 284.1038 apply to process vena on
hazardous waste recycling units previously
exempt under paragraph 281.6(c)(l). Other
exemptions under I! 261.4. 282.34. and
284.1(g) are not affected by these
requirements.) •
f 264.1031 Definitions.
As used in this subpart. ail terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act and parts 260-266.
Air stripping operation is a desorption
operation employed to transfer one or
more volatile components from a liquid
mixture into a gas (air) either with or
without the application of heat to the
liquid. Packed towers, spray towers, and
bubble-cap, sieve, or valve-type plate
towers ire among the process
configurations used for contacting the
air and a liquid.
Bottoms receiver means a container
or tank used to receive and collect the
heavier bottoms fractions of the
distillation feed stream that remain in
the liquid phase.
Closed-vent system means a system
that is not open to the atmosphere and
that is composed of piping, connections,
and, if necessary, flow-inducing devices
that transport gas or vapor from a piece
or pieces of equipment to a control
device.
Condenser means a heat-transfer
device that reduces a thennodynamic
fluid from its vapor phase to its liquid
phase.
Connector means flanged, screwed.
welded, or other joined fittings used to
connect two pipelines or a pipeline and
a piece of equipment For the purposes
of reporting and recordkeeping,
connector means flanged fittings that
are not covered by insulation or other
materials that prevent location of the
fittings. . .
Continuous recorder means a data-
recording device recording an
instantaneous data value at least once
every 15 minutes.
Control device means an enclosed
combustion device, vapor recovery
system, or flare. Any device the primary
function of which is the recovery or
capture of solvents or other organics for
use, reuse, or sale (e.g.. a primary
condenser on a solvent recovery unit) is
not a control device.
Control device shutdown means the
cessation of operation of a control
device for any purpose.
Distillate receiver means a container
or tank used to receive and collect liquid
material (condensed) from the overhead
condenser of a distillation unit and from
which the condensed liquid is pumped
to larger storage tanks or other process
units,
Distillation operation means an
operation, either batch or continuous.
separating one or more feed stream(s)
into two or more exit streams, each exit
stream having component
concentrations different from those in
the feed stream(a). The separation is
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541,00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, }une 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25495
achieved by the redistribution of the
components between the liquid and
vapor phase as they approach
equilibrium within the distillation unit.
Double block and bleed system means
two block valves connected in aeries
v.-ith a bleed valve or line that can vent
the line between the two block valves.
Equipment means each valve, pump,
compressor, pressure relief device,
sampling connection system, open-
ended valve or line, or flange, and any
control devices or systems required by
this subpart
Flame zone means the portion of the
combustion chamber in a boiler
occupied by the flame envelope,
Flow indicator means a device that
indicates whether gas flow is present in
a vent stream.
First attempt at repair means to take
rapid action for the purpose of stopping
or reducing leakage of organic material
to the atmosphere using best practices.
Fractionation operation means a
distillation operation or method used to
separate a mixture of several volatile
components of different boiling points in
successive stages, each stage removing
from the mixture some proportion of one
of the components.
Hazardous waste management unit
shutdown means a work practice or
operational procedure that stops
operation of a hazardous waste
management unit or part of a hazardous
waste management unit. An
unscheduled work practice or
operational procedure that stops
operation of a hazardous waste
management unit or part of a hazardous
waste management unit for less than 24
hours is not a hazardous waste
management unit shutdown. The use of
cpare equipment and technically
feasible bypassing of equipment without
stopping operation are not hazardous
waste management unit shutdowns.
Hot well means a container for
collecting condensate as in a steam
condenser serving a vacuum-jet or
steam-jet ejector.
In gas /vapor service means that the
piece of equipment contains or contacts
a hazardous waste stream that is in the
gaseous state at operating conditions.
In heavy liquid service means that the
piece of equipment is not in gas/vapor
service or in light liquid service.
In light liquid service means that the
piece of equipment contains or contacts
a waste stream where the vapor
pressure of one or more of the
components in the stream is greater than
0.3 kilopascals (kPa) at 20 *C. the total
concentration of the pure components
having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3
kPa at 20 *C is equal to or greater than
20 percent by weight, and the fluid is a
liquid at operating conditions.
In situ sampling systems means
nonextractive samplers or in-line
samplers.
In vacuum service means that
equipmant is operating at an internal
pressure that is at least 5 kPa below
ambient pressure,
Malfunction means any sudden
failure cf a control device or a
hazardous waste management unit or
failure of a hazardous waste
management unit to operate in a normal
or usual manner, so that organic
emissions are increased,
Open-ended valve or line means any
valve, except pressure relief valves,
having one side of the valve seat in
contact with process fluid and one side
open to the atmosphere, either directly
or through open piping.
Pressure release means the emission
of materials resulting from the system
pressure being greater than the set
pressure of the pressure relief device.
Process heater means a device that
transfers heat liberated by burning fuel
to fluids contained in tubes, including all
fluids except water that are heated to
produce steam.
Process vent means any open-ended
pips or stack that is vented to the
atmosphere either directly, through a
vacuum-producing system, or through a
tank (e.g., distillate receiver, condenser,
bottoms receiver, surge control tank,
separator tank, or hot well] associated
with hazardous waste distillation,
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, or air or steam
stripping operations.
Repaired means that equipment is
adjusted, or otherwise altered, to
eliminate a leak,
Sensor means a device that measures
B physical quantity or the charge in a
physical quantity, such as temperature,
pressure, flow rate, pH, or liquid level.
Separator tank means a device used
for separation of two immiscible liquids.
Solvent extraction operation means
an operation or method of separation in
which a solid or solution is contacted
with a liquid solvent (the two being
mutually insoluble) to preferentially
dissolve and transfer one or more
components into the solvent
Startup means the setting in operation
of a hazardous waste management unit
or control device for any purpose.
Steam stripping operation means a
distillation operation in which
vaporization of the volatile constituents
of a liquid mixture takes place by the
introduction of steam directly into the
charge.
Surge control tank means a large-
sized pipe or storage reservoir sufficient
to contain the surging liquid disehargs of
the process tank to which it is
connected.
Thin-film evaporation operation
means a distillation operation that
employs a heating surface consisting of
a large diasneter.tube that may be either
straight or tapered, horizontal or
vertical. Liquid is spread on the tube
wall by a rotating assembly of blades
that maintain a clcse clearance from the
wall or actually ride on the film of liquid
on the wall.
Vapor incinerator mszn3 any
enclosed combustion device that is used
for destroying organic compounds and
does not extract energy in the form of
steam or process heat.
Vented means discharged through an
opening, typically an open-ended pipe or
stack, allowing the passage of a stream
of liquids, gases, or fumes into the
atmosphere. The passage of liquids,
gases, or fumes is caused by mechanical
means such as compressors or vacuum-
producing systems or by process-related
means such as evaporation produced by
heating and not caused by tank loading
and unloading (working losses) or by
natural means such as diurnal
temperature changes.
§ 264.1032 Standards: Process vents,
(a) The owner or operator of a facility
with process vents associated with
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations managing
hazardous wastes with organic
concentrations of at least 10 ppmw shall
either:
(1) Reduce total organic emissions
from all affected process vents at the'
facility below 1.4 kg/h (3 Ib/h) and 2.8
Mg/yr (3.1 tons/yr), or
(2) Reduce, by use of a control device.
total organic emissions from all affected
process vents at the facility by 95 weight
percent
(b) If the owner or operator installs a
closed-vent system and control device
to comply with the provisions of
paragraph (a) of this section the closed-
vent system and control device must
meet the requirements of § 264.1033.
(c) Determinations of vent emissions
and emission reductions or total organic
compound concentrations achieved by
add-on control devices may be based on
engineering calculations or performance
tests. If performance tests are used to
determine vent emissions, emission
reductions, or total organic compound
concentrations achieved by add-on
control devices, the performance tests
must conform with the requirements of
5 264.l034(c).
-------
25496 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(d) When an owner or operator and
the Regional Administrator do not agree
on determinations of vent emissions
and/or emission reductions or total
organic compound concentrations
achieved by add-on control devices
based on engineering calculations, the
procedures in f 2S4.1034(c) shall be used
to resolve the disagreement.
§264,1033 Standard* Ctoaed-vent
systems and control device*.
(a)(l) Owners or operators of closed-
vent systems and control devices used
to comply with provisions of this part
shall comply with the provisions of this
•ection.
(2) Toe owner or operator of an
existing facility who cannot install a
closed-vent system and control device
to comply with the provisions of this
subpart on the effective date that the
facility becomes subject to the
provisions of this subpart must prepare
an implementation schedule that
includes dates by which the closed-vent
system and control device will be
installed and in operation. The controls
most be installed as soon as possible,
but the implementation schedule may
allow up to 18 months after the effective
date that the facility becomes subject to
this subpart for installation and startup.
All units that begin operation after . .
December 21.1990, must comply with
the rules immediately (i.e., must have
control devices installed and operating
on startup of the affected unit): the 2-
year implementation schedule does not
apply to these units.
(b) A control device involving vapor
recovery (e.g.. a condenser or adsorber)
shall be designed and operated to •
recover the organic vapors vented to it
with an efficiency of 95 weight percent
or greater unless the total organic
emission limits of { 2M.1032(a)(l) for all
affected process vents can be attained
at an efficiency less than 95 weight
percent. . -..,
(c) An enclosed combustion device
(e-g., a vapor incinerator, boiler, or
process heater) shall be designed and
operated to reduce the organic
emissions vented to it by 85 weight
percent or greater, to achieve a total
organic compound concentration of 20
ppnw, expressed as the sum of the
actual compounds, not carbon •
equivalents, on a dry basis corrected to
3 percent oxygen: or to provide a
minimum residence time of 0.50 seconds
at a minimum temperature of 760 *C. If a
boiler or process heater is used as the
control device, then the vent stream
•hall be introduced into the flame zone
of the boiler or process heater.
(d)(l) A Dare shall be designed for .
and operated with no visible emissions
as determined by the methods specified
in paragraph (e)(l) of this section.
except for periods not to exceed a total
of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive
hours.
(2) A flare shall be operated with a
flame present at all times, as determined
by the methods specified In paragraph
(f)(2)(iii) of this section.
(3) A flare shall be used only if the net
heating value of the gas being
combusted is 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Btu/scf)
or greater if the flare is steam-assisted
or air-assisted; or if the net heating
value of the gas being combusted is 7.49
MJ/scm (200 Btu/scf) or greater if the
flare is nonassisted. The net heating
value of the gas being combusted shall
be determined by the methods specified
in'paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(4)(i) A steam-assisted or nonassisted
flare shall be designed for and operated
with an exit velocity, as determined by
the methods specified in paragraph
(e)(3) of this section, less than 18,3 m/s
(60 ft/s), except as provided in
paragraphs (d)(4) (ii) and (iii) of this
section.
(ii) A steam-assisted or nonassisted „
flare designed for and operated with an
exit velocity, as determined by the
methods specified in paragraph (e)(3) of
this section, equal to or greater than 18.3
m/s (60 ft/s) but less than 122 m/s (400
ft/s) is allowed if the net heating value
of the gas being combusted is greater
than 37.3 MJ/scm (1.000 Btu/scf).
(iii) A steam-assisted or nonassisted
flare designed for and operated with an
exit velocity, as determined by the
methods specified in paragraph (e)(3) of
this section, less than the velocity. Vmm
as determined by the method specified
in paragraph (e)(4) of this section and
less than 122 m/s (400 ft/s) 1* allowed.
(5) An air-assisted flare shall be
designed and operated with an exit
velocity less than, the velocity, V^, a*
determined by the method specified in
paragraph (e)(5) of this section.
(6) A flare used to comply with this
section shall be steam-assisted, air-
assisted, or nonassisted.
(e)(l) Reference Method 22 in 40 CFR
part 60 shall be used to determine the
compliance of a flare with the visible
emission provisions of this subpart. The
observation period is 2 hours and shall
be used according to Method 22.
(2) The net heating value of the gas
being combusted in a flare shall be
calculated using the following equation:
where:
HT-Net heating value of lha sample. MJ/
•cm; where the net enthalpy per mole of
offgai Is based on combustion at 25 *C
and 780 mm Hg, but the standard
temperature for determining the volume
corresponding to 1 mol ii 20 'O
K- Constant. 1.74X10'' (l/ppra) (g mol/scm)
fMJ/Vcal) when standard temperature
for (g mol/scm) is 20 'C;
C,= Concentration of sample component i in
ppm on a wet basis, a* measured for
organics by Reference Method 18 in 40
CFR part 00 and measured for hydrogen
and carbon monoxide by ASTM D 194ft-
82 (incorporated by reference as
specified in 1 260.11): and
H, «= Net heat of combustion of sample
component i, kcal/9 mol at 25 *C and 760
mm Hg. The heats of combustion may be
determined using ASTM D 2382-83
(incorporated by reference as specified
in 1 260.11) if published values are not
available or cannot be calculated.
(3) The actual exit velocity of a flare
shall be determined by dividing the
volumetric flow rate (in units of
standard temperature and pressure), as
determined by Reference Methods 2. 2A,
2C, or 2D in 40 CER part 80 as
appropriate, by the unobstructed (free)
cross-sectional area of the flare Up,
(4) The maximum allowed velocity in
m/s, ¥»„, for a flare complying with
paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of mis section shall
be determined by the following
equation:
where: •
28 J» Constant
31.7-Constant.
HT-The net heating value is determined in
. paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
" (5) The maximum allowed velocity In
m/s, VM. for an air-assisted flare shall
b« determined by tha following
equation:
:[ZC,H,]
.when: . ..
8.706-= Constant
0.7034 -Const ant
HT— The net beating value as determined In
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(f) The owner or operator shall
monitor and inspect each control device
required to comply with this section to
ensure proper operation and
maintenance of the control device by
implementing the following
requirements:
(1) install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate according to the manufacturer's
specifications a flow indicator that
provides a record of vent stream flow
from each affected process vent to the
control device at least once every hour,
The flow indicator sensor shall be
installed in the vent stream at the
nearest feasible point to the control
->«o
-------
OSWER DIE. NO, 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25497
device inlet but before the point at
which the vent streams are combined.
(2) Install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate according to the manufacturer's
specifications a device to continuously
monitor control device operation as
specified below:
(i) For a thermal vapor incinerator, a
temperature monitoring device equipped
with a continuous recorder. The device
shall have an accuracy of ±1 percent of
the temperature being monitored in *C
or ±0.5 *C. whichever is greater. The
temperature sensor shall be installed at
a location in the combustion chamber
downstream of the combustion lone.
(ii) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, a
temperature monitoring device equipped
with a continuous recorder. The device
shall be capable of monitoring
temperature at two locations and have
an accuracy of ±1 percent of the
temperature being monitored in *C or
±0.5 *C, whichever is greater. One
temperature sensor shall be installed in
the vent stream at the nearest feasible
point to the catalyst bed inlet and a
second temperature sensor shall be
installed in the vent stream at the
nearest feasible point to the catalyst bed
outlet
(iii) For a flare, a heat sensing
monitoring device equipped with a
continuous recorder that indicates the
continuous ignition of the pilot flame.
(iv) For a boiler or process heater
having a design heat input capacity less
than 44 MW, a temperature monitoring
device equipped with a continuous
recorder. The device shall have an
accuracy of ±1 percent of the
temperature being monitored in *C or
±0.5 *C whichever is greater. The
temperature sensor shall be installed at
a location in the furnace downstream of
the combustion zone.
(v) For a boiler or process heater
having a design heat input capacity
greater than or equal to 44 MW, a
monitoring device equipped with a
continuous recorder to measure a
parameters) that indicates good
combustion operating practices are
being used.
(vi) For a condenser, either.
(A) A monitoring device equipped
with a continuous recorder to measure
the concentration level of the organic
compounds in the exhaust vent stream
from the condenser, or
(B) A temperature monitoring device
equipped with a continuous recorder.
The device shall be capable of
monitoring temperature at two locations
and have an accuracy of ±1 percent of
the temperature being monitored in *C
or ±0.5 *C, whichever is greater. One
temperatuie sensor shall be installed at
a location in the exhaust vent stream
from the condenser, and a second
temperature sensor shall be installed at
a location in the coolant fluid exiting the
condenser,
(Vii) For a carbon adsorption system
that regenerates the carbon bed directly
in the control device such as a fixed-bed
carbon adsorber, either,
(A) A monitoring device equipped
with a continuous recorder to measure
the concentration level of the organic
compounds in the exhaust vent stream
from the carbon bed, or
(B) A monitoring device equipped with
a continuous recorder to measure a
parameter that indicates the carbon bed
is regenerated on a regular,
predetermined time cycle.
(3) Inspect the readings from each
monitoring device required by
paragraphs (1} and (2) of this section at
least once each operating day to check
control device operation and, if
necessary, immediately implement the
corrective measures necessary to ensure
the control device operates in
compliance with the requirements of this
section.
(g) An owner or operator using a
carbon adsorption system such as a
fixed-bed carbon adsorber that
regenerates the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device shall replace
the existing carbon in the control device
with fresh carbon at a regular,
predetermined time interval that is no
longer than the carbon service life
established as a requirement of
S 2S4.1035{b)(4)(iii)(F).
(h) An owner or operator using a
carbon adsorption system such as a
carbon canister that does not regenerate
the carbon bed directly onsite in the
control device shall replace the existing
carbon in the control device with fresh
carbon on a regular basis by using one
of the following procedures;
(1) Monitor the concentration level of
the organic compounds in the exhaust
vent stream from the carbon adsorption
system on a regular schedule, and
replace the existing carbon with fresh
carbon immediately when carbon
breakthrough is indicated. The
monitoring frequency shall be daily or at
an interval no greater than 20 percent of
the time required to consume the total
carbon working capacity established as
a requirement of { 264.l03S(b)(4)(ili](GJ,
whichever is longer.
(2) Replace the existing carbon with
fresh carbon at a regular, predetermined
time interval that is less than the design
carbon replacement interval established
as a requirement of
{ 254.1035(b)(4)(iii)(G).
(i) An alternative operational or
process parameter may be monitored if
it can be demonstrated that another
parameter will ensure that the control
device is operated in conformance with
these standards and the control device's
design specifications.
(j) An owner or operator of an
affected facility seeking to comply with
the provisions of this part by using a
control device other than a thermal
vapor incinerator, catalytic vapor
incinerator, flare, boiler, process heater,
condenser, or carbon adsorption system
is required to develop documentation
including sufficient information to
describe the control device operation
and identify the process parameter or
parameters that indicate proper
operation and maintenance of the
control device.
(k}(l) Closed-vent systems shall be
designed for and operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background and by visual
inspections, as determined by the
methods specified as { 284.l034(b).
(2) Closed-vent systems shall be
monitored to determine compliance with
this section during the initial leak
detection monitoring, which shall be
conducted by the date that the facility
becomes subject to the provisions of this
section, annually, and at other times as
requested by the Regional
Administrator.
(3) Detectable emissions, as indicated
by an instrument reading greater than
§00 ppm and visual inspections, shall be
controlled as loon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after the
emission is detected.
(4) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
the emission is detected.
(1) Closed-vent systems and control
devices used to comply with provisions
of this subpart shall be operated at all
times when emissions may be vented to
them.
{284.1034 T«»t methods md procedure*.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the test methods and
procedures requirements provided in
this section.
(b) When a closed-vent system is
tested for compliance with no detectable
emissions, as required in } 264.l033(k),
the test shall comply with the following
requirements:
(1) Monitoring shall comply with
Reference Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60.
(2) The detection instrument shall
meet the performance criteria of
Reference Method 21.
(3) The instrument shall be calibrated
before use on each day of its use by the
-------
25498 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
procedures specified in Reference
Method 21.
(4) Calibration gases shall be:
(i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of
hydrocarbon in air).
(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane
and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than, 10,000 ppm
methane or n-hexane.
(5) The background level shall be
determined as set forth in Reference
Method 21.
(8) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21.
(7) The arithmetic difference between
the maximum concentration indicated
by the instrument and the background
level is compared with 500 ppm for
determining compliance.
(c) Performance tests to determine
compliance with f 264.l032(a) and with
the total organic compound
concentration limit of § 2B4.1033(c) shall
comply with the following:
(1) Performance tests to determine
total organic compound concentrations
and mass flow rates entering and exiting
control devices shall be conducted and
data reduced in accordance with the
following reference methods and
calculation procedures:
(i) Method 2 in 40 CFR part 60 for
velocity and volumetric flow rate.
(ii) Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60 for
organic content.
(iiij Each performance test shall
consist of three separate runs; each run
conducted for at least l hour under the
conditions that exist when the
hazardous waste management unit is
operating at the highest load or capacity
level reasonably expected to occur. For
the purpose of determining total organic
compound concentrations and mass
flow rates, the average of results of all
runs shall apply. The average shall be
computed on a time-weighted basis.
(iv) Total organic mass flow rates
shall be determined by the following
equation:
C.MW, ] 10.0416]
where: • • ,
Eh=Total organic mau flow rate, kg/h;
Q^= Volumetric flow rate of gases entering
or exiting control device, as determined
by Method 2, dscm/h:
n = Number of organic compounds in the vent
8«s;
C,= Organic concentration in ppm, dry basis,
of compound i in the vent gas. as
determined by Method 18:
MW, = Molecular weight of organic
compound i in the vent gas, kg/kg-mol;
0.0416= Con version factor for molar volume,
. kg-mol/m* (@ 293 K and 760 mm Hg);
10~*>= Conversion from ppm, ppm"1,
(v) The annual total organic emission
rate shall be determined by the
following equation:
where;
EA= Total organic maw emission rate, kg/y;
Eh —Total organic mass flow rate for the
process vent, kg/h;
1 f= Total annual hours of operations for the
• affected unit, h.
(vi) Total organic emissions from all
affected process vents at the facility
shall be determined by summing the
hourly total organic mass emission rates
(Eh as determined in paragraph (c!(l)(iv)
of this section] and by summing the
annual total organic mass emission rates
(EA, as determined in paragraph (c)(l)(v)
of this section) for all affected process
vents at the facility.
(2) The owner or operator shall record
such process information as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of
the performance tests. Operations
during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction shall not constitute
representative conditions for the
purpose of a performance test
(3) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall provide, or cause
to be provided, performance testing
facilities as follows:
(i) Sampling ports adequate for the
test methods specified in paragraph
(c)(l) of this section.
(ii] Safe sampling platform(s).
(iii) Safe access to sampling
platform(s).
(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing
equipment.
(4) For the purpose of making
compliance determinations, the time-
weighted average of the results of the
three runs shall apply. In the event that
a sample is accidentally lost or
conditions occur in which one of the
three runs must be discontinued because
of forced shutdown, failure of an
irreplaceable portion of the.sample
train, extreme meteorological
conditions, or other circumstances
beyond the owner or operator's control,
compliance may, upon the Regional
Administrator's approval, be determined
using the average of the results of the
two other runs.
(d) To show that a process vent
associated with a hazardous waste
distillation, fractionation, thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operation is not subject
to the requirements of this subpart, the
owner or operator must make an initial
determination that the time-weighted,
annual average total organic
concentration of the waste managed by
the waste management unit is less than
10 ppmw using one of die following two
methods;
(1) Direct measurement of the organic
concentration of the waste using the
following procedures:
(i) The owner or operator must take a
minimum of four grab samples of waste
for each waste stream managed in the
affected unit under process conditions
expected to cause die maximum waste
organic concentration.
(ii] For waste generated onsite, the
•grab samples must-be collected at a -
point before the waste is exposed to the
atmosphere such as in an enclosed pipe
or other closed system that is used to
transfer the waste after generation to
the first affected distillation,
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, or air or steam
stripping operation. For waste generated
off site, the grab samples must be
collected at the inlet to the first waste
management unit that receives the
waste provided the waste has been
transferred to the facility in a closed
system such as a tank truck and the
waste is not diluted or mixed with other
waste.
(iii] Each sample shall be analyzed
and the total organic concentration of
the sample shall be computed using
Method 9060 or 8240 of SW-848
(incorporated by reference under
1260.11). .
(iv) The arithmetic mean of the results
Of the analyses of the four samples shall
apply for each waste stream managed in
the unit in determining the time-
weighted, annual average total organic
concentration of the waste. The time-
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25499
weighted average is to be calculated
using the annual quantity of each waste
stream processed and the mean organic
concentration of each waste stream
managed in the unit
(2) Using knowledge of the waste to
determine that its total organic
concentration is less than 10 ppmw.
Documentation of the waste
determination is required. Examples of
documentation that shall be used to
support a determination under this
provision include production process
information documenting that no organic
compounds are used, information that
the waste is generated by a process that
is identical to a process at the same or
another facility that has previously been
demonstrated by direct measurement to
generate a waste stream having a total
organic content less than 10 ppmw, or
prior speciation analysis results on the
same waste stream where it can also be
documented that no process changes
have occurred since that analysis that
could affect the waste total organic
concentration.
(e)The determination that distillation.
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, or air or steam
stripping operations manage hazardous
wastes with time-weighted, annual
average total organic concentrations
less than 10 ppmw shall be made as
follows:
(1) By the effective date that the
facility becomes subject to the
provisions of this subpart or by the date
when the waste Is first managed in a
waste management unit, whichever is
later, and
(2) For continuously generated waste.
annually, or
(3) Whenever there is a change in the
waste being managed or a change in the
process that generates or treats the
waste.
(f) When an owner or operator and
the Regional Administrator do not agree
on whether a distillation, fractionation.
thin-film evaporation, solvent
extraction, or air or steam stripping
operation manages a hazardous waste
with organic concentrations of at leust
10 ppmw based on knowledge of the
waste, the procedures in Method 8240
may be used to resolve the dispute.
§ 264.1035 Racordk*«p>ng tvquimmmts.
(a)(l) Each owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the rccordkeeping
requirements of this section.
(2) An owner or operator of more than
one hazardous waste management unit
subject to the provisions of this subpart
may comply with the recordkeeping
requirements for these hazardous waste
management units in one recordkeeping
system if the system identifies each
record by each hazardous waste
management unit.
(b) Owners and operators must record
the following information in the facility
operating record:
(1) For facilities that comply with the
provisions ot" § 264.1Q33{a}(2), an
implementation schedule that includes
dates by which the closed-vent system
and control device will be installed and
in operation. The schedule must also
include a rationale of why the
installation cannot be completed at an
earlier date. The implementation
schedule must be in the facility
operating record by the effective date
that the facility becomes subject to the
provisions of this subpart
(2) Up-to-date documentation of
compliance with the process vent
standards in | 254.1032, including:
(!) information and data identifying ail
affected process vents, annual
throughput and operating hours of each
affected unit estimated emission rates
for each affected vent and for the
overall facility (i.e., the total emissions
for all affected vents at the facility], and
the approximate location within the
facility of each affected unit (e.g.,
identify the hazardous waste
management units on a facility plot
plan).
(ii) Information and data supporting
determinations of vent emissions and
emission reductions achieved by add-on
control devices based on engineering
calculations or source tests. For the.
purpose of determining compliance,
determinations of vent emissions and
emission reductions must be made using
operating parameter values (e.g.,
temperatures, flow rates, or vent stream
organic compounds and concentrations)
that represent the conditions that result
in maximum organic emissions, such as
when the waste management unit is
operating at the highest load or capacity
level reasonably expected to occur. If
the owner or operator takes any action
(e.g.. managing a waste of different
composition or increasing operating
hours of affected waste management
units) that wuuld result in an increase in
total organic emissions from affected
process vents at the facility, then a new
determination is required.
(3) Where an owner or operator
chooses to use test data to determine the
organic removal efficiency or total
organic compound concentration
achieved by the control device, •
performance test plan. The test plan
must include:
(i) A description of how it is
determined that the planned test is going
to be conducted when the hazardous
waste management unit is operating at
the highest load or capacity level
reasonably expected to occur. This shall
include the estimated or design flow rate
and organic content of each vent stream
and define the acceptable operating
ranges of key process and control device
parameters during the test program.
(ii) A detailed engineering description
of the closed-vent system and control
device including:
(A) Manufacturer's name and model
number of control device.
(B) Type of control device.
(C) Dimensions of the control device.
(D) Capacity.
(£) Construction materials.
(iii) A detailed description of sampling
and monitoring procedures, including
sampling and monitoring locations in the
system, the equipment to be used,
sampling and monitoring frequency, and
planned analytical procedures for
sample analysis.
(4) Documentation of compliance with
§ 264.1033 shall include the following
information:
(i) A list of all information references
and sources used in preparing the
documentation.
(ii) Records including the dates of
each compliance teat required by
§ 264.1033(kJ.
(iii) If engineering calculations are
used, a design analysis, specifications,
drawings, schematics, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams based on the
appropriate sections of "APT! Course
415: Control of Gaseous Emissions"
(incorporated by reference as specified
in § 260.11) or other engineering texts
acceptable to the Regional
Administrator that present basic control
device design information.
Documentation provided by the control
device manufacturer or vendor that
describes the control device design in
accordance with paragraphs
{b)(4)(iii)(A) through (b)(4)pii)(G) of thia
section may be used to comply with this
requirement The design analysis shall
address the vent stream characteristics
and control device operation parameters
as specified below.
(A) For a thermal vapor incinerator,
the design analysis shall consider the
vent stream composition, constituent
concentrations, and flow rate. The
design analysis shall also establish the
design minimum and average
temperature In the combustion zone and
the combustion zone residence time.
(B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator,
the design analysis shall consider the
vent stream composition, constituent
concentrations, and flow rate. The
design analysis shall also establish the
design minimum and average
-------
25500 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
temperatures across the catalyst bed
inlet and outlet.
(C) For a boiler or process heater, the
design analysis shall consider the vent
stream composition, constituent
concentrations, and flow rate. The
design analysis shall also establish the
design minimum and average flame zone
temperatures, combustion zone
residence time, and description of
method and location where the vent
stream is introduced into the
combustion zone.
. (D) For a flare, the design analysis
shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
and flow rate. The design analysis shall
also consider the requirements specified
in § 284,1033(d).
(E) For a condenser, the design
analysis shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
flow rate, relative humidity, and
temperature. The design analysis shall
also establish the design outlet organic
compound concentration level, design
average temperature of the condenser
exhaust vent stream, and design average
temperatures of the coolant fluid at the
condenser inlet and outlet
(F) For a carbon adsorption system
such as a fixed-bed adsorber that
regenerates the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device, the design
analysis shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
flow rate, relative humidity, and
temperature. The design analysis shall
also establish the design exhaust vent
stream organic compound concentration
level, number and capacity of carbon
beds, type and working capacity of
activated carbon used for carbon beds,
design total steam flow over the period
of each complete carbon bed
regeneration cycle, duration of the
carbon bed steaming and cooling/drying
cycles, design carbon bed temperature
after regeneration, design carbon bed
regeneration time, and design service
life of carbon.
(G) For e carbon adsorption system
such as a carbon canister that does not
regenerate the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device, the design
analysis shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
flow rate, relative humidity, and
temperature. The design analysis shall
also establish the design outlet organic
concentration level, capacity of carbon
bed, type and working capacity of
activated carbon used for carbon bed,
and design carbon replacement interval
based on the total carbon working
capacity of the control device and
source operating schedule.
(iv) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying that the
operating parameters used in the design
analysis reasonably represent the
conditions that exist when the
hazardous waste management unit is or
would be operating at the highest.load
or capacity level reasonably expected to
occur. - •
(v) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying that the
control device is designed to operate at
an efficiency of 95 percent or greater
unless the total organic concentration -
limit of | 264.l032(a) is achieved at an ""
efficiency less than 95 weight percent or
the total organic emission limits of
I 264.1032(a) for affected process vents
at the facility can be attained by a
control device involving vapor recovery
at an efficiency less than 95 weight
percent. A statement provided by the
control device manufacturer or vendor
certifying that the control equipment
meets the design specifications may be
used to comply with this requirement.
(vi) If performance tests are used to
demonstrate compliance, all test results.
(c) Design documentation and
monitoring, operating, and inspection
information for each closed-vent system
and control device required to comply.
with the provisions of this part shall be
recorded and kept up-to-date in the
facility operating record. The
information shall include:
(1) Description and date of each
modification that is made to the closed-
vent system or control device design..
(2) Identification of operating
parameter, description of monitoring
device, and diagram of monitoring •
sensor location or locations used to
comply with § 264.1033 (f)(l) and (f}(2).
(3J Monitoring, operating, and
inspection information required by
paragraphs (!) through (k) of § 284.1033,
(4) Date, time, and duration of each
period that occurs while the control.
device is operating when any monitored
parameter exceeds the value established
in the control device design analysis as
specified below:
(i) For a thermal vapor incinerator
designed to operate with a minimum
residence time of 0,50 second at a
minimum temperature of 760 "C. period
•when the combustion temperature is
below 760 *C.
(ii) For a thermal vapor incinerator
designed" to operate with an organic
emission reduction efficiency of- 95
weight percent or greater period when
the combustion zone temperature is
more than 28 "C below the design
average combustion zone temperature
established as a requirement of
paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) of this section.
(iii) For a catalytic vapor incinerator,
period when:
(A) Temperature of the vent stream at
the catalyst bed inlet is more than 28 "C
below the average temperature of the
inlet vent stream established as a
requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) of
this section, or
(B) Temperature difference across the
catalyst bed is less than 80 percent of
the design average temperature
difference established as a requirement
of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) of this section.
(iv) For a boiler or process heater,
period when:
(A) Flame zone temperature is more
than 28 °C below the design average
flame zone temperature established as a
requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) of
this section, or
(B) Position changes where the vent
stream is introduced to the combustion
zone from the location established as •
requirement of paragraph (bJ(4)(iii}(C) of
this section.
(v) For a flare, period when the pilot
flame is not ignited.
(vi) For a condenser that complies
with i 2&4.1033(f)(2)(vi)(A), period when
the organic compound concentration
level or readings of organic compounds
in the exhaust vent stream from the
condenser are more than 20 percent
greater than the design outlet organic
compound concentration level
established as a requirement of
paragraph (bj(4)(iii)(E) of this section.
(vii) For a condenser that complies
with § 2&4.1033(f)(2)(vi)(B). period when:
(A) Temperature of the exhaust vent
stream from the condenser is more than
0 *C above the design average exhaust
vent stream temperature established as
a requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(E)
of this section; or
(B) Temperature of the coolant fluid
exiting the condenser is more than 6 "C
above the design average coolant fluid
temperature at the condenser outlet
established as a requirement of
paragraph (b)(4)(iii](E) of this section.
(viii) For a carbon adsorption system
such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber
that regenerates the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device and
complies with f 264.1033(f](2)(vii)(A),
period when the organic compound
concentration level or readings of
organic compounds in the exhaust vent
stream from the carbon bed are more
than 20 percent greater than the design
exhaust vent stream organic compound
concentration level established as a
requirement of paragraph (bJ(4)(iii){F] of
this section.
(ix) For a carbon adsorption system
such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber
that regenerates the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device and
complies with § 264.1033(r}(2)(vii)(B),
-------
OSl-
•JER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, }une 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25501
period when the vent stream continues
to flow through the control device
beyond the predetermined carbon bed
regeneration time established as a
requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(F) of
this section.
(5) Explanation for each period
recorded under paragraph (4) of the
cause for control device operating
parameter exceeding the design value
and the measures implemented to
correct the control device operation.
(6) For a carbon adsorption system
operated subject to requirements
specified in § 264.1033(g) or
§ 264.1033(h)(2), date when existing
carbon in the control device is replaced
with fresh carbon.
[7) For a carbon adsorption system
operated subject to requirements
specified in § 264.1033(h)(l), a log that
records:
(!) Date and time when control device
is monitored for carbon breakthrough
and the monitoring device reading.
(ii) Date when existing carbon in the
control device is replaced with fresh
carbon,
(8) Date of each control device startup
and shutdown.
(d) Records of the monitoring,
operating, and inspection information
required by paragraphs {c)(3Hc)(8) of
this section need be kept only 3 years.
(e) For a control device other than a
thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic
vapor incinerator, flare, boiler, process
heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption
system, the Regional Administrator will
specify the appropriate recordkeeping
requirements.
(f) Up-to-date information and data
used to determine whether or not a
process vent is subject to the
requirements in § 264.1032 including
supporting documentation as required
by § 254.1034(d)(2) when application of
the knowledge of the nature of the
hazardous waste stream or the process
by which it was produced is used, shall
be recorded in a log that is kept in the
facility operating record.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0195)
§ 264.1036 Reporting requirements.
(a) A semiannual report shall be
submitted by owners and operators
subject to the requirements of this
subpart to the Regional Administrator
by dates specified by the Regional
Administrator. The report shall include
the following information:
(1) The Environmental Protection
Agency identification number, name,
and address of the facility.
(2) For each month during the
semiannual reporting period, dates
when the control device exceeded or
operated outside of the design
specifications as defined in
i 264.103S(c)(4) and as indicated by the
control device monitoring required by
§ 264.1033(0 and such exccedances
were not corrected within 24 hours, or
that a flare operated with visible
emissions as defined in i 264.1033(d)
and as determined by Method 22
monitoring, the duration and cause of
each exceedance or visible emissions,
and any corrective measures taken.
(b) If, during the semiannual reporting
period, the control device does not
exceed or operate outside of the design
specifications as defined in
§ ZS4.1035(c)(4) for more than 24 hours
or a flare does not operate with visible
emissions as defined in 5 264.1033(d), a
report to the Regional Administrator is
not required.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0195)
§§264.1037-264.1049 [Reserved].
11.40 CFR part 264 is amended by
adding subpart BB to read as follows:*
Subpart BB—Air Emission Standards for
Equipment Leaks
264.1050 Applicability.
264.1051 Definitions.
264,1052 Standards: Pumps in light liquid
service.
264,1053 Standards: Compressors.
264,1054 Standards: Pressure relief devices
in gas/vapor service.
234.1055 Standards: Sampling connecting
systems.
204.1056 Standards: Open-ended valves or
lines.
264.1057 Standards: Valves in gas/vapor
service or in light liquid service.
264.1058 Standards: Pumps and valves in
heavy liquid service, pressure relief
devices in light liquid or heavy liquid
service, and flanges and other
connectors.
264.1059 Standards: Delay of repair.
284.1060 Standards: Closed-vent systems
and control devices.
264.1081 Alternative standards for valves in
gas/vapor service or in light liquid
service: percentage of valves allowed to
leak.
264.1062 Alternative standards for valves in
gas/vapor service or in light liquid
service: skip period leak detection and
repair.
264.1063 Test methods and procedures.
264,1064 Recordkaeping requirements.
264.1065 Reporting requirements.
264.1066-264,1079 [Reserved]
Subpart BB—Air Emission Standards
(or Equipment Leaks
§ 264.1050 Applicability.
(a) The regulations in this subpart
apply to owners and operators of
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes (except as provided
in § 264.1).
(b) Except as provided in
I 264.1064(k), this subpart applies to
equipment that contains or contacts
hazardous wastes with organic
concentrations of at least 10 percent by
weight that are managed in:
(l) Units that are subject to the
permitting requirements of part 270. or
(2) Hazardous waste recycling units
that are located on hazardous waste
management facilities otherwise subject
to the permitting requirements of part
270.
(c) If the owner or operator of
equipment subject to the requirements
of |§ Z64.1052 through 264.1085 has
received a permit under section 3005 of
RCRA prior to December 21,1990, the
requirements of §§ 264.1052 through
264.1065 must be incorporated when the
permit is reissued under § 124.15 or
reviewed under § 270,50.
(d) Each piece of equipment to which
this subpart applies shall be marked in
such a manner that it can be
distinguished readily from other pieces
of equipment.
(e) Equipment that is in vacuum
service is excluded from the
requirements of { 264.1052 to § 264.1060
if it is identified as required in
{ 264.1064(g)(5).
[Note: The requirements of II 264.1052
through 264.1065 apply to equipment
associated with hazardous waste recycling
units previously exempt under 5 281.6(c)(l).
Other exemptions under !! 261.4. 262.34. and
264.1 (g) are not affected by these
requirements.]
§ 264.1051 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms shall
have the meaning given them in
f 264.1031, the Act, and parts 260-266.
§ 284.1052 Standards: Pumps In light liquid
service.
(a)(l) Each pump in light liquid service
shall be monitored monthly to detect
leaks by the methods specified in
§ 264.1063(b), except as provided in
paragraphs (d), (e), and {(] of this
section.
(2) Each pump in light liquid service
shall be checked by visual inspection
each calendar week for indications of
liquids dripping from the pump seal.
(b)(l) If a instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(2) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal, a leak is
detected.
(c)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
> /'.
-------
25502 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
detected except as provided in
5 204.1059.
(2) A first attempt at repair (e.g.,
tightening the packing gland) shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected,
[d) Each pump equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, provided tht following
requirements are met:
(1) Each dual mechanical seal system
must be:
(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is at all times greater than
the pump stuffing box pressure, or
(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid
degassing reservoir that is connected by
a dosed-vent system to a control device
that complies- with the requirements of
§ 264.1000, or
(iii) Equipped with a system that
purges the barrier fluid into a hazardous
waste stream with no delectable
emissions to the atmosphere.
(2) The barrier fluid system must not
be a hazardous waste with organic
concentrations 10 percent or greater by
weight
(3) Each barrier fluid system must be
equipped with a sensor that will detect
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system, or both.
(4) Each pump must be checked by
visual inspection, each calendar week,
for indications of liquids dripping from
the pump seals.
(5)(i) Each sensor as described in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section must be
checked daily or be equipped with an
audible alarm that must be checked
monthly to ensure that it is functioning
properly.
(ii) The owner or operator must
determine, baaed on design'
considerations and operating
experience, a criterion that indicates
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system, or both.
(6)(i) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal or the
sensor indicates failure of the seal
system, the barrier fluid system, or both
based on the criterion determined hi
paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section, a leak
is detected.
(ii) When a leak is detected it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in
S 284.1059.
(iii) A first attempt at repair (e.g.,
relapping the seal) shall be made no
later than 5 calendar days after each
leak is detected.
(e) Any pump that is designated, as
described in § 264.l084(g)(2), for no .
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than SOO-ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a), (c), and
(d) of this section if the pump meets the.
following requirements;
(1) Must have no externally actuated
shaft penetrating the pump housing.
(2) Must operate with no detectable
emissions aa indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background as measured by the .,_
methods specified in i 2B4.1083(c).
(3) Must be tested for compliance with
paragraph (e) (2) of this section initially
upon designation, annually, and at other
times as requested by the Regional
Administrator.
(f) If any pump is equipped with a
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal or seals to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
S 264.1060, it is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through
(e) of this section.
§ 264.1053 Standards: Compressors.
(a) Each compressor shall be equipped
with a seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system and that prevents
leakage of total organic emissions to the
atmosphere, except as provided in
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section.
(b) Each compressor seal system as
required in paragraph (a) of this section
shall be:
(1) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is at all times greater than
the compressor stuffing box pressure, or
(2) Equipped with a barrier fluid
system that is connected by a dosed-
vent system to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
S 264.1060. or
(3) Equipped with a system that
purges the barrier fluid into a hazardous
waste stream with no detectable
emissions to atmosphere.
(c) The barrier fluid must not be a
hazardous waste with organic
concentrations 10 percent or greater by
weight
(d) Each barrier fluid system aa
described in paragraphs (a) through (c)
of this section shall be equipped with a
sensor that will detect failure of the seal
system, barrier fluid system, or both.
(e)(l) Each sensor as required in
paragraph (d) of this section shall be
checked daily or shall be equipped with
an audible alarm that must be checked
monthly to ensure that it is functioning
properly unless the compressor is
located within the boundary of an
unmanned plant site, in which case the
sensor must be checked daily.
(2) The owner or operator shall
determine, based on design
considerations and operating
experience, a criterion that indicates
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system, or both.
(f) If the sensor indicates failure of the
seal system, the barrier fluid system, or
both based on the criterion determined
under paragraph (e)(2) of this section, a
leak is detected.
(g}(l) When a leak la detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than IS calendar days after it is
detected except as provided in
! 264.1059.
(2) A first attempt at repair (e.g.,
tightening the packing gland) shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days afler
each leak is detected.
(h) A compressor is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section if it is equipped with a
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal to a control device that complies
with the requirements of § 284.1060,
except as provided in paragraph (i) of
this section.
(!) Any compressor that is designated,
as described in § 264.1064(g](2), for no
detectable emissions as indicated by aa
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through
(h) of this section if the compressor
(1) Is determined to be operating with
no detectable emissions, as indicated by
an instrument reading of less than 500
ppm above background as measured by
the method specified in § 2641063(c).
(2) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (i)(l) of this section initial]y
upon designation, annually, and at other
times as requested by the Regional
Administrator.
§264.1054 Standard* Prwur* relief
devices hi gat/vapor Mnric*.
(a) Except during pressure releases.
each pressure relief device in gas/vapor
service shall be operated with no
detectable emissions, aa indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background as measured by the
method specified in 1264.1063(c).
(b)(l) After each pressure release, the
pressure relief device shall be returned
to a condition of no detectable
emissions, as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background as soon as practicable, but
no later than 5 calendar days after each
pressure release, except as provided in
§ 264.1059.
(2) No later than 5 calendar days after
the pressure release, the pressure relief
device shall be monitored to confirm the
condition of no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background as
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25503
measured by the method specified in
{ 264.1063(c).
(c) Any pressure relief device that is
equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
leakage from the pressure relief device
to a control device as described in
§ 284.1060 is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section.
1264.1055 Standards: Sampling
connecting systems.
(a) Each sampling connection system
shall be equipped with a closed purge
system or closed-vent system.
(b) Each closed-purge system or
closed-vent system as required to
paragraph (a) shall:
(1) Return the purged hazardous waste
stream directly to the hazardous waste
management process line with no
detectable emissions to atmosphere, or
(2) Collect and recycle the purged
hazardous waste stream with no
detectable emissions to atmosphere, or
(3) Be designed and operated to
capture and transport all the purged
hazardous waste stream to a control
device that complies with the
requirements of J 264.1060.
(c) In situ sampling systems are
exempt from the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
§ 264.1056 Standard*: Open-ended valvea
or lines.
(a)(l) Each open-ended valve or line
shall be equipped with a cap, blind
flange, plug, or a second valve,
(2) The cap, blind flange, plug, or
second valve shall seal the open end at
all times except during operations
requiring hazardous waste stream flow
through the open-ended valve or line.
(b) Each open-ended valve or line
equipped with a second valve shall be
operated in a manner such that the
valve on the hazardous waste stream
end is closed before the second valve is
closed.
(c) When a double block and bleed
system is being used, the bleed valve or
line may remain open during operations
that require venting the line between the
block valves but shall comply with
paragraph (a) of this section at all other
times.
§ 264.1057 Standards: Valves In gas/vapor
service or In light liquid service.
(a) Each valve in gas/vapor or light
liquid service shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by the methods
specified in § 264.1063(b) and shall
comply with paragraphs (b) through (e)
of this section, except as provided in
paragraphs (f). (g), and (h) of this
section, and §{ 264,1061 and 264.1062.
(b] If an Instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(c)(l) Any valve for which a leak is
not detected for two successive months
may be monitored the first month of
every succeeding quarter, beginning
with the next quarter, until a leak is
detected.
(2) If a leak is detected, the valve shall
be monitored monthly until a leak is not
detected for two successive months,
(d)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
no later than 15 calendar days after the
leak is detected, except as provided in
f 264.1059.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(e) First attempts at repair include, but
are not limited to, the following best
practices where practicable:
(1) Tightening of bonnet bolts.
(2) Replacement of bonnet bolts.
(3) Tightening of packing gland nuts.
(4) Injection of lubricant into
lubricated packing.
(f) Any valve that is designated, as
described in I 264.1064(g)(2), for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section if the valve:
(1) Has no external actuating
mechanism in contact with the
hazardous waste stream.
(2) Is operated with emissions less
than 500 ppm above background as
determined by the method specified in
§ 2B4,1083(c).
(3) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (f}(2) of this section initially
upon designation, annually, and at other
times as requested by the Regional
Administrator.
(g) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 264.1084(h)(l), as an
unsafe-to-monitor valve is exempt from
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section if:
(l) The owner or operator of the valve
determines that the valve is unsafe to
monitor because monitoring personnel
would be exposed to an immediate
danger as a consequence of complying
with paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) The owner or operator of the valve
adheres to a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve as frequently as
practicable during safe-to-monitor times.
(h) Any valve mat is designated, as
described in f 264.1064(h)(2), as a
difficult-to-monitor valve is exempt from
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section if:
(1) The owner or operator of the valve
determines that the valve cannot be
monitored without elevating the
monitoring personnel more than 2
meters above a support surface,
(2) The hazardous waste management
unit within which the valve is located
was in operation before June 21,1S90.
(3) The owner or operator of the valve
follows a. written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve at least once per
calendar year,
§ 264.1053 Standards: Pumps and valves
In heavy liquid service, pressure relief
devices In light liquid or heavy liquid
service, and flanges and other connectors.
(a) Pumps and valves in heavy liquid
service, pressure relief devices in light
liquid or heavy liquid service, and
flanges and other connectors shall be
monitored within 5 days by the method
specified in § 264.1063{b) if evidence of
a potential leak is found by visual,
audible, olfactory, or any other
detection method.
(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected,
(c)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided to
5 264.1059.
(2) The first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than S calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(d) First attempts at repair include,
but are not limited to, the best practices
described under i 264.1057(e).
§ 264.1059 Standards: Delay of repair,
(a) Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed if the repair is technically
infeasible without a hazardous waste
management unit shutdown. In such a
case, repair of this equipment shall
occur before the end of the next
hazardous waste management unit
shutdown.
(b) Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed for equipment that is isolated
from the hazardous waste management
unit and that does not continue to
contain or contact hazardous waste with
organic concentrations at least 10
percent by weight
(c) Delay of repair for valves will be
allowed if;
(1) The owner or operator determines
that emissions of purged material
resulting from immediate repair are
greater than the emissions likely to
result from delay of repair.
(2) When repair procedures are
effected, the purged material is collected
and destroyed or recovered in a control
device complying with § 264.1060.
-------
25504 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(d) Delay of repair for pumps will be
allowed if:
(1) Repair requires the use of a dual
mechanical aeal system that includes a
barrier fluid system.
(2) Repair is completed as soon as
practicable, but not later than 6 months
after the leak was detected.
(e) Delay of repair beyond a
hazardous waste management unit
shutdown will be allowed for a valve ff
valve assembly replacement is
necessary during the hazardous waste
management unit shutdown, valve
assembly supplies have been depleted,
and valve assembly supplies had been
sufficiently stocked before the supplies
were depleted. Delay of repair beyond
the next hazardous waste management
unit shutdown will not be allowed
unless the next hazardous waste
management unit shutdown occurs
sooner than 6 months after the first
hazardous waste management unit
shutdown.
§264.1060 Standard*: ao*«d-v«nt
system* and control devices.
Owners or operators of closed-
vent systems and control devices shall
comply with the provisions of
§ 264.1033.
§ 264.1061 Alternative standards for
vatvM In gas/vapor service or in light liquid
servteK percentage of vatvcs allowed to
leak.
(a) An owner or operator subject to
the requirements of { 284.1057 may elect
to have all valves within a hazardous
waste management unit comply with an
alternative standard that allows no
greater than 2 percent of the valves to
leak.
(b) The following requirements shall
be met if an owner or operator decides
to comply with the alternative standard
of allowing 2 percent of valves to leak:
(1) An owner or operator must notify
the Regional Administrator that the
owner or operator has elected to comply
with the requirements of this section.
(2) A performance test as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section shall be
conducted initially upon designation,
annually, and at other times requested
by the Regional Administrator.
(3) If a valve leak is detected, it shall
be repaired in accordance with
i 284.1057(d) and (e).
(c) Performance tests shall be
conducted in the following manner
(1) All valves subject to the
requirements in 5 284.1057 within the
hazardous waste management unit shall
be monitored within 1 week by the
methods specified in i 264.1063(b).
(2) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(3) The leak percentage shall be
determined by dividing the number of
valves subject to the requirements in
§ 264.1057 for which leaks are detected
by the total number of valves subject to
the requirements in { 264.1057 within the
hazardous waste management unit.
(d) If an owner or operator decides to
comply with this section no longer, the
owner or operator must notify the
Regional Administrator in writing that
the work practice standard described in
§ 264.1057{a) through (e) will be
followed.
§284.1062 Alternative standards for
valves In gas/vapor servlc* or In Bgrrt liquid
service: skip period leak detection and
repair.
(a)(l) An owner or operator subject to
the requirements of 1264.1057 may elect
for all valves within a hazardous waste
management unit to comply with one of
the alternative work practices specified
in paragraphs (b) (2) and (3) of this
section.
(2) An owner or operator must notify
the Regional Administrator before
implementing one of the alternative -
work practices.
(b)(l) An owner or operator shall
comply with the requirements for
valves, as described in § 264.1057,
except as described in paragraphs (b)(2)
and (b)(3) of this section.
(2) After two consecutive quarterly
leak detection periods with the
percentage of valves leaking equal to or
less than 2 percent, an owner or
operator may begin to skip one of the
quarterly leak detection periods for the
valves subject to the requirements in
! 264,1057.
(3) After five consecutive quarterly
leak detection periods with the
percentage of valves leaking equal to or
less than 2 percent, an owner or
operator may begin to skip three of the
quarterly leak detection periods for the
valves subject to the requirements in
i 264.1057.
(4) If the percentage of valves leaking
is greater than 2 percent, the owner or
operator shall monitor monthly in
compliance with the requirements in
§ 284.1057, but may again elect to use
this section after meeting the
requirements of § 2B4.1057(c)(l),
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0195)
§ 264.1063 Tact methods and procedures.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the test methods and
procedures requirements provided in
this section.
(b) Leak detection monitoring, as
required in §| 264.1052-264.1062, shall
comply with the following requirements:
(1) Monitoring shall comply with
Reference Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60.
(2) The detection instrument shall
meet the performance criteria of
Reference Method 21.
(3) The instrument shall be calibrated
before use on each day of its use by the
procedures specified in Reference
Method 21.
(4) Calibration gases shall be:
(i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of
hydrocarbon in air).
(li) A mixture of methane or n-hexane
and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than, 10,000 ppm
methane or n-hexane.
(5) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21.
(c) When equipment is tested for
compliance with no detectable
emissions, as required in §5 264.1052(e),
2&4.1053(i), 264.1054, and 264.1057(0, the
test shall comply with the following
requirements:
(1) The requirements of paragraphs
(b)(l) through (4) of this section shall
apply.
(2) The background level shall be
determined as set forth in Reference
Method 21.
(3) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21.
{4) The arithmetic difference between
the maximum concentration indicated
by the instrument and the background
level is compared with 500 ppm for
determining compliance.
(d] In accordance with the waste
analysis plan required by 5 264.13(b), an
owner or operator of a facility must
determine, for each piece of equipment,
whether the equipment contains or
contacts a hazardous waste with
organic concentration that equals or
exceeds 10 percent by weight using the
following: .
(1) Methods described in ASTM
Methods D 2267-88. E169-87, E168-88,
E 260-85 (incorporated by reference
under 1280.11)5
(2) Method 9080 or 8240 of SW-848
(incorporated by reference under
S 260.11); or
(3) Application of the knowledge of
the nature of the hazardous waste
stream or the process by which it was
produced. Documentation of a waste
determination by knowledge is required.
Examples of documentation that shall
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25505
be used to support a determination
under this provision include production
process information documenting that
no organic compounds are used,
information that the waste is generated
by a process that is identical to a
process at the same or another facility
that has previously been demonstrated
by direct measurement to have a total
organic content less than 10 percent, or
prior speciation analysis results on the
same waste stream where it can also be
documented that no process changes
have occurred since that analysis that
could affect the waste total organic
concentration.
(e) If an owner or operator determines
that a piece of equipment contains or
contacts a hazardous waste with
organic concentrations at least 10
percent by weight, the determination
can be revised only after following the
procedures in paragraph (d)(l) or (d){2)
of this section.
(f) When an owner or operator and
the Regional Administrator do not agree
on whether a piece of equipment
contains or contacts a hazardous waste
with organic concentrations at least 10
percent by weight, the procedures in
paragraph (d)(l) or (d}(2) of this section
can be used to resolve the dispute,
(g) Samples used in determining the
percent organic content shall be
representative of the highest total
organic content hazardous waste that U
expected to be contained in or contact
the equipment.
(h) To determine if pumps or valvei
are in light liquid service, the vapor
pressures of constituents may be
obtained from standard reference texts
or may be determined by ASTM D-
2879-88 (incorporated by reference
under i 260.11).
(!) Performance tests to determine if a
control device achieves 95 weight
percent organic emission reduction shall
comply with the procedures of
5 264.1034(c)(l) through (c)(4),
§ 264.1064 Recordkeeping requirements,
(a )(1) Each owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of this section.
(2) An owner or operator of more than
one hazardous waste management unit
subject to the provisions of this subpart
may comply with the recordkeeping
requirements for these hazardous waste
management units in one recordkeeping
system if the system identifies each
record by each hazardous waste
management unit
(b) Owners and operators must record
the following information in the facility
operating record:
(1) For each piece of equipment to
which Subpart BB of Part 264 applies:
(i) Equipment identification number
and hazardous waste management unit
identification.
(ii) Approximate locations within the
facility (e.g., identify the hazardous
waste management unit on a facility plot
plan).
(iii) Type of equipment (e.g.. a pump or
pipeline valve).
(iv) Percent-by-weight total organics
in the hazardous waste stream at the
equipment.
(v) Hazardous waste state at the
equipment (e.g., gas/vapor or liquid).
(vi) Method of compliance with the
standard (e.g., "monthly leak detection
and repair" or "equipped with dual
mechanical seals").
(2) For facilities that comply with the
provisions of § 264.1033(a)(2). an
implementation schedule as specified in
{ 264.1033[a)(2).
(3) Where an owner or operator
chooses to use test data to demonstrate
the organic removal efficiency or total
organic compound concentn* ion
achieved by the control device, a
performance test plan as specified in
§ 254.1035(b)(3).
(4) Documentation of compliance with
i 264.1060, including the detailed design
documentation or performance test
results specified in § 264.1035(b)(4).
(c) When each leak is detected as
specified in §§ 284.1052, 284.1053,
2&4.1057, and 264.1058, the following
requirements apply:
(1) A weatherproof and readily visible
identification, marked with the
equipment Identification number, the
date evidence of a potential leak was
found in accordance with f 264.1058(a),
and the date the leak was detected,
shall be attached to the leaking
equipment.
(2) The identification on equipment
except on a valve, may be removed after
it has been repaired.
(3) The identification on a valve may
be removed after it has been monitored
for 2 successive months as specified In
I § 284.1057(c) and no leak has been
detected during those 2 months.
(d) When each leak ia detected aa
specified in 55 254.1052. 264,1053,
264.1057. and 264.1056, the following
information shall be recorded in an
inspection log and shall be kept in the
facility operating record:
(1) The instrument and operator
identification numbers and the
equipment identification number.
(2) The date evidence of a potential
leak was found in accordance with
§ 2ft4.10S8(a).
(3) The date the leak was detected
and the dates of each attempt to repair
the leak.
(4) Repair methods applied in each
attempt to repair the leak.
(5) "Above 10.000" if the maximum
instrument reading measured by the
methods specified in § 264.1063(b) after
each repair attempt is equal to or greater
than 10.000 ppm.
(6) "Repair delayed" and the reason
for the delay if a leak is not repaired
within 15 calendar days after discovery
of the leak.
(7) Documentation supporting the
delay of repair of a valve in compliance
with § 264.1059(c).
(8) The signature of the owner or
operator (or designate) whose decision
it was that repair could not be effected
without a hazardous waste management
unit shutdown.
(9) The expected date of successful
repair of the leak if a leak is not
repaired within 15 calendar days.
(10) The date of successful repair of
the leak.
(e) Design documentation and
monitoring, operating, and inspection
information for each closed-vent lystem
and control device required to comply
with the provisions of § 264.1060 shall
be recorded and kept up-to-date in the
facility operating record as specified in
1264,1035(c), Design documentation is
specified in ! 264.1035 (c)(l) and (c)(2)
and monitoring, operating, and
inspection information in
! 264.1035(c)(3)-(c}(8).
(f) For a control device other than a
thermal vapor incinerator,.catalytic
vapor incinerator, flare, boiler, process
heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption
system, the Regional Administrator will
specify the appropriate recordkeeping
requirements.
(g) The following information
pertaining to all equipment subject to
the requirements in §5 264.1052 through
284.1060 shall be recorded in a log that
ia kept in the facility operating record:
(1) A list of identification numbers for
equipment (except welded fittings)
subject to the requirements of this
subpart
(2)(i) A list of identification numbers
for equipment that the owner or
operator elects to designate for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, under the provisions
of }§ 264.1052(e), 264,1053(i), and
264.1057(f).
(ii) The designation of this equipment
as subject to the requirements of
§| 284.1052(e), 264.1053(i). or 2M.W57(t)
shall be signed by the owner or
operator.
-------
25506 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(3) A list of equipment identification
numbers for pressure relief devices
required to comply witX § 264.1054(a),
(4){i) The dates of each compliance
test required in §§ 2&4.1052(e),
264.10S3(i), 2B4.1054, and 264.10S7(f).
(ii) The background level measured
during each compliance test.
(iii) The maximum instrument reading
measured at the equipment during each
compliance test.
(5) A list of identification numbers for
equipment in vacuum service. •
(h) The following information
pertaining to all valves subject to the
requirements of | 264.1057 (g) and (h)
shall be recorded in a log that is kept in
the facility operating record:
(1) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as unsafe to
monitor, an explanation for each valve
stating why the valve is unsafe to
monitor, and the plan for monitoring
each valve.
(2} A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as difficult to
monitor, an explanation for each valve
stating why the valve is difficult to
monitor, and the planned schedule for
monitoring each valve.
(i) The following information shall be
recorded in the facility operating record
for valves complying with f 264.1062:
(1) A schedule of monitoring.
(2) The percent of valves found
leaking during each monitoring period.
(j) The following information shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in the
facility operating record:
(1) Criteria required in •
I 264.1052(d)(5)(ii) and i 264.1053(e)(2)
and an explanation of the design
criteria.
(2) Any changes to these criteria and
the reasons for the changes.
(k) The following information shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in the
facility operating record for use in
determining exemptions as provided in
the applicability section of mis subpart
and other specific subparts:
(1) An analysis determining the design
capacity of the hazardous waste
management unit.
(2) A statement listing the hazardous
waste influent to and effluent from each
hazardous waste management unit
subject to the requirements in
§ I 264.1052 through 264.1060 and an
analysis determining whether these
hazardous wastes are heavy liquids,
. (3] An up-to-date analysis and the
supporting information and data used to
determine whether or not equipment is
subject to the requirements in
II 284.1052 through 264.1060. The record
shall include supporting documentation
as required by S 264.1063(d)(3) when
application of the knowledge of the
nature of the hazardous waste stream or
the process by which it was produced is
used. If the owner or operator takes any
action (e.g., changing the process that
produced the waste) that could result in
an increase in the total organic content
of the waste contained in or contacted
by equipment determined not to be
subject to the requirements in
§§ 264.1052 through 264.1060, then a new
determination is required.
(1) Records of the equipment leafc^
information required by paragraph (d) of
this section and the operating
information required by paragraph (e) of
this section need be kept only 3 years.
(m) The owner or operator of any
facility that is subject to this subpart
and to regulations at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart VV, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart
V, may elect to determine compliance
with this subpart by documentation
either pursuant to § 264.1064 of this
subpart, or pursuant to those provisions
of 40 CFR part 60 or 61, to the extent
that the documentation under the
regulation at 40 CFR part 60 or part 61
duplicates the documentation required
under this subpart. The documentation
under the regulation at 40 CFR part 60 or
part 81 shall be kept with or made
readily available with the facility
operating record,
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2030-0195)
§ 254.1065 Reporting requirements.
(a) A semiannual report shall be
submitted by owners and operators
subject to the requirements of this
subpart to the Regional Administrator
by dates specified by the Regional
Administrator. The report shall include
the following information:
(1) The Environmental Protection
Agency identification number, name,
and address of the facility.
(2) For each month during the
semiannual reporting period:
, (i) The equipment identification
number of each valve for which a leak
was not repaired as required in
| 284.1057(d).
(ii) The equipment identification
number of each pump for which a leak
was not repaired as required in
§ 264.1052 (c) and (d)(6).
(iii) The equipment identification
number of each compressor for which a
leak was not repaired as required in
| 264.1C53(g).
(3) Dates of hazardous waste
management unit shutdowns that
occurred within the semiannual
reporting period.
(4) For each month during the
semiannual reporting period, dates
when the control device installed as
required by f 284.1052,264.1053,
204.1054, or 284.1055 exceeded or
operated outside of the design
specifications as defined in § 264,1064(e)
and as indicated by the control device
monitoring required by S 264.1060 and
was not corrected within 24 hours, the
duration and cause of each exceedance,
and any corrective measures taken.
(b) If, during the semiannual reporting
period, leaks from valves, pumps, and
compressors are repaired as required in
§| 264.1057 (d), 264.1052 (c) and (dp),
and 264.1053 {g), respectively, and the
control device does not exceed or
operate outside of the design
specifications as defined in § 264.10641 <•)
for more than 24 hours, a report to th*
Regional Administrator is not required
(Approved by the Office of Management ««4
Budget under control number 2060-0195)
§§ 264.1066-2S4.1079 [Reserved]
PART 2SS—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
12. The authority citation for part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6095,8912(a), 6924,
6925, and 6935.
Subpart B—General Facility Standards
13. Section 265.13 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as
follows;
§ 265.13 General waste analysis.
(b) * * *
(6) Where applicable, the methods
that will be used to meet the additional
waste analysis requirements for specific
waste management methods as
specified in §8 265.193, 265.225, 265.252.
265.273, 265.314. 285.341,265.375, 265.4C2.
2S5.1034(d), 265.1083(d), and 268.7 of this
chapter.
14. Section 265.15 is amended by
revising the last sentence of paragraph
(b)(4) to read as follows;
§ 265.15 General Inspection requirements.
(b) * * *
(4) * * * At a minimum, the inspection
schedule must include the terms and
frequencies called for in || 265.174.
265.193. 265.195. 265.226, 265.347. 265.377,
285.403,265.1033,265.1052.265,1053, and
265.1058.
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 25307
Subpart E—Manifest System,
Recordkeeplng, and Reporting
IS. Section 285.73 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b){3) and (b){8) to
read as follows:
{ 265.73 Operating record.
* * * * *
(b)"*
(3) Records and results of waste
analyses and trial tests performed as
specified in || 285.13, 285.193, 265.225.
285.252, 285.273, 265.314. 285.341. 285.375.
285.402, 265.1034, 265.1063, 2C8.4(a). and
288.7 of this chapter,
*****
(6) Monitoring, testing or analytical
data when required by §§ 265.90,265.94.
265.191. 285.1S3.285.195, 285.271 265.278,
265.280(d)(l). 285.347, 265.377.
265.1034(c)-265.1034(f), 265.1035,
265.1063(d}-285.1083(i}. and 265.1064.
* « # * *
18. Section 265.77 is amended by
adding paragraph (d) as follows:
5265.77 Addition*! report*.
• • » * «
(d) As otherwise required by Subparts
AA and BB.
17. 40 CFR part 265 is amended by
adding Subpart AA to read as follows:
Subpaii AA—Air Emission Standards for
Procwi Vents
28S.1030 Applicability.
265.1031 Definitions.
265.1032 Standards: Process vents.
285.1033 Standards: Closed-vent systema and
control device*.
265.1034 Test methods and procedures.
285.1035 Recordkeeping requirements.
285.1038—285.1049 [Reserved]
Subpart AA—Air Emission Standards
for Process Vents
5265.1030 Applicability.
(a) The regulations in this subpart
apply to owners and operators of
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes (except as provided
in 5 265.1).
(b) Except for 55 2S5.1034(dJ and
205.1035(4), this subpart applies to
process vents associated with
distillation, fractionation. thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction, or ak or
steam stripping operations that manage
hazardous wastes with organic
concentrations of at least 10 pptnw, if
these operations are conducted in:
(1) Units that are subject to the
permitting requirements of part 270, or
(2) Hazardous waste recycling units
that are located on hazardous waste
management facilities otherwise subject
to the permitting requirements of part
270.
[Mote: The requirement! of §} 265.1032
through 265.1036 apply to process venU on
hazardous waste recycling units previously
exempt under paragraph 261.6{c)(l). Other
exemptions under ii 261,4, 262J34. and
2fiS.l(c) are not affected by these
requirements.]
f 265.1031 Definitions.
As used in this subpart all terms shall
have the meaning given them in
! 284.1031, the Act, and parts 260-208.
{265.1032 Standard* Proc»as wit*.
(a) The owner or operator of a facility
with process vents associated with
distillation, fractionation. thin-film
evaporation, solvent extraction or air or
steam stripping operations managing
hazardous wastes with organic
concentrations at least 10 ppmw shall
either
(1) Reduce total organic emissions
from all affected process vents at the
facility below 1.4 kg/h (3 Ib/h) and 2.8
Mg/yr (3.1 tons/yr), or
(2) Reduce, by use of a control device,
total organic emissions from all affected
process vents at the facility by 95 weight
percent.
(b) If the owner or operator installs a
closed-vent system and control device
to comply with the provisions of
paragraph (a) of this section, the closed-
vent system and control device must
meet the requirements of § 265.1033.
(c) Determinations of vent emissions
and emission reductions or total organic
compound concentrations achieved by
add-on control devices may be based on
engineering calculations or performance
tests. If performance tests are used to
determine vent emissions, emission
reductions, or total organic compound
concentrations achieved by add-on
control devices, the performance tests
must conform with the requirements of
5 265.1034(c).
(d) When an owner or operator and
the Regional Administrator do not agree
on determinations of vent emissions
and/or emission reductions or total
organic compound concentrations
achieved by add-on control devices
based on engineering calculations, the
test methods in 5 265.1034(c) shall be
used to resolve the disagreement
f 265.1033 Standard* Closed-vent
*y*Mflw and control d*vlcm.
(u)(l) Owners or operators of closed-
vent systems and control devices used
to comply with provisions of this part
shall comply with the provisions of this
section,
(2) The owner or operator of an
existing facility who cannot install a
closed-vent system and control device
to comply with the provisions of this
subpart on the effective date that the
facility becomes subject to the
provisions of this subpart must prepare
an implementation schedule that
includes dates by which the closed-vent
system and control device will be
installed and in operation. The controls
must be Installed as soon as possible,
but the implementation schedule may
allow up to 18 months after the effective
date that the facility becomes subject to
this subpart for installation and startup.
All units that begin operation after
December 21.1990 must comply with the
rules immediately (i.e., must have
control devices installed and operating
on startup of the affected unit); the 2-
year implementation schedule does not
apply to these units.
(b) A control device involving vapor
recovery (e.g., a condenser or adsorber)
shall be designed and operated to
recover the organic vapors vented to it
with an efficiency of 95 weight percent
or greater unless the total organic
emission limits of 1265.1032(a)(l) for all
affected process vents can be attained
at an efficiency less than 95 weight
percent
(c) An enclosed combustion device
(e.g., a vapor incinerator, boiler, or
process heater) shall be designed and
operated to reduce the organic
emissions vented to it by 95 weight
percent or greater; to achieve a total
organic compound concentration of 20
ppmv. expressed as the sum of the
actual compounds, not carbon
equivalents, on a dry basis corrected to
3 percent oxygen: or to provide a
minimum residence time of 0.50 seconds
at a minimum temperature of 760 'C. If a
boiler or process heater is used as the
control device, then the vent stream
shall be introduced Into the flame
combustion zone of the boiler or process
heater.
(d)(l) A flare shall be designed for
and operated with no visible emissions
as determined by the methods specified
in paragraph (e)(l) of this section.
except for periods not to exceed a total
of 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive
hours,
(2) A flare shall be operated with a
flame present at all times, as determined
by the methods specified in paragraph
(f)(2)(iii) of this section.
(3) A flare shall be used only if the net
heating value of the gas being
combusted is 11.2 Mj/scm (300 Btu/scf)
or greater, if the flare is steam-assisted
or air-assisted; or if the net heating
value of the gas being combusted is 7,45
MJ/sem (200 Btu/scf) or greater if the
flare is nonassisted. The net heating
value of the gas being combusted shall
be determined by the methods specified
in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
-------
25508 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(4)(i) A steam-assisted or nonassisted
fiare shall be designed for and operated
with an exit velocity, as determined by
the methods specified in paragraph
(o)(3) of this section, of less than 18.3 m/
s (60 ft/s], except as provided in
paragraphs (d)(4) (ii) and (in) of this
section.
(ii) A steam-assisted or nonassisted
flare designed for and operated with an
exit velocity, as determined by the
methods specified in paragraph (e)(3) of,
this section, equal to or greater than 18.3
m/s (60 ft/s) but less than 122 m/s (400 .
ft/s) is allowed if the net heating value
of the gas being combusted is greater
than 37.3 MJ/scm (1,000 Btu/scf),
(iii) A steam-assisted or nonassisted
flare designed for and operated with an
exit velocity, as determined by the
methods specified in paragraph (e)(3) of
this section, less than the velocity, V,^,
as determined by the method specified
in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, and
less than 122 m/s (400 ft/s) is allowed.
(5) An air-assisted flare shall be
designed and operated with an exit
velocity less than the velocity, V^^, as
determined by the method specified in
paragraph (e)(5) of this section.
(6) A flare used to comply with this
section shall be steam-assisted, air-
assisted, or nonassisted.
(e)(l) Reference Method 22 in 40 CFR
part 00 shall be used to determine the
compliance of a flare with the visible
emission provisions of this subpart. The
observation period is 2 hours and shall •
be used according to Method 22.
(2) The net heating value of the gas
being combusted in a flare shall be
calculated using the following equation:
HT=K
where:
HT= Net heating value of the sample, MJ/
•cm; where the net enthalpy per mole of
offgas is based on combustion at 25 *C
. and 760 mm Hg, but the standard
temperature for determining the volume
corresponding to 1 mol is 20 'C;
K=Constant 1.74XMT'Cl/Ppni) fe mol/*cm)
" (MJ/kcal) where standard temperature
for (g mol/scm) is 20 'C;
C,=Concentration of sample component i in
ppm on a wet basis, as measured for
organics by Reference Method 18 in 40
CFR part 60 and measured for hydrogen
and carbon monoxide by ASTM D1948-
82 (incorporated by reference as
specified in i 260.11); and
H,=Nat heat of combustion of sample
component i. kcal/g mol at 25 *C and 760
mm Hg. The heats of combustion may be
determined using ASTM D 2382-83
(incorporated by reference as specified
in S 260.11) if published values are not
available or cannot be calculated.
(3) The actual exit velocity of a flare
shall be determined by dividing the
volumetric flow rate (in units of
standard temperature and pressure), as
determined by Reference Methods 2.-2A,
2C. or 2D in 40 CFR part 80 as
appropriate, by the unobstructed (free)
cross-sectional area of the flare tip.
(4) The maximum allowed velocity in
11/8, V,,,.,, for a flare complying with
paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section shall
be determined by the following
equation:
Logio!V«,i)=(HT+28.8)/31.7
where:
HT—The net heating value as determined in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
28.8=Constant,
31.7=Constant.
(5) The maximum allowed velocity in
m/s, V,^, for an air-assisted flare shall
be determined by the following
equation:
Vma - 8.700 + 0.7084 (HT)
where: • .
8.706 = Constant.
0.7084 e Constant
HT = The net heating value as determined in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(f) The owner or operator shall . •
monitor and inspect each control device
required to comply with this section to •
ensure proper operation and • •
maintenance of the control device by
implementing the following
requirements:
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate according to the manufacturer's
specifications a flow indicator that
provides a record of vent stream flow
from each affected process vent to the
control device at least once every hour.
The flow indicator sensor shall be
installed in the vent stream at the
nearest feasible point to the control
device inlet, but before being combined
with other vent streams.
(2) Install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate according to the manufacturer's
specifications a device to continuously
monitor control device operation as
specified below:
(i) For a thermal vapor incinerator, a
temperature monitoring device equipped
with a continuous recorder. The device
shall have an accuracy of ±1 percent of
the temperature being monitored in *C
or ±0.5 *C. whichever is greater. The
temperature sensor shall be installed at
3 location in the combustion chamber
downstream of the combustion zone.
(ii) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, a
temperature monitoring device equipped
with a continuous recorder. The device
shall be capable of monitoring
temperature at two locations and have
an accuracy of ±1 percent of the
temperature being monitored in "C or
±0.5 *G. whichever is greater. One
temperature sensor shall be installed in
the vent stream at the nearest feasible
point to the catalyst bed inlet and a
second temperature sensor shall be
installed in the vent stream at the
nearest feasible point to the catalyst bed
outlet.
(iii) For a flare, a heat sensing
monitoring device equipped with a
continuous recorder that indicates the
continuous ignition of the pilot flame.
(iv) For a boiler or process heater
•having a design heat input capacity teat
than 44 MW, a temperature monitoring
device equipped with a continuous
recorder. The device' shall have an
accuracy of ±1 percent of the
temperature being monitored in *C or
±0.5 *C, whichever is greater. The
temperature sensor shall be installed at
a location in the furnace downstream of
the combustion zone.
(v) For a boiler or process heater
having a design heat input capacity
greater than or equal to 44 MW, a
monitoring device equipped with a
continuous recorder to measure a
parameter(s) that indicates good
combustion operating practices are
being used.
(vi) For a condenser, either
(A) A monitoring device equipped
with a continuous recorder to measure
the concentration level of the organic
compounds in the exhaust vent stream
from the condenser; or -
(B) A temperature monitoring device
equipped with a continuous recorder.
The device shall be capable of
monitoring temperature at two locations
and have an accuracy of ±1 percent of
the temperature being monitored in *C
or ±0.5 'C, whichever is greater. One
temperature sensor shall be installed at
a location in the exhaust vent stream
from the condenser, and a second
temperature sensor shall be installed at
a location in the coolant fluid exiting the
condenser.
(vii) For a carbon adsorption system
such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber
that regenerates the carbon bed directly
in the control device, either.
(A) A monitoring device equipped
with a continuous recorder to measure
the concentration level of the organic
compounds in the exhaust vent stream
from .the carbon bed. or
(B) A monitoring device equipped with
a continuous recorder to measure a
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25503
parameter that indicates the carbon bed
is regenerated on a regular.
predetermined time cycle.
(3) Inspect the readings from each
monitoring device required by
paragraphs (f) (1) and (2) of this section
at least once each operating day to
check control device operation and, if
necessary, immediately implement the
corrective measures necessary to ensure
tho control device operates in
compliance with the requirements of this
section.
(g) An owner or operator using a
carbon adsorption system such as a
fixed-bed carbon adsorber that
regenerates the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device, shall
replace the existing carbon in the
control device with fresh carbon at a
regular, predetermined time interval that
is no longer than the carbon service life
established as a requirement of
§ 265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(F).
(h) An owner or operator using a
carbon adsorption system such as a
carbon canister that does not regenerate
the carbon bed directly onsite in the
control device shall replace the existing
carbon in the control device with fresh
carbon on a regular basis by using one
of the following procedures:
(1) Monitor the concentration level of
the organic compounds in the exhaust
vent stream from the carbon adsorption
system on a regular schedule and
replace the existing carbon with fresh
carbon immediately when carbon
breakthrough is indicated. The
monitoring frequency shall be daily or at
an interval no greater than 20 percent of
the time required to consume the total
carbon working capacity established as
a requirement of 5 265.1035(bJ(4)(iii)(G),
whichever is longer.
(2) Replace the existing carbon with
fresh carbon at a regular, predetermined
time interval that is less than the design
carbon replacement interval established
as a requirement of
I 26S.1035(b)(4)(iii)(G).
(i) An owner or operator of an
affected facility seeking to comply with
the provisions of this part by using a
control device other than a thermal
vapor incinerator, catalytic vapor
incinerator, flare, boiler, process heater,
condenser, or carbon adsorption system
is required to develop documentation
including sufficient information to
describe the control device operation
and identify the process parameter or
parameters that indicate proper
operation and maintenance of the
control device.
(j)(l) Closed-vent systems shall be
designed for and operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background and by visual
inspections, as determined by the
methods specified as § 26S.l034(b).
(2) Closed-vent systems shall be
monitored to determine compliance with
this section during the initial leak
detection monitoring which shall be
conducted by the date that the facility
becomes subject to the provisions of this
section, annually, and at other times as
requested by the Regional
Administrator.
(3) Detectable emissions, as indicated
by an instrument reading greater than
500 ppm and visual inspections, shall be
controlled as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after the
emission is detected.
(4} A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
the emission is detected.
(k) Closed-vent systems and control
devices used to comply with provisions
of this subpart shall be operated at all
times when emissions may be vented to
them.
! 285.1034 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the test methods and
procedures requirements provided in
this section.
(b) When a closed-vent system is
tested for compliance with no detectable
emissions, as required in § 265.1033(j),
the test shall comply with the following
requirements:
(1) Monitoring shall comply with
Reference Method 21 in 40 CFR part 60,
(2) The detection instrument shall
meet the performance criteria of
Reference Method 21.
(3) The instrument shall be calibrated
before use on each day of its use by the
procedures specified in Reference
Method 21.
(4) Calibration gases shall be
(i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of
hydrocarbon in air).
(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane
and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than, 10.000 ppm
methane or n-hexane.
(5) The background level shall be
determined as set forth in Reference
Method 21.
(6) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
passible as described in Reference
Method 21.
(7) The arithmetic difference beturfn
the maximum concentration indicated
by the instrument and the background
level is compared with 500 ppm for
determining compliance.
(c) Performance tests to determine
compliance with § 265.1032(a) and with
the total organic compound
concentration limit of i 26S.l033(c) shall
comply with the following:
(1) Performance tests to determine
total organic compound concentrations
and mass flow rates entering and exiting
control devices shall be conducted and
data reduced in accordance with the
following reference methods and
calculation procedures:
fi] Method 2 in 40 CFR part 60 for
velocity and volumetric flow rate.
(ii) Method IB in 40 CFR part 60 for
organic content.
(iii) Each performance test shall
consist of three separate runs; each run
conducted for at least 1 hour under the
conditions that exist when the
hazardous waste management unit is
operating at the highest load or capacity
level reasonably expected to occur. For
the purpose of determining total organic
compound concentrations and mass
flow rates, the average of results of all
runs shall apply. The average shall be
computed on a time-weighted basis.
(iv) Total organic mass flow rates
shall be determined by the following
equation:
E.-Q.
IO.MISJ [irr
where:
Ef, = Total organic mass flow rate, kg/h:
Q—=Volumetric flow rate of gases entering
or exiting control device, as determined
by Method 2. dscm/h;
n —Number of orgunic compounds in the vent
gas;
C,=Organic concentration in ppm, dry basis.
of compound i in the vent gas, as
determined by Method 18;
MW,=Molecular weight of organic
compound i in the vent gas. kg/kg-mol:
-------
255:10 Federal Register /Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
0.0418=Conversion factor for molar volume,
kg-mol/m1 (@ 293 K and 780 mm Hg);
10"*= Con version from ppm, ppm"1.
(v) The annual total organic emission
rate shall be determined by the
following equation:
Es=(Eh)[H)
where:
EA=Total organic mass emission rate, kg/y,
Eh=Total organic mass flow rate for the
process vent, kg/h;
H=Total annual hours of operations for the
affected unit. h.
(vi) Total organic emissions from all
affected process vents at the facility
shall be determined by summing the
hourly total organic mass emission rates
(Eh, as determined in paragraph (c)(l)(v)
of this section) and by summing the
annual total organic mass emission rates
(EA, as determined in paragraph (c)(l)[v)
of this section) for all affected process
vents at the facility.
(2) The owner or operator shall record
such" process information as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of
the performance tests. Operations
during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction shall not constitute
representative conditions for the
purpose of a performance test.
(3) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall provide, or cause
to be provided, performance testing
facilities as follows:
(i) Sampling ports adequate for the
test methods specified in paragraph
(c)(l) of this section,
(ii) Safe sampling platform(s).
(in) Safe access to sampling
platform(s).
(iv) Utilities for sampling and testing
equipment
(4) For the purpose of making
compliance determinations, the time-
weighted average of the results of the
three runs shall apply. In the event that
a sample is accidentally lost or
conditions occur in which one of the
• three runs must be discontinued because
of forced shutdown, failure of an
irreplaceable portion of the sample ~
train, extreme meteorological
conditions, or other circumstances
beyond the owner or operator's control,
compliance may, upon the Regional
Administrator's approval, be determined
using the average of the results of the
two other runs.
(d) To show that a process vent
associated with a hazardous waste
distillation, fractionation, thin-film •
svaporation, solvent extraction, or air or
steam stripping operation is not subject
to the requirements of this subpart the
owner or operator must make an initial
determination that the time-weighted,
annual average total organic
concentration of the -waste managed by
the waste management unit is less than
10 ppmw using one of the following two
methods:
(1) Direct measurement of the organic
concentration of the waste using the
following procedures:
(i) The owner or operator must take a
minimum of four grab samples of waste
for each waste stream managed in the
affected unit under process conditions
expected to cause the maximum waste
organic concentration.
(ii) For waste generated onsite, the
grab samples must be collected at a
point before the waste is exposed to the
atmosphere such as in an enclosed pipe
or other closed system that is used to
transfer the waste after generation to
the first affected distillation
fractionation, thin-film evaporation,
solvent extraction, or air or steam
stripping operation. For waste generated
off site, the grab samples must be
collected at the inlet to the first waste
management unit that receives the
waste provided the waste has been
transferred to the facility in a closed
system such as a tank track and the -
waste is not diluted or mixed with other
waste.
(iii) Each sample shall be analyzed
and the total organic concentration of
the sample shall be computed using
Method 9080 or 8240 of SW-848
(incorporated by reference under
§280.11).
(iv) The arithmetic mean of the results
of the analyses of the four samples shall
apply for each waste stream managed in
the unit in determining the time-
weighted, annual average total organic
concentration of the waste. The time-
weighted average is to be calculated
using the annual quantity of each waste
stream processed and the mean organic
concentration of each waste stream
managed in the unit
(2) Using knowledge of the waste to
determine that its total organic
concentration is less than 10 ppmw.
Documentation of the waste
determination is required. Examples of
documentation that shall be used to
support a determination under this
provision include production process
information documenting that no organic
compounds are used, information that
the waste is generated by a process that
is identical to a process at the same or
another facility that has previously been
demonstrated by direct measurement to
generate a waste stream having a total
organic content less than 10 ppmw, or
prior speciation analysis results on the
same waste stream where it can also be
documented that no process changes
have occurred since that analysis that
could affect the waste total organic
concentration.
(e) The determination that distillation
fractionation, thin-Rim evaporation,
solvent extraction, or air or steam
stripping operations manage hazardous
wastes with time-weighted annual
average total organic concentrations
less than 10 ppmw shall be made as
follows:
(1)i By the effective date that the
facility becomes subject to the
provisions of this subpart or by the date
when the waste is first managed in a
waste management unit, whichever is
later; and
(2) For continuously generated waste,
annually; or
(3) Whenever there is a change in the
waste being managed or a change in the
process that generates or treats the
waste.
(f) When an owner or operator and
the Regional Administrator do not agree
on whether a distillation, fractionation,
thin-film evaporation, solvent
extraction, or air or steam stripping
operation manages a hazardous waste
with organic concentrations of at least
10 ppmw based on knowledge of the
waste, the procedures in Method 8240
can be used to resolve the dispute,
1285.1035 RecorcJkeeping requirements.
(a)(l) Each owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of this section.
(2) An owner.or operator of more than
one hazardous waste management unit
subject to the provisions of this subpart
may comply with the recordkeeping
requirements for these hazardous waste
management units in one recordkeeping
system if the system identifies each
record by each hazardous waste
management unit
(b) Owners and operators must record
the following information in the facility
operating record:
(1) For facilities that comply with the
provisions of i 265.1033(a)(2). an
implementation schedule that includes
dates by which the closed-vent system
and control device will be installed and
in operation. The schedule must also
include a rationale of why the
installation cannot be completed at an
earlier date. The implementation
schedule must be in the facility
operating record by the effective date
that the facility becomes subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(2) Up-to-date documentation of
compliance with the process vent
standards in § 285.1032. including:
(i) Information and data identifying all
affected process vents, annual
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25311
throughput end operating hours of each
affected unit, estimated emission rates
for each affected vent and for the
overall facility (i.e., the total emissions
for all affected vents at the facility], and
the approximate location within the
facility of each affected unit (e.g.,
identify the hazardous waste
management units on a facility plot
plan); and
(iij Information and data supporting
determinations of vent emissions and
emission reductions achieved by add-on
control devices based on engineering
calculations or source tests. For the
purpose of determining compliance,
determinations of vent emissions and
emission reductions must be made using
operating parameter values [e.g.,
temperatures, flow rates or vent stream
organic compounds and concentrations]
that represent the conditions that result
in maximum organic emissions, such as
when the waste management unit is
operating at the highest load or capacity
level reasonably expected to occur. If
the owner or operator takes any action
(e.g., managing a waste of different
composition or increasing operating
hours of affected waste management
units) that would result in an increase in
total organic emissions from affected
process vents at the facility, then a new
determination is required,
(3) Where an owner or operator
chooses to use test data to determine the
organic removal efficiency or total
organic compound concentration
achieved by the control device, a
performance test plan. The test plan
must include:
(i) A description of how it is
determined that the planned test is going
to be conducted when the hazardous
waste management unit is operating at
the highest load or capacity level
reasonably expected to occur. This shall
include the estimated or design flow rate
and organic content of each vent stream
and define the acceptable operating
ranges of key process and control device
parameters during the test program.
(ii) A detailed engineering description
of the closed-vent system and control
device including:
(A) Manufacturer's name and model
number of control device.
.(B) Type of control device.
(C) Dimensions of the control device.
(D) Capacity.
(E) Construction materials.
{iii) A detailed description of sampling
and monitoring procedures, including
sampling and monitoring locations in the
system, the equipment to be used,
sampling and monitoring frequency, and
planned analytical procedures for
sample analysis.
(4) Documentation of compliance with
I 265.1033 shall include the following
information:
(i) A list of all information references
and sources used in preparing the
documentation.
(ii) Records including the dates of
each compliance test required by
§ 265.1033(1).
(iii) If engineering calculations are
used, a design analysis, specifications,
drawings, schematics, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams based on the
appropriate sections of "APT! Course
415: Control of Gaseous Emissions"
(incorporated by reference as specified
in § 260.11) or other engineering texts
acceptable to the Regional
Administrator that present basic control
device design information.
Documentation provided by the control
device manufacturer or vendor that
describes the control device design in
accordance with paragraphs
(b)(4)(iii)(A) through (b)(4)(iii)(G) of this
section may be used to comply with this
requirement. The design analysis shall
address the vent stream characteristics
and control device operation parameters
as specified below,
(A) For a thermal vapor incinerator,
the design analysis shall consider the
vent stream composition, constituent
concentrations, and flow rate. The
design analysis shall also establish the
design minimum and average
temperature in the combustion zone and
the combustion zone residence time.
(B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator,
the design analysis shall consider the
vent stream composition, constituent
concentrations, and flow rate. The
design analysis shall also establish the
design minimum and average
temperatures across the catalyst bed
inlet and outlet
(C) For a boiler or process heater, the
design analysis shall consider the vent
stream composition, constituent
concentrations, and flow rate. The
design analysis shall also establish the
design minimum and average flame zone
temperatures, combustion zone
residence time, and description of
method and location where the vent
stream is introduced into the
combustion zone.
(D) For a flare, the design analysis
shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
and flow rate. The design analysis shall
also consider the requirements specified
in § 265.l033(d).
(E) For a condenser, the design
analysis shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
flow rate, relative humidity, and
temperature. The design analysis shall
also establish the design outlet organic
compound concentration level, design
average temperature of the condenser
exhaust vent stream, and design average
temperatures of the coolant fluid at the
condenser inlet and outlet.
(F) For a carbon adsorption system
such as a Fixed-bed adsorber that
regenerates the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device, the design
analysis shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
flow rate, relative humidity, and
temperature. The design analysis shall
also establish the design exhaust vent
stream organic compound concentration
level, number and capacity of carbon
beds, type and working capacity of
activated carbon used for carbon beds,
design total steam flow over the period
of each complete carbon bed
regeneration cycle, duration of the
carbon bed steaming and cooling/drying
cycles, design carbon bed temperature
after regeneration, design carbon bed
regeneration time, and design service
life of carbon,
(G) For a carbon adsorption system
such as a carbon canister that does not
regenerate the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device, the design
analysis shall consider the vent stream
composition, constituent concentrations,
flow rate, relative humidity, and
temperature. The design analysis shall
also establish the design outlet organic
concentration level, capacity of carbon
bed, type and working capacity of
activated carbon used for carbon bed,
and design carbon replacement interval
based on the total carbon working
capacity of the control device and
source operating schedule,
(iv) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying that the
operating parameters used in the design
analysis reasonably represent the
conditions that exist when the
hazardous waste management unit is or
would be operating at the highest load
or capacity level reasonably expected to
occur.
(v) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying that the
control device is designed to operate at
an efficiency of 93 percent or greater
unless the total organic concentration
limit of § 265.1032(a) is achieved at an
efficiency less than 95 weight percent or
the total organic emission limita of
{ 26S.1032(a) for affected process vents
at the facility can be attained by a
control device involving vapor recovery
at an efficiency less than 95 weight
percent. A statement provided by the
control device manufacturer or vendor
certifying that the control equipment
meets the design specifications may be
used to comply with this requirement.
-------
25512 Federal Register. / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules'and Regulations
(vi) If performance tests are used to
demonstrate compliance, all test results.
.... (c) Design documentation and
monitoring, operating, and inspection
information for each closed-vent system
and control device required to comply
with the provisions of this part shall be
recorded and kept up-to-date in the
facility operating record. The
information shall include:
(1] Description and date of each
modification that is made to the closed-
vent system or control device design.
(2] Identification of operating
parameter, description of monitoring
device, and diagram of monitoring
sensor location or locations used to
comply with § 265.1033(0(1) and (fj(2).
(3) Monitoring, operating and
inspection information required by
paragraphs (Q through (j) of § 265.1033.
(4) Date, time, and duration of each
period that occurs while the control
device is operating when any monitored
parameter exceeds the value established
in the control device design analysis as
specified below:
(i) For a thermal vapor incinerator
designed to operate with a minimum
residence time of 0.50 seconds at a
minimum temperature of 760 "C. period
when the combustion temperature is
below 780 *CL
(ii) For a thermal vapor incinerator
designed to operate with an organic
emission reduction efficiency of 95
percent or greater, period when the
combustion zone temperature is more
than 28 *C below the design average
combustion zone temperature
established as a requirement of
paragraph (b)(4){iii]{ A) of this section.
(iii) For a catalytic vapor incinerator,
period when:
(A) Temperature of the vent stream at
the catalyst bed inlet is more than 28 "C
below the average temperature of the
inlet vent stream established as a
requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) of
this section: or
(B) Temperature difference across the
catalyst bed is less than 80 percent of
the design average temperature
difference established as a requirement
of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) of this section.
(iv) For a boiler or process heater.
period when:
(A) Flame zone temperature is more
than 28 *C below the design average
flame zone temperature established as a
requirement of paragraph (b](4)(iii)(C) of
this section; or
(B) Position changes where the vent
stream is introduced to the combustion
zone from the location established as a
requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) of
this section.
(v) For a flare, period when the pilot
flame is not ignited.
(vi] For a condenser that complies
with § 265.1033(0(2)(vi)(AJ, period when
the organic compound concentration
level or readings of organic compounds
in the exhaust vent stream from the
condenser are more than 20 percent
greater than the design outlet organic
compound concentration level
established as a requirement of
paragraph fb)(4)(iii](E] of this section.
(vii) For a condenser that complies
with I 265.1033lf)(2)(vi)(B), period wlwn;
(A) Temperature of the exhaust vent
stream from the condenser is more than
6 *C above the design average exhaust
vent stream temperature established as
a requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(E)
of this section; or
(B) Temperature of the coolant fluid
exiting the condenser is more than 6 "C
above the design average coolant fluid
temperature at the condenser outlet
established as a requirement of
paragraph (b](4)(iii)(E) of this section.
(viu) For a carbon adsorption system
such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber
that regenerates the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device and
complies with i 265.1033(f)(2)(viJ)(A)..
period when the organic compound
concentration level or readings of
organic compounds in the exhaust vent
stream from the carbon bed are more
than 20 percent greater than the design
exhaust vent stream organic compound •
concentration level established as a
requirement of paragraph (b)(4)(iii](F] of
this section.
(ix] For a carbon adsorption system
such as a fixed-bed carbon adsorber
that regenerates the carbon bed directly
onsite in the control device and
complies with 5 265.:033(f)(2)(vii)(B),
period when the vent stream continues
to flow through the control device
beyond the predetermined carbon bed
regeneration time established as a
requirement of paragraph [b)(4)(iii)(F] of
this section.
(5) Explanation for each period
recorded under paragraph (3) of the
cause for control device operating
parameter exceeding the design value
and the measures implemented to
correct the control device operation.
(6) For carbon adsorption systems
operated subject to requirements
specified in § 265.1033(g) or
! 265.1033(h)(2), date when existing
carbon in the control device is replaced
with fresh carbon,
{7} For carbon adsorption systems
operated subject to requirements
specified in § 285.1033(h)(l], a log that
records:
(i) Date and time when control device :
is monitored for carbon breakthrough
and the monitoring device reading.
(ii) Date when existing carbon in the
control device is replaced with fresh
carbon.
(B) Date of each control device startup
and shutdown.
(d) Records of the monitoring,
operating, and inspection information
required by paragraphs (c)(3) through
(c)(8) of this section need be kept only 3
years.
(e) For a control device other than a
thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic
vapor incinerator, flare, boiler, process
heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption
system, monitoring and inspection
information indicating proper operation
and maintenance of the control device
must be recorded in the facility
operating record. •
(f) Up-to-date information and data
used to determine whether or not a
process vent is subject to the
requirements in § 265.1032 including
supporting documentation as required
by S 285.1034(d)(2) when application of
the knowledge of the nature of the
hazardous waste stream or the process
by which it was produced is used, shall
be recorded in a log that is kept in the
facility operating record.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0195)
§§ 265.103ft-265.1049 {Reserved]
18.40 CFR part 265 is amended by
adding subpart BB to read as follows:
Subpart BB—Air Emission Standard* for
Equipment Leak*
285.1050 Applicability.
265.1051 Definitions.
285.1052 Standards: Pumps in light liquid
service.
265.1053 Standards: Compressors.
265.1054 Standards: Pressure relief devices In
gas/vapor service.
265.1055 Standards: Sampling connecting
lyslema.
26S.1056 Standards: Open-ended valves or
line*.
265.1057 Standards: Valves in gas/vapor
service or in light liquid service.
265.1058 Standards: Pumps and valves in
heavy liquid service, pressure relief devices
in light liquid or heavy liquid service, and
flanges and other connectors.
265.1059 Standards: Delay of repair.
265.1060 Standards: Closed-vent systems and
control devices.
265.1061 Alternative standards for valves in
gas/vapor service or in light liquid service:
percentage of valves allowed to leak.
265.1062 Alternative standards for valves in
gas/vapor service or in light liquid service:
skip period leak detection and repair.
285.1063 Test methods and procedures.
265.1064 Recordkeepmg requirement*.
285.1065-265.1079 (Reserved)
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25513
Subpart BB—Air Emission Standards
for Equipment Leaks
§265.10SO Applicability.
(a) The regulations in this subpart
apply to owners and operators of
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes (except as provided
in § 265.1).
(b) Except as provided in f 265.1064(j),
this subpart applies to equipment that
contains or contacts hazardous wastes
with organic concentrations of at least
10 percent by weight that are managed
in;
(1) Units that are subject to the
permitting requirements of part 270, or
(2) Hazardous waste recycling units
that are located on hazardous waste
management facilities otherwise subject
to the permitting requirements of part
270.
(c) Each piece of equipment to which
this subpart applies shall be marked in
such a manner that it can be
distinguished readily from other pieces
of equipment.
(d) Equipment that is in vacuum
service is excluded from the
requirements of J 265.1052 to { 265.1060
if it is identified as required in
i 265,1084(gJ(5).
(Note: The requirements of i i 285.1052
through 265.10W apply to equipment
associated with hazardous waste recycling
units previously exempt under paragraph
26l.6(c)(l). Other exemptions under !i 261.4,
282.34, and 265.1(c) are not affected by these
requirement*,]
5 265.1051 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms shall
have the meaning given them in
I 264.1031, the Act, and parts 260-206.
§265.1052 Standards: Pumps in light Rqukl
service.
(a)(l) Each pump in light liquid service
shall be monitored monthly to detect
leaks by the methods specified in
5 265.1063(b), except as provided in
paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this
section.
(2) Each pump in light liquid service
shall be checked by visual inspection
each calendar week for indications of
liquids dripping from the pump seal,
(b)(l) If an instrument reading of
10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a
leak is detected.
(2) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal, a leak is .
detected,
(c)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in
§ 265.1058.
(2) A first attempt at repair {e.g..
tightening the packing gland) shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(d) Each pump equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a), provided
the following requirements are met:
(1) Each dual mechanical seal system
must be;
(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is at ail times greater than
the pump stuffing box pressure, or
(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid
degassing reservoir that is connected by
a closed-vent system to a control device
that complies with the requirements of
§ 265.1080, or
(Hi) Equipped with a system that
purges the barrier fluid into a hazardous
waste stream with no detectable
emissions to the atmosphere.
(2) The barrier fluid system must not
be a hazardous waste with organic
concentrations 10 percent or greater by
weight.
(3) Each barrier fluid system must be
equipped with a sensor that will detect
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system or both.
(4) Each pump must be checked by
visual inspection, each calendar week.
for indications of liquids dripping from
the pump seals.
(5)(i) Each sensor as described in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section must be
checked daily or be equipped with an
audible alarm that must be checked
monthly to ensure that it is functioning
properly.
(ii) The owner or operator must
determine, based on design
considerations and operating
experience, a criterion that indicates
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system, or both.
(6)(i) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal or the
sensor indicates failure of the seal
system, the barrier fluid system, or both
based on the criterion determined in
paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section, a leak
is detected.
(ii) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in
{ 265.1059.
(Hi) A first attempt at repair (e.g.,
relapping the seal) shall be made no
later than 5 calendar days after each
leak is detected.
(e) Any pump that is designated, as
described in { 265.1064(g)(2), for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a), (c). and
(d) of this section if the pump meets the
following requirements:
(1) Must have no externally actuated '
shaft penetrating the pump housing.
(2) Must operate with no detectable
emissions as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background as measured by the
methods specified in § 265.l063(c).
(3) Must be tested for compliance with
paragraph (a)(2) of this section initially
upon designation, annually, and at other
times as requested by the Regional
Administrator.
(f) If any pump is equipped with a
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal or seals to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
f 285.1060, it is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through
(e) of this section.
§ 265.1053 Standard*: Compressors.
(a) Each- compressor shall be equipped
with a seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system and that prevents
leakage of total organic emissions to the
atmosphere, except as provided in
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section.
(b) Each compressor seal system as
required in paragraph (a) of this section
shall be:
(1) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is at all times greater than
the compressor stuffing box pressure, or
(2) Equipped with a barrier fluid
system that is connected by a closed-
vent system to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
i 265.1060, or
(3) Equipped with a system that
purges the barrier fluid into a hazardous
waste stream with no detectable
emissions to atmosphere.
(c) The barrier fluid must not be a
hazardous waste with organic
concentrations 10 percent or greater by
weight.
(d) Each barrier fluid system as
described in paragraphs (a) through (c)
of this section shall be equipped with a
sensor that will detect failure of the seal
system, barrier fluid system, or both.
(e)(l) Each sensor as required in
paragraph (d) of this section shall be
checked daily or shall be equipped with
an audible alarm that must be checked
monthly to ensure that it is functioning
properly unless the compressor is
located within the boundary of an
unmanned plant site, in which case the
sensor must be checked daily.
(2) The owner or operator shall
determine, based on design
considerations and operating
experience, a criterion that indicates
-------
25514 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system or both.
(f) If the sensor indicates failure of the
seal system, the barrier fluid system, or
both based on the criterion determined
under paragraph (e)(2) of this section, a
leak is detected.
(g)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in
§265.1059.
(2) A first attempt at repair (e.g.,
tightening the packing gland) shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(h) A compressor is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section if it is equipped with a
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal to a control device that complies
with the requirements of S 265.1060,
except as provided in paragraph (i) of .
fhis section.
(i) Any compressor that is designated,
as described in § 295.l064(g)(2), for no
detectable emission as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm.
above background is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through
(h) of this section if the compressor:
(1) Is determined to be operating with
no detectable emissions, as indicated by
an instrument reading of less than 500
ppra above-background, as measured by
the method specified in § 265.1063(c). .
(2) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (i)(l) of this section initially
upon designation, annually, and at other
times as requested by the Regional • .-
Administrator.
§285.1054 Standards: Pressure relief
device* In gas/vapor Mrvlc*.
(a) Except during pressure releases,
each pressure relief device in gas/vapor
service shall be operated with no
detectable emissions, as Indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, as measured by the
method specified in § 265.1063(c).
(b)(l) After each pressure release, the
pressure relief device shall be returned
to a condition of no detectable
emissions, as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background, as soon as practicable, but
no later than 5 calendar days after each
pressure release, except as provided in
S 265.1059.
(2) No later than 5 calendar days after
the pressure release, the pressure relief
device shall be monitored to confirm the
condition of no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
. less than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by the method specified in -
§ 285.1063(cJ.
(c) Any pressure relief device that is
equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
leakage from the pressure relief device
to a control device as described in
! 205.1060 is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section.
1265.1055 Standards: Sampling
connecting systems.
(a) Each sampling connection system-
shall be equipped with a closed-purge
system or closed-vent system.
(b) Each closed-purge system or
closed-vent system as required in
paragraph (a) shall:
(1) Return the purged hazardous waste
stream directly to the hazardous waste
management process line with no
detectable emissions to atmosphere, or
(2) Collect and recycle the purged
hazardous waste stream wjth no
detectable emissions to atmosphere, or
(3) Be designed and operated to
capture and transport all the purged
hazardous waste stream to a control
device that complies with the.
requirements of { 265.1060, . .
(c) In situ sampling systems are
exempt from the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
§285.1056 Standard* Open-ended valves
orHnes.
(a)(l) Each open-ended valve or line
shall be equipped with a cap, blind
flange, plug, or a second valve.
(2) The cap, blind flange, plug, or •
second valve shall seal die open end at
all times except during operations
requiring hazardous waste stream flow.
through the open-ended valve or line,
(b) Each open-ended valve or line
equipped with a second valve shall be
operated in a manner such that the
valve on the hazardous waste stream
end is closed before the second valve is
dosed.
(c) When a double block and bleed
system is being used, the bleed valve or
line may remain open during operations
that require venting the line between the
block valves but shall comply with
paragraph (a) of this section at all other
times.
§ 285.1057 Standard*: Valves hi gas/vapor
service or In light liquid service.
(a) Each valve in gas/vapor or light
liquid service shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by the methods
specified in i 285.10G3(b) and shall
comply with paragraphs (b) through (e)
of this section, except as provided in
paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this
section' and §} 265.1061 and 285.1062.
(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected. -
(c)(l) Any valve for which a leak is
not detected for two successive months-
may be monitored the first month of
every succeeding quarter, beginning
with the next quarter, until a leak is
detected.
(2) If a leak is detected, the valve shall
be monitored monthly until a leak is not
detected for 2 successive months.
(d)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
no later than 15 calendar days after the
leak is detected, except as provided in
! 265.1059.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(e) First attempts at repair include, but
are not limited to, the following best
practices where practicable:
(1) Tightening of bonnet bolts.
(2) Replacement of bonnet bolts.
(3) Tightening of packing gland nuts.
(4) Injection of lubricant into
lubricated packing.
(f) Any valve that is designated, as
described in i 265.1064(g}(2), for no .
detectable emissions,'as indicated by an •
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from die
requirements of paragraph (a) of this •_: ."
section if the valve: "• " " ''..' •"•
(1) Has no external actuating •-
mechanism in contact with the •
hazardous waste stream. • •
(2) Is operated with emissions less ' ,
than 500 ppm above background as
determined by the method specified in':' "
§ 285,1063(e). ;
(3) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (f}(2) of this section initially
upon designation, annually, and at other
times as requested by the Regional
Administrator.
(g) Any valve that is designated, as
described in ! 265.1064(h)(l). as an
unsafe-to-monitor valve is exempt from
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section if: , ....
(1) The owner or operator of the valve
determines that the valve is unsafe to
monitor because monitoring personnel
would be exposed to an immediate
danger as a consequence of complying
with paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) The owner or operator of the valve
adheres to a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve as frequently as
practicable during safe-to-monitor times.
(h) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 265.1064(h){2}, as a
difficult-to-monitor valve is exempt from
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section if:
(1) The owner or operator of the valve
determines that the valve cannot be
monitored without elevating the
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25515
monitoring personnel more than 2
meters above a support surface.
(2) The hazardous waste management
unit within which the valve is located
was in operation before June 21,1990.
(3) The owner or operator of the valve
follows a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve at least once per
calendar year.
§ 265.10S9 Standards: Pumps and valves
in heavy liquid service, pressure relief
devices In light liquid or heavy liquid
service, and flanges and other connectors.
(a) Pumps and valves in heavy liquid
service, pressure relief devices in light
liquid or heavy liquid service, and
flanges and other connectors shall be
monitored within 5 days by the method
specified in § 26S,1063(b) if evidence of
a potential leak is found by visual,
audible, olfactory, or any other
detection method.
(bl 1* an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(c)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than IS calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in
§ 285.1059.
(2) The first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(d) First attempts at repair include,
but are not limited to, the best practices
described under § 265.1057(e).
§265.1059 Standards; Delay of repair.
(a) Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed if the repair is technically
infeasible without a hazardous waste
management unit shutdown. In such a
case, repair of this equipment shall
occur before the end of the next
hazardous waste management unit
shutdown.
(b) Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed for equipment that is isolated
from the hazardous waste management
unit and that does not continue to
contain or contact hazardous waste with
organic concentrations at least 10
percent by weight.
(c) Delay of repair for valves will be
allowed if:
(1) The owner or operator determines
that emissions of purged material
resulting from immediate repair are
greater than the emissions likely to
result from delay of repair.
(2) When repair procedures are
effected, the purged material is collected
and destroyed or recovered in a control
device complying with 5 265.1060.
(d) Delay of repair for pumps will be
allowed if:
(1) Repair requires the use of a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system.
(2) Repair is completed as soon as
practicable, but not later than 6 months
after the leak was detected.
(e) Delay of repair beyond a
hazardous waste management unit
shutdown will be allowed for a valve if
valve assembly replacement is
necessary during the hazardous waste
management unit shutdown, valve
assembly supplies have been depleted,
and valve assembly supplies had been
sufficiently stocked before the supplies
were depleted. Delay of repair beyond
the next hazardous waste management
unit shutdown will not be allowed
unless the next hazardous waste
management unit shutdown occurs
sooner than 6 months after the first
hazardous waste management unit
shutdown.
§ 255.1060 Standards: Closed-vent
systems and control devices.
Owners or operators of closed-
vent systems and control devices shall
comply with the provisions of
§ 265.1033.
§ 265.1061 Alternative standards for
valves In gat/vapor service or in light liquid
service: percentage of valves allowed to
leak.
(a) An owner or operator subject to
the requirements of § 265.1057 may elect
to have all valves within a hazardous
waste management unit comply with an
alternative standard which allows no
greater than 2 percent of the valves to
leak,
(b) The following requirements shall
be met if an owner or operator decides
to comply with the alternative standard
of allowing 2 percent of valves to leak;
(1) An owner or operator must notify
the Regional Administrator that the
owner or operator has elected to comply
with the requirements of this section.
(2} A performance test as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section shall be
conducted initially upon designation,
annually, and at other times requested
by the Regional Administrator.
(3) If a valve leak is detected, it shall
be repaired in accordance with
§ 265.1057 (d) and (e).
(c) Performance tests shall be
conducted in the following manner:
(1) All valves subject to the
requirements in § 265.1057 within the
hazardous waste management unit shall
be monitored within 1 week by the
methods specified in § 265.l063(b).
(2) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(3) The leak percentage shall be
determined by dividing the number of
valves subject to the requirements in
I 265.1057 for which leaks are detected
by the total number of valves subject to
the requirements in | 265.105" within the
hazardous waste management unit.
(d) If an owner or operator decides no
longer to comply with this section, the
owner or operator must notify the
Regional Administrator in writing that
the work practice standard described in
§ 265.1057 (a) through (e) will h?
followed.
§ 265.1052 Alternative standards for
valves In gas/vapor service or in HgM '
servlca: skip period leak detection »na
repair.
(a)(l) An owner or operator sub«* * «o
the requirements of 5 265.1057 m*> • » '
for all valves within a hazardous »*i t
management unit to comply with onr of
the alternative work practices tptuf rS
in paragraphs (b) (2) and (3) of ih*i
section,
(2) An owner or operator must noi.fj
the Regional Administrator befort
implementing one of the alternative
work practices.
(b)(l) An owner or operator shall
comply with the requirements for
valves, as described in 5 265.1057,
except as described in paragraphs (b)|2)
and (b)[3) of this section.
(2) After two consecutive quarterly
leak detection periods with the
percentage of valves leaking equal to or
less than 2 percent an owner or
operator may begin to skip one of the
quarterly leak detection periods for the
valves subject to the requirements in
5 265.1057.
(3) After five consecutive quarterly
leak detection periods with the
percentage of valves leaking equal to or
less than 2 percent, an owner or
operator may begin to skip three of the
quarterly leak detection periods for the
valves subject to the requirements in
I 265.1057.
(4) If the percentage of valves leaking
is greater than 2 percent, the owner or
operators hall monitor monthly in
compliance with the requirements in
§ 265.1057, but may again elect to use
this section after meeting the
requirements of 5 265.1057(c)(l).
§ 265.1063 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the test methods and
procedures requirements provided in
this section.
(b) Leak detection monitoring, a»
required in §5 285.1052-265.1062. shall
comply with the following requirements:
(1) Monitoring shall comply with
Reference Method 21 in 40 CFR Part 60.
-------
25516 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. }une 21. 1990 / Ruies and Regulations
(2) The detection Instrument shall
meet the performance criteria of
Reference Method 21.
(3) The instrument shall be calibrated
before use on each day of its use by the
procedures specified in Reference
Method 21.
(4) Calibration gases shall be:
(i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of
hydrocarbon in air).
(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane
and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than, 10.000 ppm
methane or n-hexane. .
(5) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21.
(c) When equipment is tested for
compliance with no detectable
emissions, as required in ff 265.1052(e),
285.1053(0, 265.1054, and 265.1057(f), the
test shall comply with the following
requirements:
(1} The requirements of paragraphs (b)
(1) through (4) of this section shall apply.
(2) The background level shall be
determined, as set forth in Reference
Method 21. -
(3) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21, :•••••
(4) The arithmetic difference between
the maximum concentration indicated
by the instrument and the background
level is compared with 500 ppm for
determining compliance. , ;
(d) In accordance with the waste *
analysis plan required by i 26S.l3(b). an
owner or operator of a facility must
determine, for each piece of equipment,
whether the equipment contains or
contacts a hazardous waste with
organic concentration that equals or
exceeds 10 percent by weight using the
following: -
(1) Methods described in ASTM
Methods D 2287-68. E 169-87, E168-68.
E 260-85 (incorporated by reference •
under § 280.11);
(2) Method 9080 or 8240 of SW-848
(incorporated by reference under
8 260.11); or
(3) Application of the knowledge of
the nature of the hazardous waste
stream or the process by which it was
produced. Documentation of a waste
determination by knowledge is required.
Examples of documentation that shall
be used to support a determination
under this provision include production
process information documenting that
no organic compounds are used,,
information that the waste is generated
by a process that is identical to a
process at the same or another facility
that has previously been demonstrated
by direct measurement to have a total
organic content less than 10 percent, or
prior speciation analysis results on the
same waste stream where it can also be
documented that no process changes
have occurred since that analysis that
could affect the waste total organic
concentration.
(e) If an owner or operator determines
that a piece of equipment contains or
contacts a hazardous waste with __
organic concentrations at least 10
percent by weight the determination
can be revised only after following the
procedures in paragraph (d)(l) or (d)(2)
of this section.
(f) When an owner or operator and
the Regional Administrator do not agree
on whether a piece of equipment
contains or contacts a hazardous waste
with organic concentrations at least 10
percent by weight the procedures in
paragraph (d)(l) or (d)(2) of this section
can be used to resolve the dispute.
(g) Samples used in determining the
percent organic content shall be
representative of the highest total
organic content hazardous waste that is
expected to be contained in or contact ..
the equipment. •. •
(h) To determine if pumps or valves
are in light liquid service, the vapor
pressures of constituents may be
obtained from standard reference texts
or may be determined by ASTM D-
2879-80 (incorporated by reference
under 1280,11).
(i) Performance tests to determine if a
control device achieves 95 weight
percent organic emission reduction shall
comply with the procedures of ,
i 265.1034 (c)(l) through (c)(4).
§ 265.1064 Recordkeeping requirement*.
(a)(l) Each owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of this section.
(2) An owner or operator of more than
one hazardous waste management unit
subject to the provisions of this subpart
may comply with the recordkeeping
requirements for these hazardous waste
management units in one recordkeeping
system if the system identifies each
record by each hazardous waste
management unit
(b) Owners and operators must record
the following information in the facility
operating record:
(1) For each piece of equipment to
which subpart BB of part 265 applies:
(i) Equipment identification number
and hazardous waste management unit.
identification.
(ii) Approximate locations within the
facility (e.g., identify the hazardous •
waste management unit on a facility plot
plan).
(iii) Type of equipment (e.g., a pump or
pipeline valve).
(iv) Percent-by-weight total organics
in the hazardous waste stream at the
equipment.
(vj Hazardous waste state at the
equipment (e.g., gas/vapor or liquid).
(vij Method of compliance with the
standard (e.g., "monthly leak detection
and repair" or "equipped with dual
mechanical seals").
(2) For facilities that comply with the
provisions of § 265.1033(a)(2). an
implementation schedule as specified in
I 265.1033(a)(2).
(3) Where an owner or operator
chooses to use test data to demonstrate
the organic removal efficiency or total
organic compound concentration
achieved by the control device, a
performance test plan as specified in
i 265.1035(b)(3).
(4) Documentation of compliance with
f 285.1060, including the detailed design
documentation or performance test
results specified in § 265.l035(b)(4).
(c) When each leak is detected as
specified in | § 265.1052,265.1953,
265.1057, and 285.1058, the following
requirements apply:
(1) A weatherproof and readily visible .
identification, marked with the -
equipment identification number, the
date evidence of a potential leak was
found in accordance with I 255.1058(a),
and the date the leak was detected.
shall be attached to the leaking
equipment •
(2) The identification on equipment,
except on a valve, may be removed after
it has been repaired.
(3) The identification on a valve may
be removed after it has been monitored
for 2 successive months as specified in
5 265.1057(c) and no leak has been
detected during those 2 months,
(d) When each leak is detected as
specified in § J 265.1052.265.1053,
265.1057, and 265.1058, the following
information shall be recorded in an
inspection log and shall be kept in the
facility operating record:
(1) The instrument and operator
identification numbers and the
equipment identification number,
(2) The date evidence of a potential
leak was found in accordance with
§ 265.1058(a).
(3) The date the leak was detected
and the dates of each attempt to repair
the leak. .
(4) Repair methods applied in each
attempt to repair the leak.
(5) "Above 10,000" if the maximum
instrument reading measured by the
methods specified in § 265.l063(b) after
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday. June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25317
each repair attempt is equal to cr greater
than 10,000 ppm.
(6) "Repair delayed" and the reason
for the delay if a leak is not repaired
within 15 calendar days after discovery
of the leak.
(7) Documentation supporting the
delay of repair of a valve in compliance
with § 265.1Q59(c).
(8) The signature of the owner or
operator (or designate) whose decision
it was that repair could not be effected
without a hazardous waste management
unit shutdown.
(9) The expected date of successful
repair of the leak if a teak is not
repaired within 15 calendar days.
(10) The date of successful repair of
the leak.
(e) Design documentation and
monitoring, operating, and inspection
information for each closed-vent system
and control device required to comply
with the provisions of | 265.1060 shall
be recorded and kept up-to-date in the
facility operating record as specified in
I 265.1035(c). Design documentation is
specified in § 265.1035 (c)(l) and (c)(2)
and monitoring, operating, and
inspection information in | 265.1035
(c)(3Hc)(8).
(fj For a control device other than a
thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic
vapor incinerator, flare, boiler, process
heater, condenser, or carbon adsorption
system, monitoring and inspection
information indicating proper operation
and maintenance of the control device
must be recorded in the facility
operating record.
(g) The following information
pertaining to all equipment subject to
the requirements in §§ 265.1052 through
265.1060 shall be recorded in a log that
is kept in the facility operating record;
(1) A list of identification numbers for
equipment (except welded fittings)
subject to the requirements of this
subpart.
[2)(i) A list of identification numbers
for equipment that the owner or
operator elects to designate for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, under the provisions
of §§ 265.1052{e), 265.1053fj). and
265.1057(f).
(ii) The designation of this equipment
as subject to the requirements of
§§ 263.1052(e), 265.1053(i), or 265.1057(f)
shall be signed by the owner or
operator.
(3) A list of equipment identification
numbers for pressure relief devices
required to comply with § 265.1054(a).
(4)(i) The dates of each compliance
test required in |§ 265.1052(e),
265.10530), 265.1054, and 265.1057(f).
(ii) The background level measured
during each compliance test.
(iii) The maximum instrument reading
measured at the equipment during each
compliance test,
(5) A list of identification numbers for
equipment in vacuum service.
(h) The following information
pertaining to all valves subject to the
requirements of | 265.1057 (g) and (h)
shall be recorded in a log that is kept in
the facility operating record:
(1), A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as unsafe to
monitor, an explanation for each valve
stating why the valve is unsafe to
monitor, and the plan for monitoring
each valve.
(2) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as difficult to
monitor, an explanation for each valve
stating why the valve is difficult to
monitor, and the planned schedule for
monitoring each valve.
(i) The following information shall be
recorded in the facility operating record
for valves complying with | 285.1062:
(1) A schedule of monitoring.
(2) The percent of valves found
leaking during each monitoring period.
(j) The following information shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in the
facility operating record:
(1) Criteria required in
§ | 265.1052(d)(5)(ii) and 26S.1053(e)(2)
and an explanation of the criteria.
(2) Any changes to these criteria and
the reasons for the changes.
(k) The following information shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in the
facility operating record for use in
determining exemptions as provided in
the applicability section of this subpart
and other specific subparts:
(1) An analysis determining the design
capacity of the hazardous waste
management unit
(2) A statement listing the hazardous
waste influent to and effluent from each
hazardous waste management unit
subject to the requirements in
§§ 265.1052 through 265.1060 and an
analysis determining whether these
hazardous wastes are heavy liquids.
(3) An up-to-date analysis and the
supporting information and data used to
determine whether or not equipment is
subject to the requirements in
II 265.1052 through 265.1060. The record
shall include supporting documentation
as required by § 265,1063(d)(3) when
application of the knowledge of the
nature of the hazardous waste stream or
the process by which it was produced is
used. If the owner or operator takes any
action (e.g., changing the process that
produced the waste) that could result in
an increase in the total organic content
of the waste contained in or contacted
by equipment determined not to be
subject to the requirements in
II 265.1052 through 265.1060, then a new
determination is required.
(1) Records of the equipment leak
information required by paragraph (d) of
this section and the operating
information required by paragraph (c) of
this section nsed be kept only 3 years.
(m) The owner or operator of any
facility that is subject to this subpart
and to regulations at 40 CFR part 60,
Bubpart VV, or 40 CFR part 61, subpart
V, may elect to determine compliance
with this subpart by documentation
either pursuant to i 265.1064 of this
subpart, or pursuant to those provisions
of 40 CFR part 60 or 61, to the extent
that the documentation under the
regulation at 40 CFR part 60 or part 81
duplicates the documentation required
under this subpart. The documentation
under the regulation at 40 CFR part 60 or
part 61 shall be kept with or made
readily available with the facility
operating record.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0195}
§§265.1065-265.1071 [Reserved]
PART 270—EPA-ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
19. The authority citation for part 270
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912. 8921-6927.
6930.6934,8935. 6937-6939. and 6974.
Subpart B—Permit Application
20. Section 270.14 is amended by
revising the last sentence of paragraph
(b)(5) and by revising paragraphs (b)(8)
(iv), (v), and by adding paragraph
(b)(8)(vi) to read as follows:
§270.14 Content* of Part B: General
require m»nt»
* * * » *
(b) * * •
(5) * * * Include, where applicable,
as part of the inspection schedule,
specific requirements in § 1264.174,
264.193(i), 264.195, 264.226, 264.254.
264.273, 264.303, 264.602, 264.1033,
264.1052,264.1053, and 264.1058.
(8) " * *
(iv) Mitigate effects of equipment
failure and power outages;
(v) Prevent undue exposure of
personnel to hazardous waste (for
example, protective clothing); and
(vi) Prevent releases to atmosphere.
-------
25518 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 120 / Thursday. }une 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Section 270.24 is added to read as
follows:
§ 270.24 Specific Part B information
requirements (or process vents.
Except aa otherwise provided in
1 264.1, owners and operators of
facilities that have process vents to
which aubpart AA of part 264 applies
must provide the following additional
information:
(a) For facilities that cannot install a
closed-vent system and control device
to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR
264 subpart AA on the effective date
that the facility becomes subject to the
provisions of 40 CFR 284 or 265 subpart
AA, an implementation schedule as
specified in § 264.1033(a)(2).
(b) Documentation of compliance with
the process vent standards in § 284,1032,
including:
(1) Information and data identifying
all affected process vents, annual
throughput and operating hours of each
affected unit, estimated emission rates
for each affected vent and for the
overall facility (i.e., the total emissions
for all affected vents at the facility), and
the approximate location within the
facility of each affected unit (e.g.*
identify the hazardous waste
management units on a facility plot
plan). ; /
(2) Information and data supporting
estimates of vent emissions and
emission reduction achieved by add-on
control devices based on engineering
calculations or source tests. For the
purpose of determining compliance,
estimates of vent-emissions and
emission reductions must be made using
operating parameter values (e.g..
temperatures, flow rates, or
concentrations) that represent the
conditions that exist when the waste
management unit Is operating at the
highest load or capacity level
reasonably expected to occur.
(3) Information and data used to
determine whether or not a process vent
is subject to the requirements of
§ 2S4.1032.
(c) Where an owner or operator
applies for permission to use a control
device other than a thermal vapor
incinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator,
flare, boiler, process heater, condenser.
or carbon adsorption system to comply
with the requirements of § 264.1032, and
chooses to use test data to determine the
organic removal efficiency or the tota!
organic compound concentration
achieved by the control device, a
performance test plan as specified in
§ 284.1035fb)(3).
(d) Documentation of compliance with
! 284.1033. including:
(1) A list of all information references
and sources used in preparing the
documentation.
(2) Records including the dates of
each compliance test required by
| 264.103(k).
(3) A design analysis, specifications.
drawings, schematics, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams based on the
appropriate sections of "APT! Course
415: Control of Gaseous Emissions" __
(incorporated by reference as specified
in § 260,11) or other engineering texts
acceptable to the Regional
Administrator that present basic control
device design information. The design
analysis shall address the vent stream
characteristics and control device
operation parameters as specified in
| 264.103S(b)(4)(iii).
(4) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying that the
operating parameters used in the design
analysis reasonably represent the
conditions that exist when the
hazardous waste management unit is or
would be operating at the highest load
or capacity level reasonably expected to
occur. ..
(S) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying that the
control device is designed to operate at •
an efficiency of OS weight percent or
greater unless the total organic emission
limits of ! 2S4.1032{a) for affected
process vents at the facility can be
attained by a control device Involving
vapor recovery at an efficiency less than
95 weight percent.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0195)
22. Section 270.25 is added as follows:
§270.25 Specific part B information
requirements for equipment
Except as otherwise provided in
§ 264.1, owners and operators of
facilities that have equipment to which
subpart BB of part 264 applies must
provide the following additional
information:
(a) For each piece of equipment to
which subpart BB of part 264 applies:
(If Equipment identification number
and hazardous waste management unit
identification.
(2) Approximate locations within the
facility (e.g.. identify the hazardous
waste management unit on a facility plot
plan).
(3) Type of equipment (e.g., a pump or
pipeline valve).
(4) Percent by weight total organics in
the hazardous waste stream at the
equipment.
(S) Hazardous waste state at the
equipment (e.g., gas/vapor or liquid).
(6) Method of compliance with the
standard (e.g., "monthly leak detection
and repair" or "equipped with dual
mechanical seals").
(b) For facilities that cannot install a
closed-vent system and control device
to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR
264 subpart BB on the effective dale that
the facility becomes subject to the
provisions of 40 CFR 264 or 265 subpart
BB, an implementation schedule as
specified in 5 264.1033(a)(2).
(c) Where an owner or operator
applies for permission to use a control
device other than a thermal vapor
incinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator.
flare, boiler, process heater, condenser,
or carbon adsorption system and
chooses to use test data to determine the
organic removal efficiency or the total
organic compound concentration
achieved by the control device, a
performance test plan as specified in
§ 284.1035(b)(3).
(d) Documentation that demonstrates
compliance with the equipment.
standards in §§ 264.1052 to 264.1059.
This documentation shall contain the
records required under § 264.1064. The
Regional Administrator may request
further documentation before deciding if
compliance has been demonstrated.
(ej Documentation to demonstrate
compliance with § 264.1060 shall include
the following information:
(1) A list of all information references
and sources used in preparing the
documentation.
(2) Records including the dates of
each compliance test required by
f 2S4.1033(j). .
(3) A design analysis, specifications,
drawings, schematics, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams based on the
appropriate sections of "ATP! Course
415: Control of Gaseous Emissions"
(incorporated by reference as specified
in i 260.11) or other engineering texts
acceptable to the Regional
Administrator that present basic control
device design information. The design
analysis shall address the vent stream
characteristics and control device
operation parameters as specified in
! 264.1035(b)(4)(iii).
(4) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying that the
operating parameters used in the design
analysis reasonably represent the
conditions that exist when the
hazardous waste management unit is
operating at the highest load or capacity
level reasonably expected to occur.
(5) A statement signed and dated by
the owner or operator certifying that the
control device is designed to operate at
an efficiency of 95 weight percent or
greater.
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
25513
(Approved by the OKIce of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0915)
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS -
23. The authority citation for part 271
continues to read as follows;
Authority; 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6312(4). and G92B.
Subpart A—Requirements for Final
Authorization
24. Section 271.1(j) is amended by
adding the following entry to Table 1 in
chronological order by date of
publication:
£ 271.1 Purpote and scop*.
(j) * * '
TABLE 1. REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING
THS HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promul-
gation
data
[Ins art
dale of
publi-
cation].
Title of
regulation
Process Vent
and Equipment
Leak Organic
Air Emission
Standards for
C*m«r5 and
Operators of
Hazifdous
Waste
Treatment
Siorega. 2«J
Disposal
FaciM.es.
Federal
Re^sier
. refer-
ence
[Insert
FR
ref-
erence
on
date of
fK,W>-
cation].
Effective
date
[Insert
•tfec-
bve
date.]
[FR Doc. 90-142EO Filed &-20-SO: 8:43 jm|
•iu.ma CODE »5*o-so-n
-------
-------
DIR. No. 9541.00-14
ATTACHMENT B
Consolidated Land Disposal Restrictions Checklist
-------
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST
for the
Land Disposal Restrictions as of June 30, 1990
1) This checklist consolidates the changes to Federal Code addressed by the following Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDR) checklists: Revision Checklist 34 [51 FR 40572 (November 7, 1986), 52
FR 21010 (June 4, 1987)], Revision Checklist 39 [52 FR 25760 (July 8, 1987), 52 FR 41295 (October
27, 1987)], Revision Checklist 50 [53 FR 31138 (August 17, 1988), 54 FR 8264 (February 27, 1989)],
Revision Checklist 62 [54 FR 18836 (May 2, 1989)], Revision Checklist 63 [54 FR 26594 (June 23,
1989)], Revision Checklist 66 [54 FR 36967 (September 6, 1989), 55 FR 23935 (June 13, 1990)], and
Revision Checklist 78 [55 FR 22520 (June 1, 1990)]. The "LDR Checklist Reference" column
indicates which of these checklists have affected each listed citation. Subsequent to promulgation of
the first LDR rule (i.e., the rule addressed by Revision Checklist 34), checklists other than the LDR
checklists have also affected certain sections of code addressed by the LDR checklists. The effects
of these subsequent checklists are indicated in footnotes. Of special note are 270.42(o)&(p) and
270.72(e). In both cases, subsequent checklists, either removed or redesignated these sections of
code. The section numbering found in the associated LDR final rule for these paragraphs is used.
rattier than the new numbering found in the subsequent checklists.
An exception to the footnoting procedure is the effect which the Toxldty Characteristics Rule had on
the TCLP procedure. Because the new TCLP procedure is integral to the Third Third Rule
requirements (see Note 4 below), this change made by Revision Checklist 74, a non-LDR checklist Is
noted in the LDR checklist reference column. An explanatory footnote is also Included.
2) The following Part 268 sections are not detegabte to States because of the national concerns
which must be examined when decisions are made relative to them: 268.5 (case-by-case effective
date extensions); 268.42(b) (application for alternate treatment method); and 268.44 (variance from a
treatment standard). "No migration" petitions under 268.6 will be handled by EPA, even though
States may be authorized to grant such petitions In the future. States have the authority to grant
such petitions under RCRA Section 3006 because such decisions do not require a national
perspective, as Is the case for decisions under 268.5, 268.42(b) or 268.44. However, EPA has had
few opportunities to implement the land disposal restrictions and expects to gain valuable experience
and information from reviewing "no-migration" petitions.
3) In the past, the nondetegabte sections/paragraphs of the LDR regulations have been omitted from
the LDR checklists because States could not assume the authority for them. However, this procedure
has led to confusion among the States on how to handle the sections/paragraphs in their code. For
this reason, the Agency has decided to include these nondetegabte sections on the LDR checklists.
To differentiate these sections from the detegable portions of the LDR restrictions, asterisks precede
(a single row) and follow (a double row) each non-delegabte section, if States have already filled out
a version of this Consolidated Land Disposal Restriction Checklist which does not include the
nondeiegabte sections, they need not fill out a revised version containing these sections. This change
in format was made only to improve clarity.
Page 1 of 68 DLDR.O -12/10/01
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
The Agency suggests that States incorporate the nondelegabte portions of the LDR regulation into
their regulations because this incorporation aids the regulated community in knowing that the
extensions, exemptions and variances addressed by the nondelegable sections of code are available
to them. It is essential, however, that States leave the terms "Administrator", "Federal Register" and
"Agency" unchanged, i.e., States may not substitute analogous State terms for these Federal terms.
Similarly, States incorporating by reference must be careful to exclude these sections from blanket
substitutions of State terms for Federal terms. For a more complete discussion of issues surrounding
nondelagable sections, see Appendix J of the State Authorization Manual (SAM).
4) Note that while 268.40 Is delegabte to States, "Administrator" in the following phrase "Approved by
the Administrator under the procedures set for this in 268.42(b)" should not be replaced with an
analogous State term because it is referring to decisions under 268.42(b). Such decisions will be
made by the EPA Administrator.
5) States do not need to adopt requirements equivalent to 40 CFR 268.10, 268.11, 268.12 and
268.13 because these sections of code contain the schedule by which EPA must evaluate wastes for
land disposal restrictions. As such, these sections of code are not Included in this consolidated
checklist.
6) Note that the Toxiclty Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) referred to by the Third Third
Scheduled Waste Rule is the TCLP entered into the Federal code at 40 CFR 261 Appendix II by the
Toxictty Characteristic Rule (55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990) and amended at 55 FR 26986 (June 29,
1990). (Both the Toxictty Characteristic Rule and the June amendment are addressed by Revision
Checklist 74.) The TCLP procedure previously located at 40 CFR Part 268, Appendix I and
introduced by the Solvents and Dioxins Land Disposal Restrictions Rule (51 FR 40572; November 7,
1986; Revision Checklist 34) is the outdated version of the TCLP. Thus, States adopting the Third
Third Schedule Waste Rule must also adopt the new version of the TCLP. If a State has already
adopted the Revision Checklist 34 TCLP, this version must be replaced with the Revision Checklist 74
TCLP. See Footnote 40.
7) Guidance regarding the use of the new TCLP versus the EP ToxicKy Test may be found at 55 FR
22660 (June 1, 1990). The code (40 CFR 268.40(a) and 268.41 (a)) addressing this issue contains a
serious technical error which is discussed in Footnote 31 found at the end of this checklist
8) Adopting the alternate treatment standards for lab packs is optional. However, If a State chooses
to adopt these alternate standards, all of the requirements related to these standards must be
adopted, including all of the provisions added by the Third Third Scheduled Waste Rule (i.e., Revision
Checklist 78) at 264.316(1), 265.316(1), 268.7(a)(7), 268.7(a)(8), 268.42(c), 268.42(c)(1)-(4), and
Appendices IV and V to Part 268.
Page" 2 of 68 DLDR.B -1 #10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ISlAlt ANALOG IS:
EOUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 260 - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE, SCOPE. AND APPLICABILITY
insert
"and 268"
insert
"and 268"
insert
"and 268"
insert
"and 268"
insert
"and 268"
34
34
34
34
34
260.1 (a)
260.1(b)(1)
260.1 (bU2)
260.1 (b)(3)
260.1 (bW4)
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION: CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
insert
"and 268"
insert
"and 268"
34
34
260.2(a)
260.2(b)
USE OF NUMBER AND GENDER
insert
"and 268"
34
260.3
SUBPART B - DEFINITIONS
DEFINITIONS
insert
"and 268"
34
260.10
REFERENCES
1,2 Parts 260
throuah 270
39
260.11(a)
Page 3 of 68
DLDR.O - 12/10/01
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cort'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CfrfcCK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
if ATE ANALOG IS:
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART C - RULEMAKING PETITIONS
GENERAL
insert
"and 268"
t34
260.20(8)
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
insert
"268,"
Insert
", 268"
34
34
261.1 (a)
261.1 faMD
EXCLUSIONS
insert
"268,"
remove "267"
insert "268"
34
34
261.4(c)
261.4(
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATTON
STATE wxm is
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
RESIDUES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN EMPTY CONTAINERS
insert
"268."
insert
"268,"
34
34
281.7(aM1MH)
2B1.7(a)(2)(il)
SUBPART C - CHARACTERISTICS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERAL
insert
"268,";
remove ", but is not
listed as a hazardous
waste in Subpart D";
change "the EPA"
to "every EPA;
insert "that is
applicable as"
before "set forth";
remove "in the
respective charac-
teristic" before "in
this Subpart"; before
"recordkeeping"
change "certain" to
"all applicable"
34.78
261.20(b)
CHARACTERISTIC OF IGN1TABJL1TY
remove ", but is
not listed as a
hazardous waste
in Subpart D,"
78
261 .2Kb)
CHARACTERISTIC OF CORROSIVITY
remove ", but is
not listed as a
hazardous waste
in Suboart D,*
78
261.22(b)
CHARACTERISTIC OF REACTIVITY
remove ", but is
not listed as a
hazardous waste
in Subpart D,"
78
281.23(b)
Page 5 of 68
OLDR.8 -12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (eont'd}
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
alATe ANALOG is:
SKIRT
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC
4 remove ", but is
not listed as a
hazardous waste
in Suboart D,"
78
261.24(b)
SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
GENERAL
insert
"268."
34
261.30(c)
HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
add the waste
code "F039" In
alphanumeric order
to list
78
261.31
DISCARDED COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, OFF-SPECIFICATION SPECIES,
CONTAINER RESIDUES. AND SPILL RESIDUES THEREOF
5 insert "or {!)"
after "(e)";
change "261.7(b)(3}"
to "261 .7(W"
78
261.33(0)
APPENDIX VII, PART 261
BASIS FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE
add "F039" to list
In alphanumeric order
78
Appendix VII
Page 6 of 68
DLDR.O -12/10/01
'•••**•-,
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CrTATION
51 A It ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 262 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION
In the first sentence,
replace "If* with
"For purposes
of compliance with
40 CFR Part 268, or
if"; remove "as a
hazardous waste"
after "listed"; replace
"of 40 CFR Part 261"
with "of this part";
replace "he must
determine" with
"the generator must
then determine"
reference to
exclusions/
restrictions
78
34
262.11(0)
262.1 1fd)
SUBPART C - PRE-TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS
ACCUMULATION TIME
replace "and with
§265.16" with
", with §265.16,
and with 40 CFR
268.7(a)(4r
78
262.34(aM4)
SUBPART G - FARMERS
FARMERS
6 pesticide disposal
by farmers
t39
262.70
Page 7 of 68
DLDR.9 -12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CtSCK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
51 ATE ANALOG is:
H5RE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 263 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
TRANSFER
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
insert
", 268"
34
263.12
PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART A - GENERAL
7
PURPOSE, SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
facilities to which
Part 264 applies
34
264.1 (h)
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
insert
"Part 268"
revise comment
following paragraph
(a)(2) as follows:
remove "or ail" after
"supply part"; add ",
except as otherwise
specified in
40 CFR 268.7(b)
and (e)." to the
second sentence
insert
"268.7"
exempted surface
impoundment plan
specifications
sampling impound-
ment contents
34
78
34
34
34
264.1 3(aM1)
264.13(a)(2)
264.1 3fbH6)
264.13fb)(7)
264.1 3AM7MD
7,8
Page 8 of 68
DLDRB - 12HO/B1
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
analysis procedures
annual removal
of specific residues;
criteria:
do not meet treatment
standards of Part
268, Subpart D
where no treatment
standards have been
established
prohibited disposal
of residues under
268.32 or
RCRA 3004(d)
prohibited disposal
of residues
under 268.33m
ci-ecK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34,39
50
50
50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.13(b)(7)(ii)
264,13(W(7)fli!)
264.1 3(bM7)(iIiKA)
264.1 3(b)(7HHiXB)
264.13(bH7)(iii)CBH1)
264.1 3fb)(7)(iliHBM2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CrTATION
SIAiE ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART E - MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING
OPERATING RECORD
add "268.4(a)"
and "268.7"
records for each
shipment placed in
units under a 268.5
extension, a 268.6
petition, or a 268.8
certification; 268.7(a)
generator notice
off-site treatment
facility requirements
on-site treatment
facility requirements
off-site land
disposal facility
requirements
on-site land
disposal facility
requirements
off-site storage
facility requirements
34
34.50
34.50
34,50
34.50
34,50
50
264.73(b>(3)
264.73(bK10)
264.73(bM11)
264.73(bM12)
264.73(b)(13)
264.73(b){14)
264.73(b)(15)
Page 9 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/81
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
on-site storage
facility requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.73(bW16)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SI Alb ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN score
SUBPART K - SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IQNJTABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
Insert "the waste
and impoundment satisfy
all applicable require-
ments of 40 CFR Part
268, and" after
"unless"
78
264.229
SUBPART L - WASTE PILES
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
insert "the waste and
waste pile satisfy all
applicable requirements
of 40 CFR Part 268,
and" after "unless"
78
264.256
SUBPART M - LAND TREATMENT
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IQNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
insert the waste and the
treatment zone meet all
applicable requirements
of 40 CFR Part 268,
and" after "unless"
78
264.281
Page 10 of 68
DLDR.8 - 12/10/01
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SIAIB ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART N - LANDFILLS
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
replace "in treated,
rendered, or mixed
before or immediately
after placement in a
landfill so that:" with
"and landfill meet all
applicable requirements
of Part 268, and:"
first sentence and
begin the first
sentence with "Except
for prohibited wastes
which remain subject
to treatment standards
in Subpart D of
Part 268,"
78
78
264.312(8)
264.31 2(b)
t,9
DISPOSAL OF SMALL CONTAINERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN OVERPACKED
DRUMS (LAB PACKS)
add new paragraph
regarding disposal in
compliance with Part
268; requirement for
fiber drums to meet
DOT specifications
and 264.31 6(b)
requirements if
incinerate lab packs
78
264.31 6ffl
Page 11 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPAS
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
SQOI^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROWSER
IN SCOPE
PART 265 - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE. SCOPE. AND APPLICABILITY
facilities to which
Part 265 applies;
Part 268 standards
are material condi-
tions of the 265
standards
34.78
265.1 (e)
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
insert
"Part 268"
revise comment
following subparagraph
(a) (2) as follows:
remove "or all" after
"supply part"; add
", except as otherwise
specified in 40 CFR
268.7(b) and (c)."
to the second
sentence
insert
"268.7"
exempt surface
impoundment plan
specifications
sampling impound-
ment contents
analysis
procedures
annual removal of
specific residues;
criteria:
34
78
34
34
34
34
34,39 ,
50
265.1 3(aM1)
265.1 3(a)(2)
265.1 3fbH6)
285.1 3(b)(7)
265.1 3(b)(7){i)
265.1 3(bK7Hin
265.1 3(b)(7)flm
8
Page 12 of 68
DLDR.B - 12MO/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
do not meet treatment
standards of Part
268, Subpart D
where no treatment
standards have been
established
prohibited disposal
of residues under
268.32 or
RCRA 3004(d)
prohibited disposal
of residues under
268.33(f)
CHECK- —
LIST
REFERENCE
50
SO
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 3(bM7)(lliMA)
265.1 3ft>)(7Mm(B)
265.1 3(bH7)(iiiHBH1)
265.1 3
Page 13 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/81
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPAS
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5 1 Ait ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART K - SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
SPECIAL REQUIREMEN"
insert "the waste
and impoundment satisfy
all applicable require-
ments of 40 CFR Part
268, and* after
"unless"
rs FOR iG
78
NiTABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
265.229
SUBPART L - WASTE PILES
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
insert "the waste and
pile satisfy all
applicable requirements
of 40 CFR Part 268,
and" after "unless"
78
265.256
SUBPART M - LAND TREATMENT
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
Insert "the waste and
treatment zone meet
all applicable require-
ments of 40 CFR
Part 268, and" after
"unless"
78
265.281
Page 14 of 68
DLDR.O - 12/10/01
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-I MORE
ALENTI STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART N - LANDFILLS
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IG
NITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
replace "is treated,
rendered, or mixed
before or immediately
after placement in a
landfill so that:" with
"and landfill meets all
applicable require-
ments of 40 CFR
Part 268. and:"
begin the first
sentence with "Except
for prohibited wastes
which remain subject
to treatment standards
in Subpart D of
Part 268."
78
78
265.312(a)
265.31 2fb)
DISPOSAL OF SMALL CONTAINERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN OVERPACKED
DRUMS (LAB PACKS)
t,9 add new paragraph
regarding disposal in
compliance with Part
268; requirement for
fiber drums to meet
DOT specifications
and 264.31 6(b)
requirements if
incinerate lab packs
78
265.31 6(f)
Page 15 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
aTAit ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 266 - STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES AND
SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
SUBPART C - RECYCLABLE MATERIALS USED IN A MANNER CONSTITUTING DISPOSAL
APPLICABILITY
add language to
reflect that products
for general public's
use are not subject
to regulation If they
meet treatment
requirements of 268
Subpart D or prohibi-
tion levels of 268.32
or 3004(d) where no
treatment standards;
delete the word
"constituent" from
the parenthetical
phrase following
"recyclable material";
add sentence exempting
from regulation
commercial fertilizers
produced for the
general public's use
that contain recyclable
materials; zinc-
containing fertilizers
using K061 not
subject to this
requirement
50.66
266.20(b)
Page 16 of 68
DLOR.0 - 12/10/81
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (corrt'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EJuiv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 268 - LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE. SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
purpose
applicability
conditions for
continued land
disposal:
7 persons with an
extension
7 persons with an
exemption
10 wastes that are
hazardous only
because they exhibit
a hazardous charac-
teristic, and which
are otherwise
prohibited from
land disposal If the
wastes:
disposed into a non-
hazardous or
hazardous injection
well as defined in
40 CFR 144.6(8)
do not exhibit any
prohibited charac-
teristic of hazardous
waste at the point of
injection
1 1 removed
12 removed
preserve waiver
availability under
121(d)(4) of CERCLA
34
34
34,66
34
34
34,39,50
66,78
78
78
34,39
50,66
39,50
78
50
268.1 (a)
268. 1(W
268.1 (c)
268.KCM1)
268.1(c)(2)
268.1 (c)(3)
268.1(0X3)0)
268.1 fc)(3)fli)
268.1 (c)(4)
268.1(c)(5)
268.1 (d)
i
Page 17 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/91
only
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
hazardous wastes
not subject to any
provision of Part 268:
wastes generated by
small quantity
generators of <100 kg
of non-acute hazardous
waste or less than
1 kg of acute
hazardous per month,
as defined in 261.5
waste pesticides
that a farmer disposes
of pursuant to 262.70
wastes identified
or listed as hazardous
after November 8,
1984 for which EPA
has not promulgated
land disposal
prohibitions or treat-
ment standards
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
66
66
66
66
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.1(9)
268.1 (e)(1)
268.1 (eW2)
268.1(e) (3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PART
introductory
paragraph for
definitions
"halogenated
organic compounds"
or "HOCs"
13 "hazardous
constituent or
constituents"
14 "land disposal"
15 "nonwastewaters"
16 "polychlorinated
biohenvls" or "PCBs"
"wastewaters"
"F001, F002, F003
F004, F005 solvent-
water mixtures"
78
39.78
34.78
34.39.78
78
39.78
78
78
268.2
268.2(a)
268.2(b)
268.2(C)
268.2(d)
268.2(e)
268.2OT
268.2(f)(1)
Page 18 of 68
DLDR.B - 12/10/01
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"K011, K013, K014
wastewaters"
"K103 and K104
wastewaters"
"inorganic solid
debris"; specific
inorganic or metal
materials:
metal slaq
classified slag
qlass
concrete
masonry and refractory
bricks
metal cans,
containers, drums or
tanks
metal nuts, bolts,
pipes, pumps, valves,
appliances, or
industrial equipment
scrap metal as defined
in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(6)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.2(W2)
26&2ffU3)
268.2(0)
268.2(a)(1)
26&2(aU2)
268.2(aH3)
268.2(a)(4)
268,2(aH5)
268.2! A IE ANALOG is:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
DILUTION PROHIBITED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR TREATMENT
17 except as provided in
268.3(b), dilution not
substitute for
treatment; restriction
regarding circumven-
tion of effective dates
and avoidance of
prohibition of Subpart
C or RCRA 3004
permissible forms
of dilution related
to sections 307 or
402 of the CWA
34,39,78
78
268.3(a)
268.3(b)
Page 19 of 68
DLDR.O - 12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cort'd)
SPAS
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG 18:
""EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOre
t TREATMENT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT EXEMPTION
7 when prohibited
wastes may be
treated in a surface
impoundment:
7 treatment occurs in
impoundments
soft hammer wastes
in treatment surface
impoundments that
meet a list of
conditions:
sampling and testing
requirements for
wastes with and
without treatment
standards; super-
natant and sludge
samples tested
separately
annual removal of
specific residues;
residues subject to
valid certification;
flow-through standard
of removal for
supernatant
requirements for
subsequent manage-
ment of treatment
residues in another
impoundment; pro-
hibited unless
certification under
268.8 and standards
of 268.8(a) are met
recordkeeplng require-
ments must be specified
in the facility's
waste analysis plan
7 design requirements/
exemptions
34
34
34.3S,
50
50
50
50
50
34
268.4(a)
268.4(aW1)
268.4(aW2)
268.4(aK2)W
268.4(a)(2)(li)
268.4(a)(2)(i!i)
268.4
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (corrt'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
exempt under
264.221 (d) or (e) or
265.221 (c) or (d)
7 conditions under
which Administrator
grants waiver of
requirements;
meets S3005(i)(2)
7 modification granted
on basis of a demon-
stration of no migra-
tion into groundwater
or surface water at
any future time;
satisfies §3005(J)(11)
no migration
7 submittal of written
certification and waste
analysis plan
evaporation of hazard-
ous constituents not
considered treatment
for exemption purposes
ChECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34
34
34
39
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.4(a)(3)M
268.4(aH3)(ii)
268.4(a)(3)(ii)(A)
268.4(a)(3)(ii)(B)
268.4(a)(3)(ii)(C)
268.4(a)(3)(iii)
268.4(a)(4)
268.4(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SslAlc ANALOG IS:
EOOW^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
******************************************************************************
Guidance note: 268.5 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 3 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
PROCEDURES FOR CASE-BY-CASE EXTENSIONS TO AN EFFECTIVE DATE
application to EPA
Administrator for an
extension to effective
date of any Part 268,
Subpart C restriction;
what the applicant
must demonstrate:
34
268.5(a)
Page 21 of 68
DLDR.0 - 12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (corrt'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
good-faith effort to
locate and contract
with treatment,
recovery, or disposal
facilities nationwide
to manage waste
according to
Subpart C
effective date
binding contractual
commitment to con-
struct or provide
alternate treatment,
recovery (e.g., re-
cycling), or disposal
capacity that meets
Subpart D treatment
standards; require-
ments when no treat-
ment standards
demonstration that
alternative capacity
cannot reasonably
be available
by effective date
due to circumstances
beyond applicant's
control; how this must
be demonstrated
capacity being con-
structed or provided
by applicant must be
sufficient capacity for
entire quantity
of waste
detailed schedule for
obtaining required
permits or outlines of
how and when
alleviate capacity
available
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34.39
34
34
34
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.5(a)(1)
268.5(a)(2)
268.5(a)(3)
268.5(a)(4)
268.5(a)(5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 22 of 68
DLDR.9 - 1210/01
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cort'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
arranged for adequate
capacity during exten-
sion and documented
in all site locations
where wastes wit) be
managed
surface impoundment
or landfill used must
meet 268.5(h)(2)
requirements
certification by
authorized represen-
tative signing an
application
Administrator may
request additional
information
extension applies
only to waste
generated at
individual facility
covered by
extension
Administrator may
grant extension of up
to 1 year from
effective date;
extension for 1
additional year if
268.5{a) demon-
stration can still be
made; no extension
beyond 24 months
from 268, Subpart C
effective date; length
of extension deter-
mined by Admini-
strator and basis;
public notice and
comment; final
decision published in
Federal Register
notify Administrator of
change in
certified conditions
orecK-
UST
EFERENCI
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.5(a)(6)
268.5(a)m
268.5CW
268.5(c)
268.5(d)
268.5(6)
268.5W
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATION
!*!/\TE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 23 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12T10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
written progress re-
ports at intervals
designated by Admini-
strator; what progress
reports must include;
conditions tor revoca-
tion of extension by
Administrator
during period establi-
shed by Administrator
for which extension is
in effect:
268.5(a) storage
restrictions do not
apply
conditions on disposal
in landfill or surface
impoundment regard-
less if unit is existing,
new, replacement or
lateral extension
interim status landfill
requirements
permitted landfill
requirements
interim status surface
impoundment
requirements
permitted surface
impoundment
requirements
requirements for
landfills disposing
of specified PCB
waste
pending decision on
application, com-
pliance with all legal
disposal restrictions
once effective date
has been reached
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34
34,39
34.50.66
34
34
34.39
34
39
34
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.5(fl)
268.5CW
268.5(h)(1)
268.5(h)(2)
288.5fhH2Mi)
268.5(hK2H«)
268.5(h)(2Hiii)
26&5fhM2Mv)
268.5(h)(2ttv)
268.5(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATION
slAlt ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 24 of 68
DLDR.O
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECI<-
UST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CtTATION
s i Ait ANALQo is:
EtMjiV-
AUENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268.6 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 3 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
PETITIONS TO ALLOW LAND DISPOSAL OF A WASTE PROHIBITED
UNDER SUBPART C OF PART 268
submit petition to
Administrator;
demonstration of
no waste migration;
demonstration
components
identify specific
unit and waste
waste analysis
comprehensive
disposal unit
characterization
monitoring plan
detecting migration
at the earliest time
sufficient information
to assure Admini-
strator that owner/
operator is in com-
pliance with other
applicable Federal
State and local laws
Administrator
approved sampling,
testing and estimation
techniques
model calibration;
models verified
with actual data
quality assurance/
control plan approved
bv Administrator
uncertainty
analysis
what each petition
must include:
34
34
34
34
SO
50
34
34
34
34
50
268.6(a)
268.6(a)(1)
268.6(aH2)
268.6(a)(3)
268.6(aM4)
268.6faK5)
268.6(b)(2)
268.6(b)(3)
268.6(b)(4)
268,6(b)(5)
268.6(0)
18
Page 25 of 68
DLDR.O - 12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring plan
including description
of monitoring program
to verify continued
compliance with
variance; information
which must
be included
media monitored
type of monitorinq
monitoring
station location
monitoring interval
specific hazardous
constituents to
be monitored
monitoring program
implementation
schedule
monitoring
station equipment
sampling and
analytical techniques
employed
data
recording/reporting
procedures
268.6(c)(1) monitoring
program must be in
place by Administrator
specified time period,
as part of approval
of the petition
prior to prohibited
waste receipt at unit
268.6(c)(1) monitoring
data sent to Admini-
strator according to
monitoring plan must
be according to
approved format and
schedule
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268,6(e>m
268.6(cH1)(n
268.6(cM1MiO
268.6(c)(1)(iii)
268.6(c)(1)flv)
268.6fcM1Mv)
268.6(eM1Xvi)
268.6(cK1)(vii)
268.6(cK1Hvtii)
268.6(c)(1)(ix)
268.6(c)(2)
268.6(c)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SI ATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 26 of 68
DLDR.9 • 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring data as per
268.6(c){1) monitoring
plan must be kept
in on-site
operatinq record
criteria the 268.6(c)(1)
monitoring program
must meet:
Administrator approval
for ail sampling,
testing, and analytical
data; data accurate
and reproducible
Administrator approval
of ail estimation and
monitoring techniques
QA/QC plan for all
aspects of monitoring
program provided to
and approved by
Administrator
petition submitted
to Administrator
reporting of changes
at unit and/or
surrounding environ-
ment that signifi-
cantly depart from
variances and affect
migration potential
changes to unit
design, construction
or operation proposed
in writing and a
demonstration to
Administrator 30 days
prior to change;
Administrator makes
determination If
petition is invalidated
and determines
appropriate response;
Administrator approval
before changes
can be made
CHECK-
LIST
EFERENCE
50
50
50
50
50
34.50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.6(cW4)
268.5
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
within 10 days of
discovering change,
written notification to
Administrator if
condition is not as
predicted or modeled
in petition;
Administrator decides
if change requires
further action
21 owner/operator
responsibilities
if hazardous
waste miqration:
immediate suspension
of prohibited waste
receipt
within 10 days
written notification
to Administrator
Administrator decision
within 60 days as to
continued receipt of
prohibited waste;
Administrator deter-
mines if further
examination of any
miaration warranted
22 signed
statement
22 Administrator may
request additional
information
22 waste unit to which
petition applies
22 Administrator gives
public notice in
Federal Register.
final decision in
Federal Reaister
22 term of petition
22 requirements prior
to Administrator's
decision
CME<5K-
UST
REFERENCE
50
50
50.66
SO
50
34.50
34,50
34.50
34.50
34.50
34.50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.6(e)(2)
268.6(f)
268.6(f)(1)
268.6(f)(2)
268.6ffl(3)
268.6(0)
268.6(h)
268.60)
268.6(1)
268.6(k)
268.6(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
a'Aic ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 28 of 68
DLDR.8 - 1210/91
a
3.fc»
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
petition granted by
Administrator does
not relieve
responsibilities
under RCRA
noneligibility of
certain liquid PCB
waste for "no
migration" petitions
under 268.6
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34,50
39,50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.6(m)
268.6(n)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
£
EQUIV-
ALENT
iTATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
22
23
WASTE ANALYSIS AND RECORDK
7 generator determines
if restricted waste;
268.32 and 268.43
exceptions
if generator is manag-
ing restricted waste
that does not meet
applicable treatment
standards, must
notify treatment or
storage facility of
appropriate treatment
standards
information
the notice
must include
7 if managing restricted
waste that can be
land disposed without
further treatment,
notice and certifi-
cation to treatment,
storage, or land
disposal facility
34,39
50
34,39,
50
34
34.39.78
34
34,39,
50
EEPING
268.7(a)
268.7{aK1)
268.7(aH1Mi)
268.7(aH1)(li)
268.7(a)m(iii)
268.7(a)(1)(lv)
268.7(a)(2)
Page 29 of 68
DLDR.S - 12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (confd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information required
in notice to treatment,
storage or land
disposal facility
7 certification
signature/statement
7 for waste subject to
an exemption from
land disposal
prohibition (such as a
case-by-case 268.5
extension, 268.6
exemption or Subpart
C nationwide capacity
variance), notice to
receiving facility
that waste Is not
prohibited from
land disposal
24 information the notice
must include
for prohibited waste
managed in tanks or
containers under
262.34 and treated to
meet 268 Subpart D
standards, waste
analysis plan to be
developed, followed
and kept on-site
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34,39,78
34
34.39
34.50.66
50
50.78
50
50.66.78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7fa)(2)ffl
268.7(aM2)(i)(A)
268.7(a)(2HIMB>
268.7(aH2)(i)(C)
288.7
268.7
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
25 waste analysis plan
based on detailed
chemical and physical
analysis of represen-
tative sample; contain
information necessary
to treat waste in
accordance with 268
requirements
25 file plan with EPA
Regional Admini-
strator or authorized
State 30 days prior to
treatment; delivery
verified
25 off-site shipments
comply with
268.7(aM2)
25 removed
7 maintenance of data
26 supporting knowledge
of waste; retention of
waste analysis data
on-site in flies
five-year retention
period for notices,
certifications,
demonstrations,
etc., produced
relative to 268.7;
extensions during
enforcement actions
i-,9 notice for a
generator managing
a lab pack that
contains wastes
identified in
Appendix IV if use
alternate treatment
standards under
268.42;
268.7{a)(5)&(6)
compliance; certi-
fication
cNieK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50,78
50,78
50,78
50,78
34,50
50
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
t,9 notice for a
generator managing
a lab pack that
contains organic
wastes specified In
Appendix V if use
alternate treatment
standard under
268.42;
268.7(a)(5)&(6)
compliance; certi-
fication
notification and
certification
requirements for
small quantity
generators with
tolling agreements
pursuant to
40 CFR 262.20fe)
treatment facility
testing of wastes at
frequency specified
in waste analysis plan
testing when
standards are
expressed as
concentrations in
waste extract
testing of 268.32 or
3004(d) prohibited
wastes not subject to
Subpart D treatment
standards
testing for wastes
with treatment
standards expressed
as concentrations
in waste
27 notice with each
shipment by treatment
facility to land disposal
facility
LIST
REFERENCE
78
78
34,39
50
50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(aM8)
268.7(aM9)
268.7CW
268.7(b)(1)
268.7(bM2)
268.7(W(3)
34,50
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
268.7(W(4)
EQUIV-
ALENT
•
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 32 of 68
DLDR.O - 12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information the notice
must include
certification of each
shipment
certification
requirements for
wastes with treat-
ment standards
expressed as concen-
trations in the waste
extract or in the
waste, or for wastes
prohibited under
268.32 or RCRA
Section 3004(d) which
do not have 268,
Subpart D treatment
standards
certification require-
ments for wastes with
treatment standards
expressed as
technologies
certification require-
ments for wastes with
treatment standards
expressed as concen-
trations in the
waste pursuant to
268.43
compliance with
generator notice and
certification
requirements if
waste sent off-site
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34.50
34,39,
50,78
34,50
34,39,
50
34,39
50.78
34.50
78
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
26&7
268.7(bH5Mii!)
268.7fbM6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE crTATION
STATE ANALOGS IS:
eaurv-i
ALBNT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
27
28
28
28
Page 33 of 68
OLDR.B - 12/10/S1
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
no 268.7(b)(4) notifi-
cation of receiving
facility for recyclable
materials used in a
manner constituting
disposal and subject
to 266.20{b); with
each shipment
268.7(b){5) certi-
fication and
268.7{b){4) notice to
the Regional Admini-
strator; records of
recipients of waste-
derived products
requirements for
land disposal facility
except where the owner
or operator is dis-
posing recyclable ,
wastes pursuant to
266.20CW:
have copies of notice
and certifications
under 268.7(a) or (b)
and certifications in
268.8 if applicable
test of waste or
extract; applicable
treatment standards
and prohibitions to
be met; frequency
of testinq
removed
removed
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50.66,78
34,39,
50,78
34,
39.50
39.50
50.78
66,78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(b)(7)
268.7(c)
268.7(c)(1)
268.7(c)(2)
268.7(0(3)
268.7(c)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CrTATION
STATE ANALOG is:
150IV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
1
|
BROADER
IN SCOPE
29
30
30
30
Page 34 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (eont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHEQK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG) IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
LANDRLL AND SURFACE IMPOUN
disposal of 268.33(f)
prohibited wastes in
landfills or surface
impoundments in
compliance with
268.5(h}(2) if
requirements of
268.8 are met;
section no longer
in effect as of
Mav 8, 1990
good faith generator
effort to contract
with treatment and
recovery facilities
providing greatest
environmental benefit
specific requirements
for a generator when
no practically
available treatment
can be found
prior to initial ship-
ment, demonstration
to Regional Adminis-
trator containing
specified lists and
written discussion;
certification; waste
shipment
for initial shipment,
demonstration and
certification
sent to receiving
facilities;
certification only
for subsequent
shipments; generator
recordkeeping and
five-year retention
50,78
50
50.66
50.66
50.66
DMENT DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
268.8(a)
268.8(a)(1)
268.8(a)(2)
268.8(aK2Mn
268.8(aM2)(iO
Page 35 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/81
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPAS
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
specific requirements
for a generator when
there are practically
available treatments
for wastes:
prior to initial ship-
ment, demonstration
to Regional Adminis-
trator containing
specified lists and
written discussion;
certification; waste
shipment
with initial shipment
copy of demonstration
and certification
sent to receiving
facilities;
certification only
for subsequent
shipments; generator
recordkeeping and
five-year retention
where there is prac-
tically available treat-
ment for waste prior
to disposal, copy of
demonstration and
certification submitted
to receiving facility
with Initial shipment;
certification only for
subsequent ship-
ments; generator
recordkeeping and
five-year retention
additional information
for certification If
requested by Regional
Administrator; sub-
mittal of new demon-
stration and certi-
fication as provided
in 268.8(a) to the
receiving facility
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50.66
66
66
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.8(a)(3)
268.8(a)(3)(0
268.8(aK3)(li)
268.8(a)(4)
268.8(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
31
Page 36 of 68
DLDR.B - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd).
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
notification when any
change in conditions
forming basis of
certification occurs
invalidation when
Regional Administra-
tor finds practically
available treatment
method or a method
yielding greater
environmental benefit
than certified
when certification is
invalidated, generator
must cease shipment,
communicate with
facilities receiving
waste, and keep
records of
communication
receiving treatment,
recovery or storage
facilities keep copy
of generator's
demonstration and
certification
receiving treatment,
storage or recovery
facility certify
waste treated accord-
ing to generator's
demonstration
for initial shipment,
treatment, recovery or
storage facility must
send copy of
generator's demonstra-
tion and certification (s)
to facility receiving
waste or treatment
residues; only certi-
fication with sub-
sequent shipments, if
certification conditions
remain unchanoed
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50,66
50
50
50
50
50.66
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
26&8(b)m
268.8(b)(2)
26S.8(b)(3)
268.8(0)
268.8(c)(1)
268.8(cM2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE 1
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 37 of 68
DLDR.8 -12/10/01
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
32 disposal facility must
assure certification
prior to disposal in
landfill or surface
impoundment unit and
units in accordance
with 268.5{h)(2) for
wastes prohibited
under 268.33ff)
wastes may be
disposed in landfill
or surface impound-
ment meeting
268.5(h)(2) require-
ments If certified
and treated
ct-ecR-
UST
REFERENCE
50,66
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.8(d)
268.8(9)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
ESUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIAL RULES REGAR
determination of
applicable treatment
standards under
Subpart D of Part 268
by initial generator
of a solid waste;
code designation
treatment standards
for the waste code listed
in40CFR Part 261,
Subpart D will operate
for wastes listed
under both Subpart D,
Part 261 and exhibits
a characteristic under
Subpart C, Part 261;
conditions under
which treatment
standards for all
applicable listed and
characteristic waste
codes must be met
DING WASTES THAT EXHIBIT A CHARACTERISTIC
78
78
268.9(a)
268.9(b)
Page 38 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
no prohibited waste
which exhibits a
characteristic under
40 CFR Part 261,
Subpart C may be
land disposed unless
waste complies with
Part 268, Subpart D
treatment standards
wastes that exhibit
a characteristic are
subject to 268.7
requirements, but no
notification once the
wastes are no
longer hazardous; if
not hazardous, notifi-
cation/certification
sent to EPA Regional
Administrator or
authorized State
information needed
with each notification
certification signed
by authorized
representative stating
language found in
268.7(b)(5)(l)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
78
78
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.9(e)
268.9(d)
268.9(dM1)
268.i(dH1Mi>
288.9(
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
si AYE ANALOG is:
EQUITY
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART C - PROHIBITIONS ON LAND DISPOSAL
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - SOLVENT WASTES
effective November 8,
1986, F001-F005
spent solvent wastes,
as specified in
261.31, ate pro-
hibited from land
disposal unless
one or more specific
conditions apply:
small quantity
generator
(100-1,000 kg/mo)
exemption
CERCLA/correctlve
action exemption
except where waste is
contaminated soil or
debris
concentration-specific
exemption (solvent
waste with less than
1% total solvent
constituent)
solvent waste residue
from treating a
268.30(a)(1), (a)(2),
or (a)(3) waste or
residue from other
wastes meeting
specific treatabiiity
iroup requirements
affective November 8,
1988, the F001-FOOS
solvent wastes of
268,30(a)(1)-(4) are
prohibited from land
disposal
34
34
34,50
34,50
39
34.50
268.30O)
268.30(aM1)
268.30(aM2)
268.30(a)(3)
268.30(a)(4)
268.30(b)
33
Page 40 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/81
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
land disposal of
F001-F005 solvent
wastes that are con-
taminated soil and
debris (and their
treatment residues)
resulting from CERCLA
action or RCRA cor-
rective action
prohibited after
November 8, 1990;
permitted disposal in
landfill or surface
impoundment unit in
compliance with
268.5(h)(2) prior
to November 8, 1990
34 situations where
268.30(a), (b) and
(c) do not apply:
7,34 wastes treated to
meet Subpart D of
Part 268
7,34 disposal at facility
with successful no-
migration petition
7,34 wastes and units for
which case-by-case
extensions have been
granted
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
34.50
34.50
34.50
34.50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.30(c)
268.30(d)
268.30(d)(1)
268.30(d)(2)
268.30(d)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG 15:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE SPECIFIC PROH
effective November 8,
1988, the dioxin-
containing wastes,
F020-F023 and
F026-F028, are
prohibited from land
disposal unless a
specific condition
applies:
IBITIONS - DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES
34,50
268.31 (a)
Page 41 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/81
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
waste is contami-
nated soil and
debris waste resulting
from response action
under CERCLA or
from a RCRA
corrective action
effective November 8,
1990, prohibit land
disposal of F020-
F023 and F026-F028
dioxin-containing
wastes of 268.31 (a)m
between November 8»
1988, and November
8, 1990, wastes of
268.31 (a)(1) disposed
in landfill or surface
impoundment that meet
268.5(h)(2) and
applicable 264
and 265 requirements
situations where
268.31 (a) and (b)
do not aoDlv
wastes treated to
meet Subpart D,
Part 268 standards
disposal at facility
with no-migration
petition
extension to effective
date of a prohibition
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
34.50
34,50
34.50
34.50
34.50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.31 (a)(1)
268.31 (W
268.31 (c)
268.31 (d)
268.31 r
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
liquids containing
HOCs greater than or
equal to 1,000 mg/l
and less than
10,000 mct/i
reserved
reserved
268.32(a) and (e)
requirements do
not apply until specific
calendar dates: '
July 8, 1989 for
contaminated soil or
debris not resulting
from a 104 or 106
CERCLA response or
a RCRA corrective
action; disposal
allowed between
Jury 8, 1987, and
July 8, 1989, in
landfill or surface
impoundment In
compliance with
268.5(hM2)
November 8, 1990
for contaminated soil
or debris resulting
from a CERCLA 104
or 106 response or
a RCRA corrective
action; disposal
allowed between Nov-
ember 8, 1988, and
November 8, 1990, in
landfill or surface
impoundment In com-
pliance with
268.5(hH2)
land disposal
prohibitions effective
November 8. 1988:
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
39
39
39
39,50
50
50
39.50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.32(a)(3)
268.32(b)
268.32(c)
268.32fd)
268.32(d)(1)
268.32WM2)
268.32(e)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SI Alt ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 43 of 68
DLDR.8 -12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
liquids containing
HOCs greater than or
equal to 1,000 mg/l
and not prohibited
under 268.32(aK3)
nonliquid wastes
containing HOCs
greater than or
equal to 1,000 mg/kg
and not wastes
described In 268.32(d)
between July 8, 1987,
and November 8,
1988, 268.32(e){1) and
(e){2) wastes may be
disposed in a
landfill or surface
Impoundment if
disposal complies
with 268.5(h>(2)
requirements of
268.32(a), (d) and
(e) do not apply under
certain conditions:
granted a 268.6
exemption
granted a 268.5
extension
In compliance with
Subpart D standards,
RCRA 3004(d) or
section prohibitions
requirements of
268.32(a)(3), (d)
and (e) do not
apply when subject
to Part 268, Subpart
C prohibition
method 9095
required
applicability of
waste analysis/
recordkeeping
requirements of
268.7:
Cl«CK-
LIST
REFERENCE
39
39.50
39,50
66
39.50
39
39
39
39.50
39
39
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.32(e)(1)
268.32(e)(2)
268.32(f)
268.32(0)
268.32(a)(1)
268.32(aM2)
268.32(a)(3)
268.32(h)
268.32(0
268.320)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5IAIE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
36
Page 44 of 68
DLDR.B - 12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (eont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
initial generator must
use 261.22(a){1)
procedures or
knowledge of pH;
pH less than or equal
to 2.0 restriction
initial generator must
test for or have know-
ledge of HOC or PCB
concentration levels;
restriction above levels
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
39
39
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.320K1)
268.32(iK2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATION
SIATb ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINOENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS -
specific wastes
prohibited from land
disposal effective
August 8, 1988
land disposal prohi-
bition of K061 waste
containing 15% or
greater of zinc
pursuant to
268.41 treatment
standard for K061
containing less than
15% zinc
K048, K049, K050,
K051, K052, K061
(contain 5% or greater
zinc), K071 wastes
prohibited from land
disposal effective
August 8, 1 990
effective August 8,
1990, land disposal
prohibition of wastes
specified in 268.10
having a treatment
treatment standard
in 268, Subpart D
based on incineration
and which are contami-
nated soil and
debris
50,66
50
50
50
FIRST THIRD WASTES
268.33Ca)
268.33(aM1)
268.33(b)
268.33(c)
Page 45 of 68
DLDR.B - 12/10/81
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
between November 8,
1988, and August 8,
1990, landfill or
surface impoundment
disposal of wastes
included under 268. (b)
& (c) permitted if
unit is in compliance
with 268.5(hK2)
requirements of
268(a)-(d) do not
apply If:
waste meets
applicable 268,
Subpart D standards
granted an exemption
from prohibition for
wastes and units
under 268,6
granted an extension
to an effective date
for wastes under
268.5
prohibition of
landfill or surface
impoundment disposal
of wastes specified
in 268.10 for which
treatment standards
have not been prom-
mulgated (other than
268.32 or section
3004(d) prohibitions}
unless a demonstra-
tion and certification
have been submitted
for a waste listed
in 268.10, initial
generator testing to
determine exceedance
of 268.41 and 268.43
treatment standards;
prohibition from
land disposal if
exceed standards
us?
REFERENCE
50
50
50
50
50
50,66
50.66
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.33rd)
268.33(6)
268.33(e)(1)
268.33(eH2)
268.33(e)(3)
268.33m
268.33(0)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRIN91NT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 46 of 68
DLDR.8 -12/10/81
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (eont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
a I All: ANALOG is:
EQUW-
AUENT
MORI
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - SECOND THIRD WASTES
effective June 8,
1989, prohibition from
land disposal of
specific 261 .31, 261.32
and 261 ,33 wastes
effective June 8,
1989, prohibition from
land disposal, except
underground injection
pursuant to 148.14(f)
and 148.1 5{d), of
certain 261 .32 wastes
effective June 8,
1989, prohibition
from land disposal
of F006, F008, F009,
F011 and F012
effective July 8, 1 989,
F007 prohibited from
land disposal except
underground injection
pursuant to 148.14(f)
July 8, 1989, until
December 8, 1989,
F011 and F012 non-
wastewaters prohibited
from land disposal
pursuant to
268.41 and 268.43
treatment standards
for F007, F008 and
F009 nonwastewaters;
effective December 8,
1989, F011 and F012
prohibited from land
disposal pursuant to
268.41 and 268.43
treatment standards
for F011 and F012
nonwastewaters
63
63
63
63
63
268.34fa)
268.34(b)
268.34(0)
268.34(cM1>
268.34(cK2)
Page 47 of 68
DLDR.9 - 1 #10/61
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (corrt'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
effective June 8,
1991, wastes specified
in 268.34 with
Subpart D treatment
standard based on
incineration, and
which are con-
taminated soil and
debris, are prohibited
from land disposal
requirements for
landfill or surface
impoundment disposal
of wastes included in
268.34{c) and (d) be-
tween June 8, 1989,
and June 8, 1991;
applies to F007, F008,
F009, F011 and F012
only between June 8,
1989. and July 8, 1989
requirements of
268.34{a)-(d) do
not apply if:
meet applicable 268
Subpart D standards
granted an exemption
pursuant to a 268.6
petition for the wastes
and units covered by
the petition
268.34(a), (b) and (c)
do not apply If
granted extension
under 268.5 for
wastes covered by
extension
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
63
63
63
63
63
63
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.34(d)
268.34(e>
268.34(f)
268.34(fM1)
268.34(fH2)
268.34(a)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5TATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRJNQENT
BROADER
INSCOPi
Page 48 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/01
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (corrt'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
between June 8,
1989, and May 8,
1990, prohibition
from land disposal
in landfills or
surface impoundments
of 268.11 wastes for
which Subpart D
treatment standards
are not applicable,
including California
list wastes subject
to prohibitions under
3004(d) or 268.32;
exceptions under
268.8
initial generator testing
to determine if a
268.10, 268.11 and
268.12 waste exceeds
applicable 268.41 and
268.43 treatment
standards; land
disposal prohibited
and all 268 require-
ments apply if
constituents exceed
Subpart D levels
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
63
63
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.34(h)
268.34(0
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS -
THIRD THIRD WASTES
effective August 8,
1990, prohibition
from land disposal of
certain wastes specified
in 261.31, 261.32,
261.33(e), and
261.33(f)
effective November 8,
1990, prohibition
from land disposal
of certain wastes
specified in 261.32
78
78
268.35(a)
268.35(b)
Page 49 of 68
DLDR.O - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
effective May 8, 1992,
prohibition from land
disposal of certain
wastes specified in
261.31, 261.32,
261.33(6), 261.33(f);
certain characteristic
wastes; inorganic
debris defined in
268.2(a)(7); and RCRA
hazardous wastes
containing naturally
occurring radioactive
materials
effective May 8, 1992,
prohibition from land
disposal of 268.12
mixed radioactive/
hazardous wastes
effective May 8, 1992,
prohibition from land
disposal of wastes
specified 268.35 as
having Subpart D,
Part 268 treatment
standards based on
incineration, mercury
retorting, or
vitrification, and
which are contaminated
soil or debris
between May 8, 1990,
and August 8, 1990,
wastes included in
paragraph 268.35(a)
may be disposed of In
a landfill or surface
impoundment only if
such unit is in
compliance with
268.5(h)(2)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
78
78
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.35(c)
268.35(d)
268.35(e)
268.35m
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 50 of 68
DLDR.O -12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
between May 8, 1990,
and November 8, 1990,
wastes included in
paragraph 268.35(b)
may be disposed of in
a landfill or surface
impoundment only if
such unit is in
compliance with
268.5(h)(2)
between May 8, 1990,
and May 8, 1992,
wastes included in
paragraphs 268.35(c),
(d) and (e) may be
disposed of in a
landfill or surface
impoundment only If
such unit is in
compliance with
268.5(h((2)
conditions under
which requirements
of paragraphs
268.35(a), (b), (c) (d)
and (e) do not apply:
wastes meet
applicable 268, Sub-
part D standards
persons granted
exemption under 268.6
wastes meet
applicable alternate
standards under 268.44
persons granted
extension to the
effective date
of a prohibition
under 268.5
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.35(0)
268.35(h)
268.35(1)
268.35(i)(1)
268.35(i)(2)
268.35(0(3)
268.35(0(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
iJIAlb ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 51 of 68
DLDR.O - 12/10/91
-------
SPAS
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
initial generator testing
to determine if a
268.10, 268.11 and
268.12 waste exceeds
applicable 268.41 and
268.43 treatment
standards; land
disposal prohibited
and all 268 require-
ments apply if
constituents exceed
Suboart D levels
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.35(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CrfATION
si Ait ANALOG is:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART D - TREATMENT STANDARDS
APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENT STANDARDS
37 land disposal of
268.41 restricted
wastes only if
waste extract or
treatment residue
(developed using
Appendix I methods)
does not exceed
268.41 Table CCWE
values; specific wastes
may be land disposed
if waste extract or
residue does not
exceed Table CCW
values for any hazar-
dous constituent
listed in Table CCWE
for that waste
restricted waste with
a 268.42(a) treatment
technology may be
land di Dosed If speci-
fied tec snotogy or an
Administrator-approved
method is used
34,3i,
50.78
39
268.40(8)
268.40(b)
Page 52 of 68
DLOR.8 - 12/10/01
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
except as specified
in 268.43(c),
land disposal of a
restricted waste
identified in 268.43
may be land disposed
only If Table CCW
constituent concen-
tration values are
not exceeded
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50.78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.40(0)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SJIAlfc ANALOG IS:
EOUIV^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
7,37 treatment standards;
explanation of
Table CCWE
Constituent Concen-
trations in Waste
Extract
treatment standards
for common
constituents in
combined wastes
34,50
63,78
34,50
63,78
34
268.41 (a)
268.41 (a)/
Table CCWE
268.41 (b)
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS SPECIFIED TECHNOLOGIES
treatment of waste
identified in
268.42(a)(1)&(2) and
Tables 2 and 3 with
technology(s) specified
in 268.42(a){1)&{2)
and (a)(2) and
Table 1
standard for
incineration of
liquid hazardous
wastes containing
PCBs
treatment standards
for incineration of
certain hazardous
wastes containing
HOCs; where
standards do not
aoolv
34.78
39
39,50,
78
268.42(a)
268.42(a)(1)
268.42(a)(2)
Page 53 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/81
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
removed
removed
Technology Codes
and Description of
Technology-Based
Standards
Technology-Based
Standards by RCRA
Waste Code
Technology-Based
Standards for Specific
Radioactive
Hazardous Mixed
Waste
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
63.78
63,78
78
78
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.42(aH3)
268.42(a)(4)
268.42(aVTable 1
268.42(a)/Table 2
268.42(a)/Table 3
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5 1 Alt ANALOG 15:
EOUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
»•»»»•»•»»•••»•••»»••••»••***•*»»•**•»»•*»»******»»»***•»*••••»»•••»»••••••••*•••••
Guidance note: 268.42(b) is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 3 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this paragraph into their code.
submit application to
Administrator
demonstrating alter-
nate treatment can
achieve 268.42(a),
(c), & (d) performance
specifications;
information demon-
strating compliance
with Federal, State
and local require-
ments; criteria for
approval by
Administrator; approval
in writing containing
provisions and con-
ditions as the Admini-
strator deems appro-
priate; compliance by
person to whom
approval is issued
*****************************
34.39.78
ft*************
268.42(b)
•***•*******•*
************
Page 54 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
M Alt ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t,9 ALTERNATE TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR LAB PACKS
conditions for
eligibility of
lab packs for
land disposal:
compliance with
applicable
provisions of
264.316 and 265.316
Part 268 Appendix IV
or Appendix V
hazardous wastes
contained in lab
packs
incineration of
lab packs in
accordance with
Part 264, Subpart O
or Part 265, Subpart
O requirements
treatment standards
for incinerator
residues from lab
packs containing
D004, D005, D006,
D007, D008, D010
and D011
78
78
78
78
78
268.42(c)
268.42(c)m
268.42(c)(2)
268.42(cK3>
268.42(e)(4)
38
radioactive hazar-
dous mixed wastes with
Table 3 treatment
standards not
subject to 268.41,
268.43 or Tabte 2
treatment standards;
radioactive
hazardous mixed
wastes not subject
to Table 3 treatment
standards remain
subject to 268.41,
268.43 and Table 2
treatment standards
78
268.42(d)
Page 55 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
C»«CK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5IAIE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS WASTE CONCENTRATIONS
introductory paragraph
for Table CCW
explaining table
Constituent Concen-
trations in Wastes;
no land disposal for
specified K wastes
meet lowest con-
stituent treatment
standard when mixing
wastes with differing
treatment standards
for a constituent
of concern
conditions for
demonstrating
compliance with treat-
ment standards for
organic constituents
provided;
treatment for
organic constituents
established based on
incineration In units
operated in accordance
with Subpart O
requirements of Part
264 or Part 265 or
based on combustion
in fuel substitution
units in accordance
with applicable tech-
nical requirements
organic constituents
treated using paragraph
268.43(c)m methods
good-faith efforts
fail to detect the
organic constituents;
when such efforts
must be demonstrated
34,50
63.78
50,62
63.78
50,63
78
78
78
78
268.43(3)
268.43(a)/
Table CCW
268.43(b)
268.43(0)
268.43(c)(1)
268.43(0(2)
268.43(c)(3)
39
Page 56 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECk-
UST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CrrATfON
S IftTE ANALOG IS:
feouiv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268.44 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 3 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
VARIANCE FROM A TR
EATMENT STANDARD
conditions for
variance; petition
Administrator; what
must be
demonstrated
procedures in
accordance with
260.20
statement signed by
petitioner or autho-
rized representative
additional information
or samples may be
requested by
Administrator;
additional copies for
affected States and
region
Administrator gives
public notification
in Federal Register;
final decision in
Federal Register
268.7 waste analysis
requirements must be
followed for wastes
covered by variance
requirements during
petition review
apply to Administrator
or delegated represen-
tative for site-specific
variance from a treat-
ment standard if
specified conditions
are appropriate; what
applicant must
demonstrate
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
50.66
268.44(3)
268.44(b)
268.44(0)
268.44(d)
268.44(e)
268.44(f)
268.44(a)
268.44(h)
Page 57 of 68
DLDR.8 -12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
260.20(b)(1)-{4)
information must
be included
Assistant
Administrator or
delegated represen-
tative may request
additional information
If site-specific
treatment standard
variance then com-
pliance with 268.7
waste analysis
requirements
during application
review process, com-
pliance with land
disposal restrictions
once effective date
for waste reached
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.44(1)
268.44(1)
268.44(k)
268.44(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
!
EQUIV-
ALENT
sTAiE ANM.UQ
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART E - PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE
PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE OF RESTRICTED WASTES
7 except as provided In
268.50, storage of
wastes restricted
from land disposal
is prohibited unless
certain conditions
are met:
7 on-site storage
exemption for
Generator
7 treatment, storage,
and disposal
facility exemption
7 container labeling
7 tank labeling
34.39
34
34
34
34
268.50(a)
268.50(a){1)
268.50(aH2)
268.50(aH2)(i)
268.50(aM2)(Ii)
Page 58 of 68
DLDR.B - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
transporter exemption
storage up to
one year
storage longer
than one year
268.50(a) prohibition
does not apply if
waste is exempt from
a prohibition on type
of land disposal
utilized for the waste
no prohibition where
treatment standards
are not specified or
are met, or com-
pliance with 268.32
or RCRA 3004 exists
requirements for
storage of liquid
hazardous wastes
containing PCBs at
concentrations greater
than or equal to
50 ppm
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34
34
34,
50.66
34,t39
39
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.50(a)(3)
268.50(b)
268.50(c)
268.50(d)
268.50(e)
268,50m
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STAIB ANALOG is:
~EoUI7^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX I TO PART 268
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE (TCLP)
7,40 TCLP is published
in Appendix II of
Part 261
34.74
Appendix I
APPENDIX II TO PART 268
TREATMENT STANDARDS (AS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE TREATMENT RESIDUAL EXTRACT)
table
34
Appendix II
Page 59 of 68
DLDRJ - 12MO/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SI/Mt ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX III TO PART 268
LIST OF HALOQENATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS REGULATED UNDER 268.32
HOC definition and
list of HOCs regulated
under 268.32
39
Appendix III
APPENPIX IV TO PART 268
t,
ORGANOMETALL1C LAB PACKS
list of hazardous
wastes that may be
placed in "organo-
metallic" or
"Appendix IV lab
packs"
78
Appendix IV
APPENDIX V TO PART 268
t,
ORGANIC LAB PACKS
list of hazardous
wastes that may be
placed in "organic" or
"Appendix VII" lab
packs
78
Appendix V
Page 60 of 68
DLDR.9 • 12^10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
51 Ait ANALOG IS:
EQUIV- MORE
ALENT! STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX VI TO PART 268
RECOMMENDED TECHNOLOGIES TO ACHIEVE DEACTIVATION OF CHARACTERISTICS IN
SECTION 268.42
list of technologies
which achieve the
standard of
"deactivation to
remove characteristics
of ignitability,
corrosivity, and
reactivity"; use of
specified technologies
not mandatory; alter-
native methods not
performed in land
disposal units
78
Appendix VI
APPENDIX VII TO PART 268
EFFECTIVE DATES OF SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULATED IN THE LDRs
comprehensive list
of waste and
effective dates
78
Appendix VII
APPENDIX VIII TO PART 268
NATIONAL CAPACITY LDR VARIANCES FOR UIC WASTES
comprehensive list
of national
capacity LDR
variances for UIC
wastes
78
Appendix VIII
Page 61 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST; Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE crTATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
gCP^:
ALENT
MORE I BROADER
STRINGENT | IN SCOPE
PART 270 - EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM
SUBPART B - PERMIT APPLICATION
CONTENTS OF PART B: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
copy of notice of
approval of petition
or extension
34
270.1 4(bK21)
SUBPART C - PERMIT CONDITIONS
ESTABLISHING PERMIT CONDITIONS
insert
"through 268";
remove "267"
34
270.32ft>)m
SUBPART D - CHANGES TO PERMIT
41 MINOR MODIFICATIONS OF PERMITS
conditions for
treating non-
specified waste
prohibited from
one or more land
disposal methods
under Part 268,
Subpart C or RCRA
Section 3004
treatment in
accordance with
268.4 and 268.3 and:
treatment in
accordance with
268.41, 268.42
or 268.44: or
34
34.t39
34.t39
t39
270.42(0)
270.42(oH1>
270.42(oK2)
270.42{oM2Mi)
Page 62 of 68
DLDR.0 -12/10/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST; Land Disposal Restrictions (oonfd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
no standards exist
and treatment
removes prohibitions
of 268.32 or RCRA
3004
no increased or
substantially
different risks
Federal/State
approval; allowable
modifications
allow facilities to
change operation to
treat or store if:
major permit
modification
is requested;
demonstrates neces-
sity to comply with
268 or RCRA 3004;
and
ensures compliance
pending administra-
tive determination
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
t39
34
34
t39
t39
t39
t39
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(o)(2)(ii)
270.42(0X3)
270.42(o)(4)
270.42(0)
270.42toM1)
270.42(0)(2)
270.42(D)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CIT ATOM
51 Alt ANALOG IS:
EOUKT
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX I TO SECTION 270.42
42 CLASSIFICATION OF PERMIT MODIFICATION
43 add new item
Involving F039 under
"General Facility
Standards"
44 redesignate old
B(1)(b) as
BflMcl
78
78
270.42
Appendix I, B(1)(b)
270.42
Aroendix 1. BdKc)
Page 63 of 68
DLDR.O - 12/10/01
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
E6XPIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART G - INTERIM STATUS
CHANGES DURING INTERIM STATUS
45 no reconstruction;
changes do not
include tank/
container changes
to comply with
land disposal
restrictions
39
270.72(e)
6
8
9
See amendment to rule addressed by Revision Checklist 39 at 52 PR 41295 (October 27, 1987).
Paragraph 260.11 (a) is also affected by Revision Checklist 67 (54 FR 40260, September 29,
1989) and Revision Checklist 73 (55 FR 8948, March 9, 1990).
Paragraph 261.5{f)(2) Is also affected by Revision Checklist 47 (53 FR 27162, July 19, 1988).
Note that the "TC Rule," Revision Checklist 74 (55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990), has also made
changes to 261.24(b).
Paragraph 261.33(c) is also affected by Revision Checklist 41 (52 FR 26012, July 10, 1987).
Note that the final rule for Revision Checklist 39 (52 FR 25787) gives Subpart E, 262.51 as the
citation for Farmers. This is not correct as the August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28664, Revision Checklist
31) final rule regarding exports changed this section and moved it to Subpart G, 262.70. This
error in the final rule was deleted when Revision Checklist 39 was developed, and the proper
citation (262.70) was used on that checklist. This error was ultimately corrected at 53 FR 27164
(July 19, 1988).
Also see technical correction to the rule addressed by Revision Checklist 34 at 52 FR 21010
(June 4, 1987).
Subparagraphs 264.13(a)(1) and 265.13(a)(1) are also affected by Revision Checklist 64 (54 FR
33376, August 14, 1989).
This code is part of the optional requirements for the alternate treatment standards for lab packs
under the Third Third Scheduled Waste Rule. If adopted, all of the requirements (i.e., 264.316(f),
265.316(f), 268.7(a)(7), 268.7(a)(8), 268.42(c), 268.42(c)(1)-(4), and Appendices IV and V to Part
268) related to these alternate treatment standards must be adopted.
Page 64 of 68
OLDR.9 - 12/10/01
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
This is a new subparagraph introduced into the code by Revision Checklist 78. The original
subparagraph 268.1(c)(3) was introduced by Revision Checklist 34, modified by Revision Checklist
39, then removed by Revision Checklist 50, with 268.1(c)(4) redesignated as (c)(3). The
redesignated subparagraph 268.1 (c)(3) was subsequently removed by Revision Checklist 66.
Subparagraph 268.1 (c)(4) originated in Revision Checklist 34, was modified by Revision Checklist
39, redesignated by Revision Checklist 50, and finally removed by Revision Checklist 66.
Revision Checklist 48 also made a technical correction.
Subparagraph 268.1 (c)(5) originated in Revision Checklist 39, was revised by Revision Checklist
48, original text redesignated and new text introduced by Revision Checklist 50, and finally
removed by Revision Checklist 78.
This paragraph was originally part of 268.2(a) when It was entered into the code by Revision
Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 78 renumbered it as 268.2(b) and removed the old 268.2(b)
introduced by Revision Checklist 34.
The definition of land disposal was introduced into the code as part of 268.2(a) by Revision
Checklist 34. It was modified by Revision Checklist 39 and designated as 268.2(c) by Revision
Checklist 78.
Note there is a typographical error in the Federal Register notice for Revision Checklist 78 (55 FR
22520, June 1, 1990). The reference to "(g)(6)" should be "(f)."
This definition was introduced by Revision Checklist 39 as part of 268.2(a). It was redesignated
as 268.2(e) by Revision Checklist 78.
Paragraph 268.3(a) was originally introduced into the code by Revision Checklist 34 as 268.3, and
was then revised by Revision Checklist 39. Revision Checklist 78 revised and redesignated it as
268.3(a).
268.6(c) was originally introduced by Revision Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 50 redesignated
that 268.6(c) as 268.6(d) and inserted a new 268.6(c).
The original 268.6(d) was Introduced by Revision Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 50
redesignated that paragraph as 268.6(g). That same checklist redesignated 268.6(c) as 268.6(d).
See Footnote 18.
268.6(e) was introduced by Revision Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 50 redesignated that
268.6(e) as 268.6(h) and inserted a new 268.6(e).
268.6(f) was introduced by Revision Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 50 redesignated that 268.6(f)
as 268.6(1) and inserted a new 268.6(f).
268.6(d)-(j) were originally introduced by Revision Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 50
redesignated these paragraphs as 268.6(g)-(m).
Page 65 of 68
DLDR.0 - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
23 268.6(k) was originally introduced by Revision Checklist 39. Revision Checklist 50 redesignated it
as 268.6(n).
24 Note that the rule addressed by Revision Checklist 78 (55 FR 22520) makes it appear as if
268.7(a)(3)(iii)-(v) were removed (see page 22687). This was an error and these three
subparagraphs should remain in the code.
Initially, subparagraphs 268.7(a)(4)(i)-(iv) were introduced into the code by Revision Checklist 50.
Revision Checklist 78 completely changed the text of (a)(4)(i)-(iii) and removed (a)(4)(iv).
This subparagraph was originally 268.7(a)(4) when it was added to the code
34. However, It was redesignated as 268.7(a)(5) by Revision Checklist 50.
27
These subparagraphs were originally 268.7(b)(1) and 268.7(b)(1)(i)-(iv) when they were added to
the code by Revision Checklist 34. However, they were redesignated as 268.7(b)(4) and
268.7(b)(4)(i)-(iv) by Revision Checklist 50.
These subparagraphs were originally 268.7(b){2) and 268.7(b)(2)(i)-(ii) when they were added to
the code by Revision Checklist 34. However, they were redesignated as 268.7(b)(5) and
268.7(b)(S)(i)-(ii) by Revision Checklist 50.
29
This paragraph was originally 268.7(b){8) when it was entered into the code by Revision Checklist
50, but it was redesignated as 268.7(b)(7) by Revision Checklist 78 because the old 278.7(b)(7)
and 278.7(b)(7)(i)-(iv) were removed by Revision Checklist 78. Revision Checklist 66 corrected
268.7(b)(8) before it was redesignated by Revision Checklist 78.
30
The notice, certification and test requirements currently found in Federal code at 268.7(c)(1) and
(c}(2) were originally addressed in paragraph 268.7(c), as introduced into the code by Revision
Checklist 34. 268.7(c) was subsequently modified by Revision Checklists 39 and 50. Revision
Checklist 39 added the testing requirements now found at 268.7(c){2), although at the time the
paragraph was still designated as 268.7(c). It was Revision Checklist 50 that significantly revised
the paragraph so that the notice and certification requirements now appear at (c)(1) and the
testing requirements appear at (c)(2). The checklist reference column, then, includes all relevant
checklists for 268.7(c)(1) and (c)(2), rather than just Revision Checklist 50 which primarily affected
the formatting changes.
An error in the September 6, 1989 rule (54 FR 36967) makes it appear that the revisions to
268.8(a) include the removal of 268.8(a)(4). This was not the Agency's intent and 268.8(a)(4)
remains in Federal code as introduced by Revision Checklist 50.
Note that 268.8(d) in the final rule addressed by Revision Checklist 50 has a typographical error.
The reference to 263.33(f) should be 268.33(f), as corrected by Revision Checklist 66.
33 The 268.30(a) introduction appeared in the final rule addressed by Revision Checklist 50, but was
not changed by that rule.
Page 66 of 68 DLDRJ -12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST; Land Disposal Restrictions (corrt'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOQ IS:
ESU1V-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
These subparagraphs were originally 268.30{c) and 268.30(c)(1 )-(3) when they were introduced
into the code by Revision Checklist 34. However, Revision Checklist 50 redesignated them as
268.30(d) and 268.30(d)(1)-(3) because that checklist inserted a new paragraph at 268.30(c).
35 These paragraphs were originally 268.31 (b) and 268.31 (b)(1)-(3) when they were introduced into
the code by Revision Checklist 34. However, Revision Checklist 50 redesignated them as
268.31 (d) and 268.31 (d)(1)-(3), because that checklist Inserted a new paragraph at 268.31 (b).
36 While this subparagraph appeared in the final rule addressed by Revision Checklist 50, the rule
did not change this subparagraph.
37
38
39
40
The current text of 268.40(a) and 268.41 (a) indicates that an extract or treatment residue of
certain wastes may be land disposed only if certain requirements are met using either the test
method in Appendix I of Part 268 or the test method in Appendix II of Part 261. Following
promulgation of the March 29, 1990 Toxicity Characteristics rule addressed by Revision Checklist
74 (55 FR 11798, as amended at 55 FR 26986), both of these appendices relate to the same test
method, the TCLP. Previously, the Part 261 appendix contained the EP Toxicity test procedures
while the Part 268 appendix contained the TCLP. EPA will issue a correction to the rule for these
particular paragraphs in the near future, clarifying which procedures may be used. Until such
time, however, EPA indicates that for the specific waste exceptions listed in these paragraphs, the
TCLP can be used for measuring compliance with the treatment standards for those specified
wastes, and if the extract or treatment residue fails that test, the EP Toxicity test can be used. If
the extract or residue passes that less stringent test, then such waste is considered in compliance
with the treatment standards. For more information related to the use of either of the two test
methods, see the discussion at 55 FR 22660 (June 1, 1990).
The 55 FR 22520, June 1, 1990, code incorrectly states that a subparagraph 268.42(e) is added.
The Federal Register did not contain a 268.42(e); it only added 268.42(d).
While 268.43(b) appeared in the final rule addressed by Revision Checklist 63, the text of the
paragraph was not changed and remains the same as that introduced by Revision Checklist 50.
Revision Checklist 74, a non-LDR checklist, revised and moved the TCLP from Appendix I of Part
268 to Appendix II of Part 261. The TCLP is used in the LDR program to determine whether
certain wastes require treatment prior to land disposal. Because the rule addressed by Revision
Checklist 74 included modifications to the TCLP for use In the LDR program, Checklist 74 is
included in the LDR Checklist Reference column for Appendix I of Part 268. Effectively, States
adopting the Third Thirds Land Disposal Restrictions must also adopt this new version of the
TCLP found at Part 261, Appendix II of the July 1, 1990 CFR. Note also that the placement of
the TCLP within a State's hazardous waste regulations is not that important, per se. What is
important, however, is that the TCLP introduced by Revision Checklist 34, an LDR checklist, is
replaced by the TCLP entered into the code and amended by the final rules (55 FR 11798 and 55
FR 26986) addressed by Revision Checklist 74.
Page 67 of 68
DLDR.O - 12/10/01
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
41
42
43
44
45
Paragraphs 270.42(o) and (p) were introduced Into the code by Revision Checklists 34 and 39,
respectively. Subsequently, Revision Checklist 54 removed both paragraphs, though these
deletions were optional, though EPA strongly encourages States to adopt the permit modification
rule as addressed by Revision Checklist 54, States may elect to retain paragraphs 270.42(o) and
(p). Thus, the paragraphs are included In this consolidated checklist. If States have adopted the
Revision Checklist 54 modifications, the section title should also be modified to read "Permit
Modification at the Request of the Permittee" Instead of "Minor Modifications of Permits* and the
Revision Checklist 54 modifications made. States should also note that 270.42 was not required
by 271.14 to be part of a State's authorized permit program. Thus, only States which elected to
have a section analogous to 270.42 (Minor Modification of Permits) at the time of base program
authorization need worry about the 270.42 modifications made by Revision Checklists 34 and 39.
These changes are, of course, negated if the State chooses to also adopt the Revision Checklist
54 modification.
Appendix I was introduced by Revision Checklist 54 as an optional modification to Section 270.42.
Changes to this appendix addressed by the LDR Revision Checklist 78 are relevant only if a State
has modified Its code to include Appendix I as per Revision Checklist 54.
Revision Checklist 78 redeslgnated Item B(1)(b) as item B(1)(c) and added a new B(1)(b).
This item was entered into the code as Appendix I, B(1)(b) and was redeslgnated as B{1)(c) by
Revision Checklist 78.
Revision Checklist 61 revised and redesignated 270.72(e) as 270.72(b). The Revision Checklist
61 changes are optional, however, some States may have retained 270.72(e) In their code as
introduced by the LDR Revision Checklist 39.
Page 68 of 68
DLDR.9 - 12HO/91
'-•«,**»
-------
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541,00-14
ATTACHMENT C
Updates to the
State Authorization Manual (SAM)
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Tables G-1 and G-2
The following pages (numbered 4 through 24)
should replace pages 4 through 23 of
SAM Appendix G
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
TABLE Q-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER
Through June 30, 1990
Revision
Checklist
Number
1
2
3
4
5
te
t7
T8
t9
10
11
|12
13
(is)-2'
Federal Requirement
Non-HSWA Requirements prior to non-HSWA
June 30, 1 984; Due Date - one year after the
ryJt1')
Biennial Report [See Revision Checklist
30]
Permit Rules - Settlement Agreement
Interim Status Standards - Applicability
[See Revision Checklist 10 in non-HSWA
Cluster 1]
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Listing
(F024)
National Uniform Manifest [See Revision
Checklists 17 D & 32 in HSWA Cluster I]
Permit Rules: Settlement Agreement
Warfarin & Zinc Phosphide Listing
Lime Stabilized Pickle Uquor Sludge
Non-HSWA Cluster I (July 1, 1984 - June 30
19861')
State Availability of Information
Household Waste
Interim Status Standards - Applicability
Corrections to Test Methods Manual
Satellite Accumulation
Definition of Solid Waste
[Definition of Solid Waste; Correction
(included on Revision Checklist 13 In non-
HSWA Cluster 1)]
4
HSWA or FR
Reference
Cluster 1 (January
oromulaation date
48 FR 3977
48 FR 3961 1
48 FR 52718
49 FR 5308
49 FR 10490
49 FR 17716
49 FR 19922
49 FR 23284
1985; Due Date -
HSWA §3006(f)
49 FR 44978
49 FR 46094
49 FR 47390
49 FR 49568
50 FR 614
50 FR 14216
Promulga-
tion or
HSWA Date
26, 1983 -
of the final
1/28/83
9/1/83
11/22/83
2/10/84
3/20/84
4/24/84
5/10/84
6/5/84
July 1,
11/8/84
11/13/84
11/21/84
12/4/84
12/20/84
1/4/85
4/11/85
Continued . , .
DLIST9 - 12/a<91
-------
SPA 9
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (eont'd)
Through June 30, 1990
Revision Promulga-
Checklfst HSWA or FR Won or
Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
Non-HSWA Cluster I (cont'd)
15 Interim Status Standards for Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities
(13) [Definition of Solid Waste; Correction
(included on Revision Checklist 13 in non-
HSWA Cluster I)]
50 FR 16044
50 FR 33541
4/23/85
8/20/85
Non-HSWA Cluster II (July 1. 1985 - June 30. 1986: Due Date - July 1.
19877)
24
f26
(26)
(26)
(24)
Financial Responsibility: Settlement
Agreement [See non-HSWA Cluster VI]
Usting of Spent Pickle Liquor (K062)
[Listing of Spent Pickle Liquor; Correction
(Included on optional Revision Checklist 26
in non-HSWA Cluster II)]
[Spent Pickle Liquor from Steel Finishing
Operations (included on optional Revision
Checklist 26 in non-HSWA Cluster II, see
Footnote 1 of that checklist)]
[Standards Applicable to Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities;
Closure/Post-Closure and Financial
Responsibility Requirements (Included on
Revision Checklist 24 in non-HSWA
Cluster II)]
Non-HSWA Cluster III (July 1. 1986 - June 30. 1987; Due Date - July 1.
51 FR 16422
51 FR 19320
51 FR 33612
52 FR 28697
53 FR 7740
5/2/86
5/28/86
9/22/86
8/3/87
3/10/88
Radioactive Mixed Waste (See SPA 2)
Liability Coverage - Corporate Guarantee
[See Revision Checklist 43 in non-HSWA
Cluster IV]
51 FR 24504
51 FR 25350
7/3/86
7/11/86
Continued . . .
DLIST9 - 12/W91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
TABLE G-1.
Revision
Checklist
Number
28
LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1990
SPA 9
29
(28)
35
36
37
38
(38)
Federal Requirement
Non-HSWA Cluster III (cont'd)
Standards for Hazardous Waste Storage
and Treatment Tank Systems [Certain
sections superseded by 53 FR 34079, see
Revision Checklist 52 in non-HSWA
Cluster V; also see HSWA Cluster I]
Correction to Listing of Commercial
Chemical Products and Appendix VIII
Constituents [Completely superseded by
53 FR 13382; use Revision Checklist 46 in
non-HSWA Cluster IV to replace this
checklist]
[Standards for Hazardous Waste Storage
and Treatment Tank Systems; Correction
(Included on Revision Checklist 28 in non-
HSWA Cluster III)]
Revised Manual SW-846; Amended
Incorporation by Reference
Closure/Post-closure Care for Interim
Status Surface Impoundments
Definition of Solid Waste; Technical
Corrections
Amendments to Part B Information
Requirements for Land Disposal Facilities
[Development of Corrective Action
Programs After Permitting Hazardous
Waste Land Disposal Facilities; Corrections
(Included on Revision Checklist 38 in non-
HSWA Cluster III)]
HSWA or FR
Reference
51 FR 25422
51 FR 28296
51 FR 29430
52 FR 8072
52 FR 8704
52 FR 21306
52 FR 23447
52 FR 33936
Promulga-
tion or
HSWA Date
7/14/86
8/6/86
8/15/86
3/16/87
3/19/87
6/5/87
6/22/87
9/9/87
Non-HSWA Cluster IV (July 1. 1987 - June 30. 1988; Due Date - July 1.
1969^)
40 List (Phase 1) of Hazardous Constituents 52 FR 25942
for Ground-Water Monitoring
7/9/87
Continued . . .
DLIST9 - 12/W91
-------
SPA 9
TABLE Q-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1990
Revision Promulga-
Checklist HSWA or FR tion or
Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
41
45
46
Non-HSWA Cluster IV (cont'd)
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste
Liability Requirements for Hazardous
Waste Facilities; Corporate Guarantee
[See Revision Checklist 27 in non-HSWA
Cluster III]
Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous Units
[See Revision Checklist 59 in non-HSWA
V for technical corrections]
Technical Correction; Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste (Entirely
supersedes Revision Checklist 29 in non-
HSWA Cluster III)
52 FR 26012
52 FR 44314
52 FR 46946
53 FR 13382
7/10/87
11/18/87
12/10/87
4/22/88
Non-HSWA Cluster V (July 1. 1988 - June 30. 1989; Due Date - July 1.
1990^)
f49 Identification and Listing of Hazardous 53 FR 27290 7/19/88
Waste; Treatability Studies Sample
Exemption
51 Standards Applicable to Owners and 53 FR 33938 9/1/88
Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage and Disposal Facilities; Liability
Coverage [withheld; EPA is responding to
the settlement of litigation surrounding this
rule]
52 Hazardous Waste Management System; 53 FR 34079 9/2/88
Standards for Hazardous Waste Storage
and Treatment Tank Systems [See
Revision Checklist 28 in non-HSWA
Cluster III; also see HSWA Cluster II]
Continued
DLIST9 -
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1990
Revision Promulga-
Checklist HSWA or FR tion or
Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
Non-HSWA Cluster V (cont'd)
53 Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; and Designation, Reportable
Quantities, and Notification
f54 Permit Modifications for Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities
55 Statistical Methods for Evaluating Ground-
Water Monitoring Data from Hazardous
Waste Facilities
(54) [Permit Modifications for Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities (Included on
optional Revision Checklist 54 in non-
HSWA Cluster V)]
t56 Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Removal of Iron Dextran from the
List of Hazardous Wastes
f57 Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Removal of Strontium Sulfide from
the List of Hazardous Wastes
f58 Standards for Generators of Hazardous
Waste; Manifest Renewal
59 Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous Units;
Standards Applicable to Owners and
Operators (Technical correction to Revision
Checklist 45 in non-HSWA Cluster IV)
60 Amendment to Requirements for
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits
f61 Changes to Interim Status Facilities for
Hazardous Waste Management Permits;
Modifications of Hazardous Waste
Management Permits; Procedures for
Post-Closure Permitting
53 FR 35412
53 FR 37912
53 FR 39720
53 FR 41649
53 FR 43878
53 FR 43881
53 FR 45089
54 FR 615
54 FR 4286
54 FR 9596
9/13/88
9/28/88
10/11/88
10/24/88
10/31/88
10/31/88
11/8/88
1/9/89
1/30/89
3/7/89
Continued . , ,
DLIST9 - 12/9/91
-------
Revision
Checklist
Number
SPA 9
TABLE Q-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1990
Promulga-
HSWA or FR tion or
Federal Requirement
Reference
HSWA Date
Non-HSWA Cluster VI (July 1, 1989 - June 30, 1990; Due Date - July 1,
1991") '•
65
67
70
Delay of Closure Period for Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities
Mining Waste Exclusion I
Testing and Monitoring Activities
24- Financial Responsibility: Settlement
(Amended) Agreement; Correction [See Revision
Checklist 64 and Footnote 4 of this table]
71 Mining Waste Exclusion II
72 Modifications of F019 Listing
73 Testing and Monitoring Activities;
Technical Corrections
76 Criteria for Listing Toxic
Wastes; Technical Amendment
78 - Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes
[See HSWA Cluster II]
54 FR 33376
54 FR 36592
54 FR 40260
Changes to Part 124 Not Accounted for by Various
Present Checklists
55 FR 25976
55 FR 2322
55 FR 5340
55 FR 8948
55 FR 18726
55 FR 22520
8/14/89
9/1/89
9/29/89
Various
6/26/90
1/23/90
2/14/90
3/9/90
5/4/90
6/1/90
HSWA Cluster I (November 8. 1984 - June 30. 1987; Due Date - July 1.
19891')
Surface Impoundment Requirements
HSWA §3005(j)
§30O4(d)
Exceptions to the Burning and Blending of HSWA
Hazardous Waste §3004(q)(2)(A)
§3004(r)(2)&(3)
Continued . . .
DUST9 - 12/9/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Revision
Checklist
Number
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1990
SPA 9
14
16
Federal Requirement
17
HSWA Cluster I (cont'd)
Hazardous and Used Oil Fuel Criminal
Penalties
HSWA Date of Enactment Provisions [See
Revision Checklists 17 A - S in HSWA
Cluster I]
Direct Action Against Insurers
Dioxin Waste Listing and Management
Standards
Fuel Labeling [See Revision Checklist 17
K in HSWA Cluster Ij
Paint Filter Test [See Revision Checklist
25 in HSWA Cluster I]
Prohibition of Liquids in Landfills [See
Revision Checklist 17 F in HSWA
Cluster I]
Expansions During Interim Status - Waste
Piles [See Revision Checklist 17 P in
HSWA Cluster I]
Expansions During Interim Status -
Landfills and Surface Impoundments [See
Revision Checklist 17 P in HSWA
Cluster I]
Sharing of Information With the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
HSWA Codification Rule [See Revision
Checklist 44 in HSWA Cluster II]
Promulga-
HSWA or FR tion or
Reference HSWA Date
HSWA
§3006(h)
§3008(d)
§3014
Numerous
HSWA §3004
50 FR 18370
HSWA
§3004{c)
HSWA
§3015{a)
HSWA
§3015(b)
HSWA
§3019(b)
50 FR 28702
11/8/84
HSWA §3004{t) 11/8/84
50 FR 1978 1/14/85
2/7/85
4/30/85
5/8/85
5/8/85
5/8/85
7/15/85
7/1 5/85
10
Continued . . .
DUST9 - 12/9/91
-------
Revision
Checklist
Number
SPA 9
TABLE Q-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1990
Promuiga-
HSWA or FR Won or
Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
18
19
20
(20)
HSWA Cluster I (cont'd)
17 A - Small Quantity Generators
[Superseded by 51 FR 10146, see
Revision Checklist 23 in HSWA
Cluster I]
f 17 B - Delisting
f 17 C - Household Waste
17 D - Waste Minimization [See Revision
Checklist 32 in HSWA Cluster I]
17 E - Location Standards for Salt Domes,
Salt Beds, Underground Mines and
Caves
17 F - Liquids in Landfills [See Revision
Checklist 25 in HSWA Cluster I]
17 G - Dust Suppression
17 H - Double Liners
17 I - Ground-Water Monitoring
17 J - Cement Kilns
17 K - Fuel Labeling [Superseded by 51
FR 49164, see Revision Checklist
19 in HSWA Cluster I]
17 L - Corrective Action
17 M - Pre-construction Ban
17 N - Permit Life
17 O - Omnibus Provision
17 P - Interim Status
f 17 Q - Research and Development Permits
17 R - Hazardous Waste Exports
[Superseded by 51 FR 28644, see
Revision Checklist 31 in HSWA
Cluster I]
17 S - Exposure Information
Listing of TDI, TDA, DNT
50 FR 42936
Burning of Waste Fuel and Used Oil Fuel 50 FR 49164
in Boilers and industrial Furnaces
Listing of Spent Solvents
[Listing of Spent Solvents; Correction
(Included on Revision Checklist 20)1
50 FR 53315
51 FR 2702
10/23/85
11/29/85
12/31/85
1/21/86
11
Continued . , .
DLIST9 - 12/W91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1990
SPA 9
Revision
Checklist
Number
21
22
23
25
28
30
31
(28)
32
33
34
Federal Requirement
HSWA Cluster I (cont'd)
Listing of EDB Waste
Listing of Four Spent Solvents
Generators of 100 to 1000 kg Hazardous
Waste [See Revision Checklists 42 and 47
in HSWA Cluster II]
Codification Rule, Technical Correction
(Paint Filter Test)
Standards for Hazardous Waste Storage
and Treatment Tank Systems [Certain
sections superseded by 53 FR 34079, see
Revision Checklist 52 in HSWA Cluster II;
also see Non-HSWA Cluster ill]
Biennial Report; Correction
Exports of Hazardous Waste [See Revision
Checklist 48 in HSWA Cluster II]
[Hazardous Waste Storage and Tank
Systems; Corrections (See Revision
Checklist 28 in HSWA Cluster I)]
Standards for Generators - Waste
Minimization Certifications
Listing of EBDC
Land Disposal Restrictions [Certain
HSWA or FR
Reference
51 FR 5327
51 FR 6537
51 FR 10146
51 FR 19176
51 FR 25422
51 FR 28556
51 FR 28664
51 FR 29430
51 FR 35190
51 FR 37725
51 FR 40572
Promulga-
tion or
HSWA Date
2/13/86
2/25/86
3/24/86
5/28/86
7/1 4/86
8/8/86
8/8/86
8/1 5/86
10/1/86
10/24/86
11/7/86
(19)
sections superseded by 52 FR 25760 and
53 FR 31138, see Revision Checklists 39
& 50 in HSWA Cluster II, and SPAs 4 &
6]
[Burning of Waste Fuel and Used Oil Fuel
in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces;
Technical Corrections (Included on
Revision Checklist 19 in HSWA Cluster I)]
52 FR 11819
4/13/87
12
Continued , . .
DUST9 - 12/W91
-------
Revision
Checklist
Number
(34)
(17B)
SPA 9
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1990
Promulga-
HSWA or FR tion or
Federal Requirement
HSWA Cluster I (cont'd)
[Land Disposal Restrictions; Corrections
(Included on Revision Checklist 34 in
HSWA Cluster I)]
[Hazardous Waste Management System:
Requirements of Rulemaking Petitions
(Included on optional Revision Checklist
17 B in HSWA Cluster I)]
Reference
52 FR 21010
54 FR 27114
HSWA Date
6/4/87
6/27/89
HSWA Cluster II (July 1. 1987 - June 30. 1990; Due Date - July 1. 1991-)
39 California List Waste Restrictions [See
Revision Checklist 34 and SPA 4; certain
sections superseded by 53 FR 31138, see
Revision Checklist 50, in HSWA Cluster II,
and SPA 6]
42 Exception Reporting for Small Quantity
Generators of Hazardous Waste [See
Checklist 23 in HSWA Cluster I]
(39) [California List Waste Restrictions;
Technical Corrections (Included on
Revision Checklist 39 in HSWA Cluster II)]
44 HSWA Codification Rule 2 [See Revision
Checklist 17 in HSWA Cluster I]
44 A - Permit Application Requirements
Regarding Corrective Action
44 B - Corrective Action Beyond Facility
Boundary
44 C - Corrective Action for Injection Wells
44 D - Permit Modification
44 E - Permit as a Shield Provision
44 F - Permit Conditions to Protect Human
Health and the Environment
44 G - Post-Closure Permits
47 Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Technical Correction (corrects
Revision Checklist 23 in HSWA Cluster I)
52 FR 25760
52 FR 35894
52 FR 41295
52 FR 45788
53 FR 27162
7/8/87
9/23/87
10/27/87
12/1/87
7/19/88
13
Continued . . .
DLIST9 - 12/9/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Revision
Checklist
Number
48
50
52
TABLE Q-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1990
SPA 9
(50)
62
63
66
68
69
74
75
Federal Requirement
HSWA Cluster II (cont'd)
Farmer Exemptions; Technical Corrections
(corrects Revision Checklist 31 in HSWA
Cluster I)
Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes [See Revision Checklist
62 in HSWA Cluster I]
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Standards for Hazardous Waste Storage
and Treatment Tank Systems [Supersedes
certain portions of Revision Checklist 28 in
HSWA Cluster I; also see non-HSWA
Cluster V]
[Land Disposal Restrictions (Included on
Revision Checklist 50 in HSWA Cluster II)]
Land Disposal Restriction Amendments to
First Third Scheduled Wastes [amends
portions of Revision Checklist 50 in HSWA
Cluster II]
Land Disposal Restrictions for Second
Third Scheduled Wastes
Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction to
the First Third Scheduled Wastes
Reportable Quantity Adjustment Methyl
Bromide Production Wastes
Reportable Quantity Adjustment
Toxicity Characteristics Revisions
Listing of 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
Production Wastes
HSWA Codification Rule, Double Liners;
Correction
HSWA or FR
Reference
53 FR 27164
53 FR 31138
53 FR 34079
54 FR 8264
54 FR 18836
54 FR 26594
54 FR 36967
54 FR 41402
54 FR 50968
55 FR 11798
55 FR 18496
55 FR 19262
Promulga-
tion or
HSWA Date
7/19/88
8/17/88
9/2/88
2/27/89
5/2/89
6/23/89
9/6/89
10/6/89
12/11/89
3/29/90
5/2/90
5/9/90
14
Continued . . ,
DLIST9 - 12/3>91
-------
Revision
Checklist
Number
78^
SPA 9
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1990
Promulga-
HSWA or FR tion or
Federal Requirement
HSWA Cluster II (cont'd)
Land Disposal Restrictions for Third
Third Scheduled Wastes
[See non-HSWA Cluster VI]
Reference
55 FR 22520
HSWA Date
6/1/90
(66) [Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction
(Included on Revision Checklist 66 in
HSWA Cluster II)]
79 Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities-Organic
Air Emission Standards For Process
Vents and Equipment Leaks (See Revision
Checklist 87 in RCRA Cluster I)
(74) [ToxicHy Characteristics Revisions;
Correction (Included on Revision Checklist
74 in HSWA Cluster II)]
55 FR 23935
55 FR 25454
6/13/90
6/21/90
55 FR 26986
6/29/90
f Optional.
1 States have an additional year if statutory changes are required.
2A parenthesized number implies that this is not the main rule for the indicated
checklist. However, the rule is included on the indicated checklist. Rules with
parenthesized numbers are typically technical corrections or amendments to a major final
rule. These corrections are usually close enough in time to the initial final rule that the
correction was included on the checklist for the initial rule, rather than develop a new
checklist for the correction.
3While Revision Checklists 27 and 43 are optional, States which have adopted or
choose to adopt the changes addressed by Revision Checklist 27 must adopt Revision
Checklist 43's changes.
*The May 2, 1986 amendments to 40 CFR 264.113 and 265.113, addressed by
Revision Checklist 24, must be adopted before or simultaneous with adopting the provisions
addressed by Revision Checklist 64. Also see Footnote 5.
15
Continued , . .
OLIST9 - 12/W91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1990
Revision Promulga-
Checklist HSWA or FR Won or
Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
5On!y those sections, i.e., 40 CFR 264.113 and 265.113, of Revision Checklist 24
(Amended) recharacterized as more stringent by the June 26, 1990 correction are included
in non-HSWA Cluster VI. All other Revision Checklist 24 provisions continue to be
included in non-HSWA Cluster II. States which have already adopted the 264.113 and
265.113 amendments as part of their authorization for Revision Checklist 24 in non-HSWA
Cluster II, are not affected by this correction and do not have to submit an amended
Revision Checklist 24.
6Revision Checklist 78 is in HSWA Cluster II, with the exception of the clarifying
amendment to §268.33(c) which is in non-HSWA Cluster VI. This clarification is not
immediately effective in authorized States since the requirements are not imposed pursuant
to HSWA. Thus, these requirements are applicable only in those States that do not have
interim or final authorization. In authorized States, the requirements will not be applicable
until the State revises its program to adopt equivalent requirements under State law.
16 DLIST9 - 12/3*91
-------
SPA 9
Revision
Checklist
Number
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER
Through June 30, 1991
t6
t8
Federal Requirement
State Availability of information [See
Appendix N]
Radioactive Mixed Waste (See SPA 2
and Appendix N)
Direct Action Against Insurers
Surface Impoundment Requirements
Sharing of Information With the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
Exceptions to the Burning and Blending
of Hazardous Waste
Hazardous and Used Oil Fuel Criminal
Penalties
Biennial Report
Permit Rules - Settlement Agreement
Interim Status Standards - Applicability
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Listing
(¥024)
National Uniform Manifest
Permit Rules: Settlement Agreement
Warfarin & Zinc Phosphide Listing
Lime Stabilized Pickle Liquor Sludge
17
Cluster
Non-HSWA Cluster
Non-HSWA Cluster
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Continued . . .
DLIST9 - 12/9/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Revision
Checklist *
Number
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
Federal Requirement
Cluster
SPA i
f9 Household Waste
10 Interim Status Standards - Applicability
11 Corrections to Test Methods Manual
f12 Satellite Accumulation
13 Definition of Solid Waste
14 Dioxin Waste Listing and Management
Standards
15 Interim Status Standards for Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities
16 Paint Filter Test
17 HSWA Codification Rule
17 A - Small Quantity Generators
t 17 B - Delisting
t 17 C - Household Waste
17 D - Waste Minimization
17 E - Location Standards for Salt
Domes, Salt Beds, Underground
Mines and Caves
17 F - Liquids in Landfills
17 G - Dust Suppression
17 H - Double Liners
17 I - Ground-Water Monitoring
17 J - Cement Kilns
17 K - Fuel Labeling
17 L - Corrective Action
17 M - Pre-construction Ban
17 N - Permit Life
17 O - Omnibus Provision
17 P - Interim Status
17 Q - Research and Development
t Permits
17 R - Hazardous Waste Exports
17 S - Exposure Information
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Cluster i
Non-HSWA Cluster !
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
18
Continued , . .
DLIST9 - 12/W91
-------
Revision
Checklist
Number
18
19
20
21
22
23
241'
25
f26
TAiLE G-2, NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
SPA 9
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Federal Requirement
Listing of TDI, TDA, DNT
Burning of Waste Fuel and Used Oil
Fuel in Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces
Listing of Spent Solvents
Listing of EDB Waste
Listing of Four Spent Solvents
Generators of 100 to 1000 kg
Hazardous Waste
Financial Responsibility: Settlement
Agreement
Codification Rule, Technical
Correction (Paint Filter Test)
Listing of Spent Pickle Liquor (K062)
Liability Coverage - Corporate
Guarantee
Standards for Hazardous Waste
Storage and Treatment Tank
Systems
Correction to Listing of Commercial
Chemical Products and Appendix VIII
Constituents
Biennial Report; Correction
Exports of Hazardous Waste
Standards for Generators - Waste
Minimization Certifications
Listing of EBDC
Land Disposal Restrictions
Cluster
HSWA Cluster 1
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Cluster II and Non-HSWA
Cluster VI
HSWA Cluster 1
Non-HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster III
Non-HSWA Cluster III and HSWA
Cluster I
Non-HSWA Cluster 111
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
19
Continued . . .
DLIST9 - 12/a-91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Revision
Checklist
Number
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (confd)
Through June 30, 1991
SPA 9
Federal Requirement
Cluster
35 Revised Manual SW-846; Amended
Incorporation by Reference
36 Closure/Post-closure Care for Interim
Status Surface Impoundments
37 Definition of Solid Waste; Technical
Corrections
38 Amendments to Part B Information
Requirements for Land Disposal
Facilities
39 California List Waste Restrictions
40 List {Phase 1) of Hazardous
Constituents for Ground-Water
Monitoring
41 Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste
42 Exception Reporting for Small
Quantity Generators of Hazardous
Waste
Liability Requirements for Hazardous
Waste Facilities; Corporate
Guarantee
44 HSWA Codification Rule 2
44 A - Permit Application Require-
ments Regarding Corrective
Action
44 B - Corrective Action Beyond
Facility Boundary
44 C - Corrective Action for
Injection Weils
44 D - Permit Modification
44 E - Permit as a Shield
Provision
Non-HSWA Cluster 111
Non-HSWA Cluster III
Non-HSWA Cluster ill
Non-HSWA Cluster III
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster IV
Non-HSWA Cluster IV
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster IV
HSWA Cluster II
20
Continued . . .
DLIST9 - 12/W91
-------
Revision
Checklist
Number
45
46
47
48
|49
50
51
52
53
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
SPA 9
Federal Requirement
44 F - Permit Conditions to Protect
Human Health and the
Environment
44 Q - Post-Closure Permits
Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous
Units
Technical Correction; Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Technical
Correction
Farmer Exemptions; Technical
Corrections
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Treatability
Studies Sample Exemption
Land Disposal Restrictions for First
Third Scheduled Wastes
Standards Applicable to Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities; Liability Coverage
[withheld; EPA is responding to the
settlement of litigation surrounding
this rule]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Standards for Hazardous
Waste Storage and Treatment Tank
Systems
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; and Designation,
Reportable Quantities, and
Notification
Cluster
Non-HSWA Cluster IV
Non-HSWA Cluster IV
HSWA Cluster II
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster V
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster V
Non-HSWA Cluster V and HSWA
Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster V
21
Continued . . .
OLIST9 - 12/S91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Revision
Checklist
Number
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (confd)
Through June 30, 1991
Federal Requirement
Cluster
SPA 9
f54 Permit Modifications for Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities
55 Statistical Methods for Evaluating
Ground-Water Monitoring Data from
Hazardous Waste Facilities
f56 Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Removal of Iron
Dextran from the List of Hazardous
Wastes
f57 Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Removal of
Strontium Sulfide from the List of
Hazardous Wastes
t58 Standards for Generators of
Hazardous Waste; Manifest Renewal
Non-HSWA Cluster V
Non-HSWA Cluster V
Non-HSWA Cluster V
Non-HSWA Cluster V
Non-HSWA Cluster V
59 Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous
Units; Standards Applicable to
Owners and Operators
60 Amendment to Requirements for
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits
t61 Changes to Interim Status Facilities
for Hazardous Waste Management
Permits; Modifications of Hazardous
Waste Management Permits;
Procedures for Post-Closure
Permitting
62 Land Disposal Restriction
Amendments to First Third
Scheduled Wastes
63 Land Disposal Restrictions for
Second Third Scheduled Wastes
Non-HSWA Cluster V
Non-HSWA Cluster V
Non-HSWA Cluster V
HSWA Cluster II
HSWA Cluster II
22
Continued . . .
DLIST9 - 12/9/91
-------
Revision
Checklist
Number
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
Federal Requirement
Cluster
SPA 9
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Delay of Closure Period for
Hazardous Waste Management
Facilities
Mining Waste Exclusion I
Land Disposal Restrictions;
Correction to First Third Scheduled
Wastes
Testing and Monitoring Activities
Reportable Quantity Adjustment
Methyl Bromide Production Wastes
Reportable Quantity Adjustment
Changes to Part 124 Not Accounted
for by Present Checklists
Mining Waste Exclusion II
Modification of F019 Listing
Testing and Monitoring Activities;
Technical Corrections
Toxicity Characteristics Revision
Listing of 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
Production Wastes
Criteria for Listing Toxic
Wastes; Technical Amendment
HSWA Codification Rule, Double
Liners; Correction
Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes
Non-HSWA Cluster VI
Non-HSWA Cluster VI
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster VI
HSWA Cluster II
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA VI
Non-HSWA Cluster VI
Non-HSWA Cluster VI
Non-HSWA Cluster VI
HSWA Cluster II
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster VI
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster VI and
HWSA CLuster II
23
Continued . . .
DUST9 - 12/9/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
Revision
Checklist
Number Federal Requirement Cluster
79 Hazardous Waste Treatment, HSWA Cluster II
Storage, and Disposal Facilities--
Organic Air Emission Standards For
Process Vents and Equipment Leaks
t Optional.
1Oniy those sections, i.e., 40 CFR 264.113 and 265.113, of Revision Checklist 24
(Amended) recharacterized as more stringent by the June 26, 1990 correction are included
in non-HSWA Cluster VI. All other Revision Checklist 24 provisions continue to be
included in non-HSWA Cluster II. States which have already adopted the 264.113 and
265.113 amendments as part of their authorization for Revision Checklist 24 in non-HSWA
Cluster II, are not affected by this correction and do not have to submit an amended
Revision Checklist 24.
2While Revision Checklists 27 and 43 are optional, states which have adopted or
choose to adopt the changes addressed by Revision Checklist 27, must adopt Revision
Checklist 43's changes.
'The May 2, 1986 amendments to 40 CFR 264.113 and 265.113, addressed by
Revision Checklist 24, must be adopted before or simultaneous with adopting the provisions
addressed by Revision Checklist 64. Also see Footnote 1.
4Revision Checklist 78 is in HSWA Cluster II, with the exception of the clarifying
amendment to §268.33{c) which is in non-HSWA Cluster VI. This clarification is not
immediately effective in authorized States since the requirements are not imposed pursuant
to HSWA. Thus, these requirements are applicable only in those States that do not have
interim or final authorization, (n authorized States, the requirements will not be applicable
until the State revises its program to adopt equivalent requirements under State law.
24 DLIST9 - 12/W91
-------
-------
° b u oj
*d a *" "^
c c/3 u
rt ,
-------
-------
-------
-------
DO NOT PHOTOGRAPH THIS PAGE
ATTENTION: REPRODUCTION
THIS DOCUMENT IS MICROFICHED AS ONE REPORT
IT IS PRINTED IN °^ PARTS DIVIDED AT THIS PAGE
ATTENTION: SPECIAL REPRODUCTION UNIT
THE PARTS INDICATED ABOVE SHOULD BE PRINTED
AS FOLLOWS:
PART 2: PAGE THROUGH PAGE
disk: Pam25 - Form/extra large rpts - 9/18/90
-------
-------
DIR. NO. 9541,00-14
RB82J49J
Model Revision Attorney General's Statement
The following pages (numbered 9 through 47)
should replace pages 9 through 43 of
SAM Appendix E
-------
-------
DIE. NO. 9541,00-14
SPA 9
MODEL REVISION ATTORNEY GENERAL'S STATEMENT FOR FINAL
AUTHORIZATION FOR CHANGES TO THE FEDERAL
RCRA PROGRAM FROM JANUARY 1983 THROUGH
JUNE 1990
I hereby certify, pursuant to my authority as _.. and in accordance with
Section 3006(b) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (42 USC 6901 et §§§.), and 40 CFR
271 that in my opinion the laws of the State [Commonwealth] of provide
adequate authority to carry out the revised program set forth in the revised "Program
Description" submitted by the [State Agency]. The specific authorities provided are
contained in statutes or regulations lawfully adopted at the time this Statement is signed
and which are in effect now [shall be fully effective by ], as specified
below. These authorities and this certification supplement [or supercede (and indicate how
supercede)] the previously certified authorities described in my [or my predecessors]
certification(s) of (date or dates).
Please add an explanation of how the Revision Attorney General's Statement you are
submitting relates to any prior Attorney General's Statements you have submitted.
I. IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING
A. State statutes and regulations contain lists of hazardous waste which
encompass all wastes controlled under the following Federal regulations as indicated in the
designated Revision Checklists:
(1) Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, 40 CFR 261.31, Part 261 Appendices VII
and VIM as amended February 10, 1984 [49 FR 5308], Revision Checklist 4.
1 (2) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Warfarin and zinc phosphide
listing, 40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f), as amended May 10, 1984 [49 FR 19923],
Revision Checklist 7.
(3) TDI, DNT and TDA wastes, 40 CFR 261.32, 261.33(f), and Part 261
Appendices III, VII and VIII as amended October 23, 1985 [50 FR 42936],
Revision Checklist 18.
(4) Spent solvents, 40 CFR 261,31, as amended December 31, 1985 [50 FR
53319] and January 21, 1986 [51 FR 2702], Revision Checklist 20.
(5) EDB wastes, 40 CFR 261.32 and Part 261 Appendices II, III and VIII, as
amended February 13, 1986 [51 FR 5330], Revision Checklist 21.
1The phrase "OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement" is used to indicate
provisions that either are less stringent or reduce the scope of the program. Any State
which adopts an "optional" requirement must ensure that it is at least as stringent as the
Federal requirement.
OAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
(6) Four spent solvents, 40 CFR 261.31, 261.33(f), and Part 261 Appendices III,
VII and VIII as amended February 25, 1986 [51 FR 6541], Revision Checklist
22.
(7) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Listing of spent pickle liquor
from steel finishing operations, 40 CFR 261.32, as amended May 28, 1986
[51 FR 19320] and September 22, 1986 [51 FR 33612], Revision Checklist
26.
(8) Listing of commercial chemical products and Appendix VIII constituents, 40
CFR 261.33 and Part 261 Appendix VIII, as amended August 6, 1986 [51 FR
28296], Revision Checklist 29; as amended July 10, 1987 [52 FR 26012],
Revision Checklist 41; and as amended April 22, 1988 [53 FR 13382],
Revision Checklist 46.
(9) EBDC wastes, 40 CFR 261.32 and Part 261 Appendices III and VII, as
amended on October 24, 1986 [51 FR 37725], Revision Checklist 33.
(10) Listing of spent potliners from aluminum reduction (K088), 40 CFR 261.32
and Part 261 Appendix VII, as amended September 13, 1988 [53 FR 35412],
Revision Checklist 53.
(11) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement] Generic delisting of iron
dextran (CAS No. 9004-66-4), 40 CFR 261.33(f) and Part 261 Appendix VIII,
as amended October 31, 1988 [53 FR 43878], Revision Checklist 56.
(12) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement] Generic delisting of strontium
sulfide (CAS No. 1314-96-1), 40 CFR 261.33(e) and Part 261 Appendix VIII,
as amended October 31, 1988 [53 FR 43881], Revision Checklist 57.
(13) Listing of two wastes (K131 and K132) generated during the production of
methyl bromide, 40 CFR 261.32 and 261 Appendices III and VII, as
amended October 6, 1989 [54 FR 41402], Revision Checklist 68.
(14) Listing of one generic category (F025) of waste generated during the
manufacture of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons by free radical catalyzed
processes and amending F024, 40 CFR 261.31 and 261 Appendix VII;
adding one toxicant to 261 Appendix VIII; as amended December 11, 1989
[54 FR 50968], Revision Checklist 69.
(15) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Amendment to the F019
hazardous waste listing to exclude wastewater treatment sludges from
zirconium phosphating in aluminum can washing, when such phosphating is
an exclusive conversion coating process, 40 CFR 261.31, as amended
February 14, 1990 [55 FR 5340], Revision Checklist 72.
(16) Listing of four wastes (K107-K110) generated during the production of 1,1-
dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) from carboxylic acid hydrazides, 40 CFR 261.31
and Part 261 Appendices III and VII, as amended May 2, 1990 [55 FR
18496], Revision Checklist 75.
10 DAQREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541,00-14
SPA 9
(17) Listing of multisource waste (F039), 40 CFR 261.31 and Part 261 Appendix
VII, as amended June 1, 1990 [55 FR 22520], Revision Checklist 78,
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (b).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. State statutes and regulations define hazardous waste so as to control the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste produced by
small quantity generators of between 100 and 1000 kilograms/month as indicated in
Revision Checklist 23 (which supercedes prior amendments by Revision Checklist 17 A)
and Revision Checklist 47 (providing technical corrections to Checklist 23). State statutes
and regulations also require small quantity generators to certify good faith efforts to
minimize waste generation and to select the best available and affordable treatment,
storage or disposal alternatives, 40 CFR Part 262 as amended October 1, 1986 [51 FR
35190], Revision Checklist 32 (see Item IX below).
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (d); 40 CFR Parts 260-263 and 270 as amended March
24, 1986 (51 FR 10146), October 1, 1986 (51 FR 35190), and July 19, 1988 (53 FR
27162).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. [This requirement applies only if States have a delisting mechanism. This
requirement is NOT OPTIONAL for such States.] State statutes and regulations provide
authority to delist hazardous waste as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 B.
(1) State statutes and regulations require that before deciding to delist a waste,
the State must consider whether any listing factor (including additional
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed would cause
the waste to be hazardous.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001(f)(1); 40 CFR 260.22 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702) and June 27, 1989 (54 FR 27114).
(2) State statutes and regulations require that there be no new temporary delistings
without prior notice and comment. All temporary delistings received before November 18,
1984 without the opportunity for public comment and full consideration of such comment,
shall lapse if not made final by November 8, 1986.
11 DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (f)(2); 40 CFR 260.20(d) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
!FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
D. [OPTIONAL: This Is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
define hazardous waste so as to exclude waste pickle liquor sludge generated by lime
stabilization, but only to the extent that such waste is excluded by 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2), as
indicated in Revision Checklist 8.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.3{c) as amended June 5, 1984 (49 FR
23284).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
E. (OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
define hazardous waste so as to not exclude household waste other than those household
wastes excluded in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1), as indicated in Revision Checklists 9 and 17 C.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) as amended November 13, 1984 (49
FR 44980) and July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
F, State statutes and regulations incorporate the most recent edition and updates to
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods" (SW-846) as
indicated in Revision Checklists 11 and 35.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3001; 40 CFR 260.11, 260.21 and 270.6(a) as amended
December 4, 1984 (49 FR 47390) and March 16, 1987 (52 FR 8072).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
G. State statutes and regulations define solid wastes to include the hazardous
components of radioactive mixed wastes, July 3, 1986 [51 FR 24504]. See State Program
Advisory (SPA) #2.
12 DAGREV99 - 12/10/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1004(27) and 3001 (b).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
H- [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
exempt (with certain limitations) waste samples used in small scale treatability studies from
Subtitle C regulation as indicated in Revision Checklist 49.
Federal Authority; RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 260.10 and 261.4{e)&(f) as amended July 19,
1988 (53 FR 27290).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
I. State statutes and regulations exclude from the mining waste exemption the six
wastes listed at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)(i) through 261.4(b)(7)(vi), as indicated in Revision
Checklist 53.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (b); 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7) as amended September 13, 1988
(53 FR 35412).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
J. State statutes and regulations that:
1. provide final criteria to define Bevill-excluded mineral processing
wastes, finalize the Bevill status of nine mineral processing waste
streams, and list those mineral processing wastes subject to
conditional retention as indicated in Revision Checklist 65.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (b); 40 CFR 261.3 and 261.4 as amended September 1,
1989 (54 FR 36592).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
2. remove five conditionally retained mineral processing wastes from the
exemption from hazardous waste regulation under the Bevill exclusion,
and amend the definitions of "beneficiation" and "designated facility"
as indicated in Revision Checklist 71.
13 DAQREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001(b)(3)(A)(ii); 40 CFR 260.10 and 261.4{b)(7) as amended
January 23, 1990 (55 FR 2322).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
K, State statutes and regulations incorporate 47 new testing methods as approved
methods for use in meeting the regulatory requirements under Subtitle C ol RCRA as
indicated in Revision Checklists 67 and 73.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001, 3004, 3005, and 3006; 40 CFR 260.11 and Part 261
Appendix III as amended September 29, 1989 (54 FR 40260) and March 9, 1990 (55 FR
8948).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
L State statutes and regulations revise the existing toxicity characteristic by
replacing the Extraction Procedure (EP) leach test with the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) for identifying wastes that are defined as hazardous and subject to
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA as indicated in Revision Checklist 74. State statutes
and regulations add 25 organic chemicals and tr^ir regulatory levels to the list of toxic
constituents of concern as indicated in Revision Checklist 74.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002(a), 3001, 3002, 3004, 3005 and 3006; 40 CFR
Parts 261, 264, 265 and 268 as amended March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11798), and June 29,
1990 (55 FR 26986).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
M. State statutes and regulations contain language to result in consistent
interpretation of the criteria for listing wastes as hazardous under RCRA as indicated in
Revision Checklist 76.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (a); 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) as amended May 4, 1990 (55 FR
18726),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
14 DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
N. State statutes and regulations add eight new testing methods related to air
emission control to the section of regulations that incorporates these methods by reference
as indicated in Revision Checklist 79.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001, 3004, 3005 and 3006; 40 CFR 260.11 (a) as amended
June 21, 1990 (55 FR 25454).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
»• DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE
A. State statutes and regulations define hazardous waste and impose management
standards so as to control all the hazardous waste controlled under 40 CFR Parts 261,
264, 265 and 266 as indicated in Revision Checklists 13 and 37.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001 and 3004; 40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 264, 265, and 266 as
amended January 4, 1985 (50 FR 614), April 11, 1985 {50 FR 14216), August 20, 1985
(50 FR 33541) and June 5, 1987 (52 FR 21306).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
III. MANAGEMENT OF DIOXIN WASTES
A. State statutes and regulations contain the following requirements regarding
dioxin wastes as indicated in Revision Checklist 14:
(1) Dfoxin wastes are listed and otherwise identified as hazardous wastes so as to
encompass all such wastes controlled under 40 CFR 261.5(e), 261.7(b), 261.30(d), 261.31,
261.33(f), and Part 261 Appendix X.
(2) Special management and permitting standards for facilities managing dioxin
wastes and prohibitions applicable to permitted and interim status facilities, as provided in
40 CFR Parts 264, 265, and 270.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001 and 3004; 40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265 and 270 as
amended January 14, 1985 (50 FR 1978).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
15 DAGREV9.9 - 1Z'10/91
-------
SPA 9
IV. SATELLITE ACCUMULATION
A. {OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow generators to accumulate at the site of generation, without a permit or interim status,
as much as 55 gallons of hazardous waste or one quart of acutely hazardous waste
provided that the generator complies with the requirements specified in §262.34(c) as
indicated in Revision Checklist 12.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3002, 3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 262.34(c) as amended
December 20, 1984 (49 FR 49571).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
V- APPLICABILITY OF INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
A. State statutes and regulations contain the following requirements regarding
interim status standards as indicated in Revision Checklists 3 and 10:
(1) Interim status standards apply to facilities identified in 40 CFR 265.1 (b).
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004; 40 CFR Part 265 as amended November 22, 1983 (48
FR 52718) and November 21, 1984 (49 FR 46095).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
VI. PAINT FILTER TEST
A. State statutes and regulations require the use of a paint filter test to determine
the absence or presence of free liquids in either a containerized or bulk waste as indicated
in Revision Checklists 16, 17 F and 25.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR Parts 260, 264, 265, and 270 as
amended April 30, 1985 (50 FR 18370), July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702) and May 28, 1986
(51 FR 19176).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
VW. NATIONAL UNIFORM MANIFEST SYSTEM AND RECORDKEEPING
A. State statutes and regulations require generators to use the national uniform
manifest as indicated in Revision Checklists 5 and 32.
16 DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3002 and 3003; 40 CFR Parts 260 and 262 as
amended March 20, 1984 (49 FR 10490) and October 1, 1986 (51 FR 35190).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. State statutes and regulations require that generators, of between 100 and 1000
kg/mo of hazardous waste, file an exception report in those instances where the generator
does not receive confirmation of delivery of his hazardous waste to the designated facility
as indicated in Revision Checklist 42.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001 (d) and 3002(a)(5); 40 CFR Parts 262.42 and 262.44 as
amended September 23, 1987 (52 FR 35894).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. State statutes and regulations require that the following be recorded, as it
becomes available, and maintained in the operating record, until facility closure, as
indicated in Revision Checklist 45: monitoring, testing or analytical data, corrective action
where required by Subpart F and §§264.226, 264.253, 264.254, 264.276, 264.278, 264.280,
264.303, 264.309, 264.347, and 264.602.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 264.73(b) as amended December
10, 1987 (52 FR 46946).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
D. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
include a burden disclosure statement with each uniform manifest form and renew the use
of this form as indicated in Revision Checklist 58.
Federal; Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3002, and 3003; 40 CFR 262.20 and Part 262
Appendix as amended November 8, 1988 (53 FR 45089).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
E. State statutes and regulations require that generators, who ship hazardous
waste to a designated facility in an authorized state which has not yet obtained
17 OAQREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
authorization to regulate that particular waste as a hazardous waste, assure that the
designated facility agrees to sign and return the manifest to the generator, and that any
out-of-state transporter signs and forwards the manifest to the designated facility, as
indicated in Revision Checklist 71.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3002 and 3003; 40 CFR 262.23(e) as amended on
January 23, 1990 (55 FR 2322).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
VIII. BIENNIAL REPORT
A. State statutes and regulations contain the following reporting requirements as
indicated in Revision Checklists 1 and 30.
(1) The biennial report contains the information indicated in 40 CFR 262.41 (a),
264.75 and 265.75.
(2) Facilities must submit groundwater monitoring data annually to the State
Director as indicated in 40 CFR 265.94.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3002 and 3004; 40 CFR Parts 262, 264 and 265 as amended
January 28, 1983 {48 FR 3977) and August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28566).
Citation of laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
IX. WASTE MINIMIZATION
A. State statutes and regulations contain the following requirements regarding
waste minimization as indicated in Revision Checklists 17 D, 30 and 32 (see Item I B
above).
(1) Generators must submit report and manifest certifications regarding efforts taken
to minimize the amounts and toxicity of wastes.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3C€2{a){6), (b); 40 CFR 262.41, 264.75 and 265.75 as
amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702), August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28556) and October 1,
1986 (51 FR 35190).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
18 OAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIE. NO, 9541.00-14
SPA 9
(2) RCRA permits for the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste on the
premises where the waste was generated must contain a certification by the permittee
regarding efforts taken to minimize the amount and toxicity of the generated wastes.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(h); 40 CFR 264.70, 264.73 and 270.30(j)(2) as amended
July 15, 1985 (50 FIR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
X. LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
A. State statutes and regulations contain the following requirements regarding
liquids in landfills as indicated in Revision Checklists 17 F and 25.
(1) Effective May 8, 1985, there is a ban on the placement of bulk or
non-containerized liquid hazardous waste or hazardous waste containing free liquids in any
landfill pursuant to 40 CFR 264.314 and 265.314 as amended July 15, 1985 and May 28,
1986.
(2) Effective November 8, 1985, there is a ban on the placement of non-hazardous
liquids in landfills unless the owner or operator satisfies the criteria set forth in 40 CFR
264.314(e) and 265.314(f), as amended July 15, 1985 and May 28, 1986.
(3) For bulk or non-containerized liquid wastes or wastes containing free liquids
they may be placed in a landfill prior to May 8, 1985, only if the requirements of 40 CFR
264.314(a) and 265.314(a) are met.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(c); 40 CFR 264.314, 265.314 and 270.21 (h) as amended
July 15, 1985 (50 FJR 28702) and May 28, 1986 (51 FR 19176).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XI. GROUND-WATER MONITORING
A. State statutes and regulations provide that the §3004 groundwater monitoring
requirements applicable to surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment units and
landfills shall apply whether or not such units are located above the seasonal high water
table, have two liners and a leachate collection system or have liners that are periodically
inspected, as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 I.
19 DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(p); 40 CFR 264,222, 264.252, 264.253, and 264.302 as
amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).2
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. fOPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement] State statutes and regulations
may allow variances from the ground-water monitoring requirements as provided in
§3004(p). However, those variances must be restricted as provided in RCRA §3004(p) as
indicated in Revision Checklist 17 I.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(p); 40 CFR 264.90(b) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. State statutes and regulations provide that with regard to ground-water
monitoring, all land based hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
analyze for a specified core list (Part 264, Appendix IX) of chemicals plus those chemicals
specified by the Regional Administrator on a site-specific basis as indicated in Revision
Checklist 40.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002(a), 3001, 3004, and 3005; 40 CFR Parts 264.98,
264.99, Part 264 Appendix IX and 270.14 as amended July 9, 1987 (52 FR 25942).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
D. State statutes and regulations specify statistical methods, sampling procedures,
and performance standards that can be used in groundwater monitoring procedures to
detect groundwater contamination at permitted hazardous waste facilities as indicated in
Revision Checklist 55.
2Note that Revision Checklist 17 I reserved the cited sections of 40 CFR Part 264.
Prior to Revision Checklist 171, these sections of code addressed exemptions from the
Subpart F groundwater monitoring requirements.
,. 20 OAQREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002{a), 3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 264.91, 264.92,
264.97, 264.98 and 264.99 as amended October 11, 1988 (53 FR 39720).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XII. eURNING AND BLENDING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
A. State statutes and regulations provide the following requirements:
(1) The burning of fuel containing hazardous waste in a cement kiln is prohibited
as specified in 40 CFR 266.31 and Revision Checklist 17 J.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(q); 40 CFR 266.31 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(2) Fuels containing hazardous waste and all persons who produce, distribute and
market fuel containing hazardous wastes must be regulated as indicated in Revision
Checklists 17 J, 17 K, and 19.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004(q)-(s); 40 CFR 261.31 and 266.34 as amended July 15,
1985 (50 FR 28702) and November 19, 1986 (51 FR 41900).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B- (OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement] State statutes and regulations
provide exceptions to the burning and blending of hazardous waste as specified in
§§3004(q)(2)(A) and 3004(r)(2) & (3).
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004(q)2(A) and 3004(r)(2) & (3).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XIH. CORRECTIVE ACTION
A. State statutes and regulations contain the following corrective action
requirements as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 L:
21 DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
SPA g
(1) Corrective action is required for releases of hazardous waste or constituents
from any solid waste management unit at a facility seeking a permit, regardless of when
the waste was placed in the unit, in all permits issued after November 8, 1984.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 264.90, 264.101, and 270.60 as amended July
15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(2) Corrective action is required beyond a facility's boundary, in accordance with
RCRA §3004(v). (States now may impose these requirements through a permit or a
corrective action order. Once EPA promulgates the regulations required by RCRA
§3004(v), States will need authority to impose corrective action in a permit following the
RCRA §3004(v) regulations.)
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(v)(1).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(3) Corrective action is required beyond a facility's boundary in accordance with
RCRA §3004(v) for all landfills, surface impoundments and waste pile units (including any
new units, replacements of existing units or lateral expansions of existing units) which
receive hazardous waste after July 26, 1982.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(v)(2).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment, and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(4) There is evidence of financial responsibility for corrective action on- and off-site.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004(a)(6); (u); 40 CFR 264.90 and 264.101 as amended July
15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. State statutes and regulations provide for additional information and engineering
feasibility plan requirements regarding groundwater contamination detected at the time of
Part B permit application as indicated in Revision Checklist 38.
22 DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 270.14 as amended June 22, 1987
(52 FR 23447) and September 9, 1987 (52 FR 33936).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. State statutes and regulations require owners and operators of facilities seeking
permits to provide descriptive information on the solid waste management units themselves
and all available information pertaining to any releases from the units as indicated in
Revision Checklist 44 A.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 270.14 as amended December 1, 1987 (52
FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
D. State statutes and regulations require that owners and operators of hazardous
waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (including permit-by-rule facilities subject to
264.101) institute corrective action beyond the facility boundary to protect human health
and the environment, unless the owner/operator is denied access to adjacent lands despite
the owner/operator's best efforts, as indicated in Revision Checklist 44 B.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(v); 40 CFR 264.100(e) and 264.101 (c), as amended
December 1, 1987 (52 FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
E. State statutes and regulations contain the following corrective action
requirements for injection wells as indicated in Revision Checklist 44 C.
(1) Hazardous waste injection wells now operating under RCRA interim status may
retain interim status after issuance of a UIC permit. Until a RCRA permit or a RCRA
"rider" to a UIC permit, which addresses Section 3004(u) corrective action, is issued, the
well must comply with applicable interim status requirements imposed by §265.430, Parts
144.146 and 147, and any UIC permit requirements.
23 DAQREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 144.1(h) as amended December 1, 1987 (52
FR 45788),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(2) As part of the UIC permit process, available information regarding operating
history and condition of the injection well must be submitted as well as any available
information on known releases from the well or injection zone.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 144.31 (g) as amended December 1, 1987 (52
FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(3) UIC facility owners/operators must submit certain information related to
corrective action with their UIC applications.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 270.60(b)(3) as amended December 1, 1987
(52 FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
F. State statutes and regulations require that miscellaneous units comply with
regulations (Subpart F) regarding reseases from solid waste management units when
necessary to comply with §§264.601 through 264.603 as indicated in Revision Checklist 45.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 264.90(d) as amended December 10, 1987
(52 FR 46946).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XIV. HAZARDOUS WASTE EXPORTS
A. State statutes and regulations require generators and transporters of hazardous
waste destined for export outside the United States to comply with standards equivalent to
those as indicated in Revision Checklists 17 R, 31, and 48 (with the latter providing
technical corrections to Checklist 31).
24 DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority; RCRA §3017; 40 CFR 262.50 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702), August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28664), and July 19, 1988 (53 FR 27164).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XV. STANDARDS FOR FACILITIES3
A. State statutes and regulations prohibit the land disposal of hazardous waste
prohibited under 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 E. Land
disposal includes, but is not limited to, placement in landfills, surface impoundments, waste
piles, deep injection wells, land treatment facilities, salt dome and bed formations and
underground mines or caves. Deep injection well means a well used for the underground
injection of hazardous wastes other than a well to which §7010(a) of RCRA applies.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004(b)-(q); 40 CFR 264.18 and 265.18 as amended July 15,
1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. Effective on November 8, 1984, State statutes and regulations prohibit the
placement of any non-containerized or bulk liquid hazardous waste in any salt dome or salt
bed formation any underground mine or cave except as provided in §264.18(c) and
§265.18(c) as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 E. Furthermore, State statutes and
regulations prohibit the placement of any other hazardous waste in such formations until a
permit is issued.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(b); 40 CFR 264.18 and 265.18 as amended July 15, 1985
(50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. State statutes and regulations prohibit the use of waste oil or other materials
contaminated with hazardous wastes (except ignitibie wastes) as a dust suppressant as
indicated in Revision Checklist 17 G.
3This section contains all changes to the Federal RCRA program concerning facility
standards except for those specifically related to groundwater monitoring. This latter group
of facility standard changes are addressed by Section XI.
25 DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
VJ*-.
-------
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(1); 40 CFR 266.23 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Pate of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
D. State statutes and regulations allow direct action by third parties against the
insurer or guarantor of an owner/operator's financial responsibilities if an owner/operator is
in bankruptcy reorganization or arrangement or where (with reasonable diligence)
jurisdiction in any State or Federal Court cannot be obtained over an owner/operator likely
to be solvent at time of judgment.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(t).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
E, State statutes and regulations require the permittee to take steps to minimize
releases to the environment in accordance with 40 CFR Part 270.30(d) as indicated in
Revision Checklist 2,
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c); 40 CFR Part 270 as amended September 1, 1983 (48
FR 39622).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
F. State statutes and regulations require that closure and post-closure requirements
and special requirements for containers apply to interim status landfills as indicated in
Revision Checklist 15.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004; 40 CFR 265.310 and 265.315 as amended April 23, 1985
(50 FR 16044).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
G. State statutes and regulations require compliance with closure/post-closure and
financial responsibility requirements applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal faculties, as indicated in Revision Checklists 24, 36, and
45.
26 DAGREV99 - 12/10/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR Parts 260, 264, 265, and 270 as
amended May 2, 1986 (51 FR 16422), March 19, 1987 (52 FR 8704) and December 10,
1987 (52 FR 46946).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
H. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow qualified companies that treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste to use a
corporate guarantee to satisfy liability assurance requirements as indicated in Revision
Checklists 27 and 43.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3004, and 3005; 40 CFR 264.147, 264.151, and
265.147 as amended July 11, 1986 (51 FR 25350) and November 18, 1987 (52 FR
44314).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
I. State statutes and regulations require companies that generate, treat or store
hazardous waste in tanks to comply with tank standards equivalent to those indicated in
Revision Checklists 28 and 52.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002, 3001 - 3007, 3010, 3014, 3017 - 3019 and 7004;
40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, and 270 as amended July 14, 1986 (51 FR
25422), August 15, 1986 (51 FR 29430) and September 2, 1988 (53 FR 34079).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
J. State statutes and regulations require environmental performance standards;
monitoring, testing, analytical data, inspection, response and reporting procedures; and
post-closure care for miscellaneous units as indicated in Revision Checklist 45.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 264,600, 264.601, 264.602, and
264.603 as amended December 10, 1987 (52 FR 46946).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
27 DAQREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
K. fOPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement] State statutes and regulations
allow owners and operators of landfills, surface impoundments, or land treatment units,
under limited circumstances, to remain open after the final receipt of hazardous wastes in
order to receive non-hazardous wastes in that unit as indicated in Revision Checklist 64.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002(a), 3004, 3005 and 3006; 40 CFR 264.13,
264.112, 264.113, 264.142, 265.13, 265.112, 265.113, 265.142 and Appendix i to 270.42
as amended August 14, 1989 (54 FR 33376).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
L State statutes and regulations require new and existing hazardous waste
treatment, storage or disposal facilities to control organic air emissions from process vents
and equipment leaks as indicated in Revision Checklist 79.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002, 3001-3007, 3010, 3014 and 7004; 40 CFR Parts
261, 264, 265 and 270 as amended June 21, 1990 (55 FR 25454).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XVI. REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS
A. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow a facility (1) to construct an approved TSCA facility for burning PCBs without first
obtaining a RCRA permit and (2) to subsequently apply for a RCRA permit in accordance
with Revision Checklist 17 M.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(a); 40 CFR 270.10(f)(3) as amended July 15, 1985 {50
FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. State statutes and regulations require review of land disposal permits every five
years and modification of such permits as necessary to assure compliance with the
requirements in Parts 124, 260 through 266, and 270, as indicated in Revision Checklist
17 N.
28 DAQREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c)(3); 40 CFR 270.41 (a)(6) and 270.50(d) as amended
July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. State statutes and regulations require permits to contain any conditions
necessary to protect human health and the environment in addition to any conditions
required by regulations as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 O,
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c)(3); 40 CFR 27Q.32(b) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
D. State statutes and regulations require that:
(1) For land disposal facilities granted interim status prior to 11/8/84, interim status
terminates 11/8/85; unless a Part B application and certification of compliance with
applicable groundwater monitoring and financial responsibility requirements are submitted by
11/8/85, as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 P.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(e); 40 CFR 270,73(c) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(2) For land disposal facilities in existence on the effective date of statutory or
regulatory changes under this Act that render the facility subject to the requirement to have
a permit and which is granted interim status, interim status terminates 12 months after the
date the facility first becomes subject to such permit requirement unless a Part B
application and certification of compliance with applicable groundwater monitoring and
financial responsibility requirements are submitted by that date as indicated in Revision
Checklist 17 P.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(e); 40 CFR 270.73(d) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
29 DAOREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
(3) Interim status terminates for incinerator facilities on 11/8/89 unless the
owner/operator submits a Part B application by 11/8/86 as indicated in Revision Checklist
17 P.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c)(2)(C); 40 CFR 270.73{e) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(4) Interim status terminates for any facility other than a land disposal or an
incineration facility on 11/8/92 unless the owner/operator submits a Part B application by
11/8/88 as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 P.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c)(2)(C); 40 CFR 270.73(f) as amended July 15, 1985 {50
F_R 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
E- fOPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement] State statutes and regulations
allow facilities to qualify for interim status if they (1) are in existence on the effective date
of statutory or regulatory changes that render the facility subject to the requirement to have
a permit and (2) comply with §270.7Q(a) as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 P.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(e); 40 CFR 270.70(a) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
F. State statutes and regulations provide that facilities may not qualify for interim
status under the State's analogue to Section 3005(e) if they were previously denied a
Section 3005(c) permit or if authority to operate the facility has been terminated as
indicated in Revision Checklist 17 P.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c)(3); 40 CFR 270.70(c) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
30 DAQREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
G, [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement,] State statutes and regulations
allow the issuance of a one-year research, development, and demonstration permit
(renewable each year, but not for a period longer than three years) for any hazardous
waste treatment facility which proposes an innovative and experimental hazardous waste
treatment technology or process not yet regulated as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 Q.
If adopted, however, the State must require the facility to meet RCRA's financial
responsibility and public participation requirements and retain authority to terminate
experimental activity If necessary to protect health or the environment
Federal Authority; RCRA §3005(g); 40 CFR 270.65 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702)
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
H. State statutes and regulations require landfills, surface impoundments, land
treatment units, and waste piles that received waste after July 26, 1982 and which qualify
for interim status to comply with the groundwater monitoring, unsaturated zone monitoring,
and corrective action requirements applicable to new units at the time of permitting as
indicated in Revision Checklist 17 L.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(i); 40 CFR 264.90(a) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
I. State statutes and regulations require:
(1) Surface impoundments in existence on November 8, 1984 [or subsequently
becoming subject to RCRA pursuant to §3005(j)(6)(A) or (B)] to comply with the double
liner, leachate collection, and groundwater monitoring requirements applicable to new units
by November 8, 1988 [or the date specified in §3005(j)(6)(A) or (B)J or to stop treating,
receiving, or storing hazardous waste, unless the surface impoundment qualifies for a
special exemption under §3005(j).
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(J)(6)(A).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
31 DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
£ ii
-------
SPA 9
(2) Surface Impoundments to comply with the double liner, leachate collection and
ground-water monitoring requirements if the Agency allows a hazardous waste prohibited
from land disposal under §3004{d), (e) or (g) to be placed in such impoundments.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(j}(11).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(3) fOPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
may allow variances from the above requirements as provided in RCRA §3005{j)(2-9) and
(13). However, the availability of such variances must be restricted as provided in RCRA
§3005(j).
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(j)(2-9).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
J- [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Facility owners or operators are
given the opportunity to cure deficient Part A applications in accordance with 40 CFR
270.70(b) before failing to qualify for interim status as indicated in Revision Checklist 6.
Federal Authority; RCRA §3005; 40 CFR Part 270 as amended April 24, 1984 (49 FR
17716).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
K. State statutes and regulations allow the permit granting agency to Initiate
modifications to a permit without first receiving a request from the permittee, in cases
where statutory changes, new or amended regulatory standards or judicial decisions affect
the basis of the permit as indicated in Revision Checklist 44 D.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c); 40 CFR 270.41 (a)(3) as amended December 1, 1987
(52 FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
L. State statutes and regulations require that permittees must comply with new
requirements imposed by the land disposal restrictions promulgated under Part 268 even
when there are contrary permit conditions, as indicated in Revision Checklist 44 E.
32 DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3006{g); 40 CFR 270,4(a) as amended December 1, 1987 (52
FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
M. State statutes and regulations require information from permit applicants
concerning permit conditions necessary to protect human health and the environment as
indicated in Revision Checklist 44 F.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005{c); 40 CFR 270.10 as amended December 1, 1987 (52
FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
N. State statutes and regulations require post-closure permits for all landfills,
surface impoundments, waste piles and land treatment units receiving hazardous waste
after July 26, 1982 as indicated in Revision Checklist 44 G.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(i); 40 CFR 270.1 (c) as amended December 1, 1987 (52
FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
O. State statutes and regulations require that all owners and operators of units that
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste in miscellaneous units must comply with the
general application requirements (including Part A permit requirements), the Part B general
application requirements of §270.14, and specific Part B information requirements for
miscellaneous units as indicated in Revision Checklists 45 and 59.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 264,600, 270.14 and 270.23 as
amended December 10, 1987 (52 FR 46946) and January 9, 1989 (54 FR 615).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
P- [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
provide owners and operators more flexibility to change specified permit conditions, to
expand public notification and participation opportunities, and allow for expedited approval if
33 DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
no public concern exists for a proposed permit modification. Owner/operator permit
modifications are categorized into three classes with administrative procedures for approving
modifications established in each class. These changes are as indicated in Revision
Checklist 54.
Federal Authority; RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005, and 3006; 40 CFR Parts 124, 264, 265,
and 270 as amended September 28, 1988 (53 FR 37912) and October 24, 1988 (53 FR
41649).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
Q. State statutes and regulations make it clear that existing incinerator facilities
must either conduct a trial burn or submit other information as specified in 270.19(a) or (c)
before a permit can be issued for that facility as indicated in Revision Checklist 60.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(b); 40 CFR Part 270 as amended January 30, 1989 [54
FR 4286).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
R- [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow greater flexibility to interim status facilities to make changes during interim status
following Director approval as indicated in Revision Checklist 61.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005 and 3006; 40 CFR 270.72 as amended
March 7, 1989 (54 FR 9596).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
S. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement] State statutes and regulations lift
the reconstruction limit for changes: 1) to certain interim status units necessary to comply
with Federal, State, or local requirements, 2) necessary to allow continued handling of
newly listed or identified hazardous waste, 3) made in accordance with an approved
closure plan, and 4) made pursuant to a corrective action order as indicated in Revision
Checklist 61.
34 DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005, and 3006; 40 CFR 270.72 as amended
March 7, 1989 (54 FR 9596).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
T. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
that clarify that a permit can be denied for the active life of a facility while a decision on
post closure permitting is pending as indicated in Revision Checklist 61.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005, and 3006; 40 CFR 124.1, 124.15,
124.19, 270.1, 270.10 and 270.29 as amended March 7, 1989 (54 FR 9596).
Citation of Laws gnd Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
U. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement] State statutes and regulations
that classify as Class 1 certain permit modifications requested by owners/operators
necessary to enable permitted facilities to comply with the land disposal restrictions as
indicated in Revision Checklist 61. Specifically these modifications include 1) adding
restricted wastes treated to meet applicable 40 CFR Part 268 treatment standards or
adding residues from treating "soft hammer" wastes, 2) adding certain wastewater treatment
residues and incinerator ash, 3) adding new wastes for treatment in tanks or containers
under certain limited conditions, and 4) adding new treatment processes, necessary to treat
restricted wastes to meet treatment standards, that take place in tanks or containers.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005 and 3006; 40 CFR 270.42 as amended
March 7, 1989 (54 FR 9596).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
V. State statutes and regulations revise 40 CFR Part 124 as indicated in Revision
Checklist 70.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§6901 and 6902; 40 CFR 124.3, 124.5, 124.6, 124.10 and
124.12 as amended April 1, 1983 (48 FR 14146), June 30, 1983 (48 FR 30113), July 26,
1988 (53 FR 28118), September 26, 1988 (53 FR 37396) and January 4, 1989 (54 FR
246).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
35 DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
XVII. MINIMUM TECHNOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS
A. State statutes and regulations require that new units, expansions, and
replacements of interim status waste piles meet the requirements for a single liner and
leachate collection system in regulations applicable to permitted waste piles as indicated in
the Revision Checklist 17 H.
Federal Authority; RCRA §3015(a); 40 CFR 265.254 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. State statutes and regulation require:
(1) New units, expansions, and replacement units at interim status landfills and
surface impoundments and landfills and surface impoundments for which Part B of the
permit application is received by the proper authority after November 8, 1984, meet the
requirements for double liners and leachate collection systems applicable to new permitted
landfills and surface impoundments in 40 CFR 264.221 and 264.301 and 265.221 and
265.301 as indicated in Revision Checklists 17 H and 77,
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002(a), 3004, 3005 and 3015(b); 40 CFR 264,221,
265.221, 264.301 and 265.301 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702) and May 9, 1990
(55 FR 19262).
(2) fOPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Facilities which comply in good
faith need not retrofit at permit issuance unless the liner is leaking as provided in
§§265.221(e) and 265.301 (e) as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 H.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3015(b); 40 CFR 264.221, 265.221 and 265.301 as amended
July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
(3) fOPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Variances from the above
requirements are optional. However, the availability of such variances is restricted as
provided in §§264.221 (d) and (e), 264.301 (d) and (e), 265.221 (c) and (d), and 265.301 (c)
and (d) as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 H.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3015(b); 40 CFR 264,221, 265.221 and 265.301 as amended
July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
36 DAQREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
XVIII. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTS
A. State laws and regulations require permit applicants for landfills or surface
impoundments to submit exposure information as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 S.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3019{a); 40 CFR 270.10Q) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FJR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. State laws and regulations allow the State to make assessment information
available to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. [See CERCLA
Federal Authority: RCRA §301 9(b).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remario of the Attorney General
XIX. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
A, State statutes and regulations provide that:
(1) All records shall be available to the public unless they are exempt from the
disclosure requirements of the Federal FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552;
(2) All nonexempt records will be available to the public upon request regardless of
whether any justification or need for such records has been shown by the requestor;
(3) The same types of records would be available to the public from the State as
would be available from EPA. [In making this certification, the Attorney General should be
aware of the types of documents EPA generally releases under the FOIA, subject to claims
of business confidentiality: permit applications; biennial reports from facilities; closure plans;
notification of a facility closure; contingency plan incident reports; delisting petitions;
financial responsibility instruments; ground-water monitoring data (note that exemptions 5
U.S.C. 552(b)(9) of the FOIA applies to such wetls as oil and gas, rather than to
ground-water wells); transporter spill reports; international shipment reports; manifest
exception, discrepancy and unmanifested waste reports; facility EPA identification numbers;
withdrawal requests; enforcement orders; and, inspection reports]; and,
(4) Information is provided to the public in substantially the same manner as EPA
as indicated in 40 CFR Part 2 and the Revision Checklist in Appendix N of the State
Authorization Manual. [OPTIONAL: Where the State agrees to implement selected
provisions through the use of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) the Attorney General
must certify that: "The State has the authority to enter into and carry out the MOA
37 DAQREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
provisions and there are no State statutes (e.g., State Administrative Procedures Acts)
which require notice and comment or promulgation of regulations for the MOA procedures
to be binding.]
(5) [OPTIONAL: The State statutes and regulations protect Confidential Business
Information (CBI) to the same degree as indicated in 40 CFR 2 and the Revision Checklist
in Appendix N of the State Authorization Manual. Note, that States do not have to protect
CBI, to satisfy 3006(f), However, if a State does extend protection to CBI then it cannot
restrict the release of information that EPA would require to be disclosed.]
Federal Authority: RCRA §3006(f); 40 CFR §271.17(c),
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XX. BURNING OF WASTE FUEL AND USED OIL FUEL IN BOILERS AND
INDUSTRIAL FURNACES
A. State statutes and regulations contain the following requirements regarding the
burning of waste fuel and used oil fuel for energy recovery in boilers and industrial
furnaces as indicated in Revision Checklist 19:
(1) Waste fuels and used oil fuels are identified as solid wastes so as to
encompass all such wastes controlled under 40 CFR 261.3, 261.5 and 261.6.
(2) Special management standards for generators, transporters, marketers and
burners of hazardous waste and used oil burned for energy, as set forth in 40 CFR
264.340, 265.340, 266.30-35 and 266.40-44,
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001, 3004 and 3014(a); 40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265 and 266
as amended November 29, 1985 (50 FR 49164), November 19, 1986 (51 FR 41900) and
April 13, 1987 (52 FR 11819).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. State statutes and regulations provide the authority to obtain criminal penalties
for violations of the waste fuel and used oil fuel requirements, as set forth in 40 CFR
266.40-44.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3006(h), 3008(d) and 3014; 40 CFR 271.16.
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
38 DAGRGV9.9 - 12/10/91
JLiC
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
XXI. LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
A. State statutes and regulations provide for the restrictions of the land disposal of
certain spent solvents and dioxin-containing hazardous wastes as indicated in Revision
Checklists 34, 39, and 50.
Federal Authority: §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 268
and 270 as amended on November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572), June 4, 1987 (52 FR 21010),
July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25760), and August 17, 1988 (53 FR 31138).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. State statutes and regulations for restricting the disposal of certain California list
wastes, including liquid hazardous waste containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) above
specified concentrations, and hazardous waste containing halogenated organic compounds
(HOCs) above specified concentrations as indicated in Revision Checklists 39, 50, and 66.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Parts 262, 264, 265, 268 and 270
as amended on July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25760), October 27, 1987 (52 FR 41295), August 17,
1988 (53 FR 31138), and September 6, 1989 (54 FR 36967).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. State statutes and regulations for specific treatment standards and effective
dates for certain wastes from the "First Third" of the schedule of restricted wastes listed in
40 CFR 268.10 as well as land disposal restrictions for those First Third wastes for which
a treatment standard is not established as indicated in Revision Checklists 50, 62 and 66.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004 (d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 266, and 268 as
amended on August 17, 1988 (53 FR 31138), February 27, 1989 (54 FR 8264), May 2,
1989 (54 FR 18836), September 6, 1989 (54 FR 36967) and June 13, 1990 (55 FR
23935).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
D. State statutes and regulations for certain treatment standards and prohibition
effective dates for certain Second Third wastes and for imposing the "soft hammer"
provisions of 40 CFR 268.8 on Second Third wastes for which the Agency is not
establishing treatment standards as indicated in Revision Checklist 63.
39 OAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-J» V'
-------
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Part 268 as amended June 23,
1989 (54 FR 26594).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
E, State statutes and regulations for treatment standards and effective dates for
certain First Third "soft hammer" wastes as well as for certain wastes originally contained
in the Third Third of the Schedule as indicated in Revision Checklist 63.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Parts 264, 265 and 268 as
amended June 23, 1989 (54 FR 26594).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
F. State statutes and regulations provide specific treatment standards and effective
dates for the "Third Third" wastes, "soft hammer" First and Second Third wastes4, five
newly listed wastes, certain mixed radioactive/hazardous wastes, characteristic wastes, and
multi-source leachate, as well as establish revised treatment standards for petroleum
refining hazardous wastes (K048-K052) as indicated in Revision Checklist 78.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001 and 3004 (d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR 261, 262, 264, 265,
268, and 270 as amended June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22520).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
"Soft hammer" wastes are those wastes for which EPA did not promulgate treatment
standards by their respective effective dates. These wastes could continue to be
disposed of in a landfill or surface impoundment until May 8, 1990 if certain
demonstrations were made and the technology requirements of RCRA §3004(o)
were met. Other types of land disposal (e.g., underground injection) were not
similarly restricted. On May 6, 1990, wastes for which EPA had not established
treatment standards became prohibited from all types of land disposal. This latter
requirement is referered to as the "hard hammer" provision and ended the soft
hammer provisions which were in effect prior to May 6, 1990.
40 DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
G. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
provide for alternate treatment standards for lab packs meeting certain criteria as indicated
in Revision Checklist 78.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR 264.316(f), 265.316{f), 268.7(a){7),
268.7(a){8), 268.42(c), 268.42(c)(1)-(4), and Part 268 Appendices IV and V, as amended
June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22520).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of. Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XXII. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA)
[If the State uses the MOA to satisfy Federal procedural requirements, the Attorney
General must certify the following:
(1) The State has the authority to enter into the agreement,
(2) The State has the authority to carry out the agreement, and
(3) No applicable State statute (including the State Administrative Procedure Act)
requires that the procedure be promulgated as a rule in order to be binding.]
Seal of Office
Signature
Name (Type or Print)
Title
Date
41 DAOREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
SPA 9
I. Index to the checklist entries found In the
Model Revision Attorney General's Statement
Revision checklist number/name
Subsections pertaining to checklist
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Biennial Report
Permit Rule: Settlement
Agreement
Interim Status Standards
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
National Uniform Manifests
Permit Rule - Deficient Part A
Applications
VIM A
XV E
V A
I A(1)
VII A
XVI J
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17 A.
Listing Warfarin & Zinc Phosphide
Lime Stabilized Pickle Liquor Sludge
Exclusion of Household Waste
Interim Status Standards •
Applicability
Corrections to Test Methods Manual
Satellite Accumulation Standards
Definition of Solid Wastes
Dioxin Listing and Management
Standards
Interim Status Standards for
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities
17
Paint Filter Test
Small Quantity Generators
(Superceded: See Checklist 23)
B. Delisting
17 C. Household Waste
17 D. Waste Minimization
17 E. Location Standards for Salt
Domes, Salt Beds, Underground
Mines, and Caves
17 F, Liquids in Landfills
17 G. Dust Suppression
17 H, Double Liners
17 I. Ground-water Monitoring
A(2)
D
E
V A
I F
IV A
II A
XV F
VI
I B
I C(1)&(2)
I E
IX A(1)&(2)
XV A & B
VI A; X A
XV C
XVII A; XVII B(1),{2)&{3)
XI A & B
42
Continued...
OAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
I. Index to the checklist entries found In the
Model Revision Attorney General's Statement (cont'd)
SPA 9
Revision checklist number/name
Subsections pertaining to checklist
17 J. Cement Kilns
17 K, Fuel Labeling
17 L Corrective Action
17 M. Pre-construction Ban
17 N. Permit Life
17 O. Omnibus Provision
17 P, Interim Status
17 Q. Research & Development Permits
17 R, Hazardous Waste Exports
17 S. Exposure Information
18. Listing of TDI, IDA, DNT
19, Burning of Waste Fuel and Used Oil
20. Spent Solvents Listing
21. EDB Waste Listing
22. Four Spent Solvents Listing
23. Small Quantity Generators
24. Financial Responsibility:
Settlement Agreement
25. Paint Filter Test - Correction
26. Listing of Spent Pickle Liquor
27. Corporate Guarantee - Liability
Coverage
28. Hazardous Waste Storage and Tank
Systems
29. Correction - Commercial Chemical
Products and Appendix VIII
30. Biennial Reports; Correction
31. Exports of Hazardous Wastes
32. Standards for Generators - Waste
Minimization Certifications
33. Listing of EBDC
34. Land Disposal Restrictions
35. Revised Manual SW-846; Amended
Incorporation by Reference
36. Closure/Post-ciosure Care for
Interim Status Surface Impoundments
XII A(1)&(2)
XII A(2)
XIII A(1),(2),(3)&(4); XVI H
XVI A
XVI B
XVI C
XVI D(1),(2),(3)&(4); XVI E & F
XVI G
XIV A
XVIII A
I A(3)
XX A
I A{4)
I A(5)
I A(6)
I B
XV G
VI; X A
I A(7)
XV H
XV I
I A(8)
VIII A; IX A
XIV A
I B; VII A; IX A(1)&(2)
I A(9)
XXI A
I F
XV G
43
Continued.,,
DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
it J
-------
I. Index to the checklist entries found In the
Model Revision Attorney General's Statement (cont'd)
SPA 9
Revision checklist number/name
Subsections pertaining to checklist
37,
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44 A.
44 B.
44 C.
44 D.
44 E.
Definition of Solid Wastes;
Technical Corrections
Amendments, Part B - Information
Requirements for Disposal Facilities
California List Waste Restrictions
List (Phase I) of Hazardous
Constituents for Ground-water
Monitoring
identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste
Exception Reporting for Small
Quantity Generators
Liability Requirements; Corporate
Guarantee
Permit Application Requirements
Regarding Corrective Action
Corrective Action Beyond Facility
Boundary
Corrective Action for Injection Wells
Permit Modification
Permit as Shield Provision
II A
XIII B
XXI B
XI C
IA(8)
VII B
XV H
XIII C
XIII D
XIII E(1),(2)&(3)
XVI K
XVI L
44 F. Permit Conditions to Protect Human
Health and the Environment
44 G. Post-closure Permits
45. Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous
Units
46. Technical Correction - Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste
47. Small Quantity Generators;
Technical Correction
48. Farmer Exemption; Technical
Correction
49. Treatability Studies Sample
Exemption
50. Land Disposal Restrictions
for First Third Scheduled Wastes
51. Liability Coverage for Owners/
Operators of Treatment, Storage,
XVI M
XVI N
VII C; XIII F; XV G; XV J; XVI O
I A(9)
I B
XIV A
I H
XXI A, B & C
44
Continued...
DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO, 9541.00-14
I. Index to the checklist entries found In the
Model Revision Attorney General's Statement (cont'd)
SPA 9
Revision checklist number/name
Subsections pertaining to checklist
and Disposal Facilities
52. Standards for Hazardous Waste
Storage and Treatment Tank
Systems
53. Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; and Designation,
Reportable Quantities and
Notification
54. Permit Modifications for Waste
Management Facilities
55. Statistical Methods for Evaluating
Ground-Water Monitoring Data from
Hazardous Waste Facilities
56. Removal of Iron Dextran from the
Lists of Hazardous Wastes
57. Removal of Strontium Sulfide from
the Lists of Hazardous Wastes
f58. Standards for Generators of
Hazardous Waste; Manifest
Renewal
59. Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous
Units; Standards Applicable to
Owners and Operators
60. Amendment to Requirements for
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits
61. Changes to Interim Status Facilities
for Hazardous Waste Management
Permits;
Modifications of Hazardous Waste
Management Permits;
Procedures for Post-Closure
Permitting
62. Land Disposal Restrictions
Amendments to First Third
Scheduled Wastes
63. Land Disposal Restrictions for
Second Third Scheduled Wastes
64. Delay of Closure Period for Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities
65, Mining Waste Exclusion I
Withheld, no entry as yet
XV I
I A(10), I I
XVI P
XI D
I A(11)
I A(12)
VII D
XVI O
XVI Q
XVI R & S
XVI U
XVI T
XXI C
XXI D & E
XV K
" J(D
45
Continued..,
DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
I. Index to the checklist entries found In the SPA 9
Model Revision Attorney General's Statement (cont'd)
Revision checklist number/name Subsections pertaining to checklist
66. Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction
to First Third Scheduled Wastes XXi C
67. Testing and Monitoring Activities I K
68, Reportable Quantity Adjustment Methyl
Bromide Production Waste I A (13)
69. Reportable Quantity Adjustment I A (14)
70. Changes to Part 124 Not Accounted
for by Present Checklists XVI V
71. Mining Waste Exclusion II I J(2); VII E
72. Modification of F019 Listing I A(15)
73. Testing and Monitoring Activities; I K
Technical Corrections
74. Toxicity Characteristic Revisions I L
75. Listing of 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine I A(16)
Production Wastes
76. Criteria for Listing Toxic Wastes; I M
Technical Amendment
77. HSWA Codification Rule, Double Liners; XVII B(1)
Correction
78. Land Disposal Restrictions for I A(17); XXI F & G
Third Third Scheduled Wastes
79. Organic Air Emission Standards for I N; XV L
Process Vents and Equipment Leaks
46 DAQREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
II. Index to the non-checklist entries found In the
Model Revision Attorney General's Statement
Description Pertinent subsections
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, making assessment information
available to XVIII B
Availability of Information XIX A(1)-(5)
Burning and blending of hazardous waste,
RCRA §§3004(q)(2)(A) & 3004(r)(2) & (3)
exceptions XII B
Criminal penalties for waste fuel and
used oil fuel requirement violations XX B
Radioactive mixed wastes, hazardous
components of I G
Surface Impoundments:
1. compliance with new unit require-
ments by November 8, 1988 or
stop hazardous waste activity for
units existing prior to November 8,
1984 or becoming subject to RCRA
pursuant to RCRA §3005(j)(6)(A) or (B) XVI 1(1)
2. disposal of waste prohibited from
land disposal under RCRA §3004{d),
(e) or (g) XVI l(2)
3. variance under RCRA §3005{j)(2-9)
and (13) XVI 1(3)
Third party direct action against financial
responsibility insurer or granter XV D
47 DAGREV9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Checklist Linkage Table
The following pages (numbered 3 through 6)
should replace pages 3 through 6 of
SAM Appendix H
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Revision Checklist Linkage Table
as of June 30, 1990
Revision
Checklist Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 A2
17 B
17 C
17 D
17 E
17 F
17 G
17 H
17 I
17 J
17 K3
17 L
17 M
17 N
17 O
Linked
Checklists
17 D, 30
10
17 0,32,58
17 C
3
35,67,73
—
37
...
—
25
23,42,47
9
1,5,30,32,58
77
...
—
...
—
—
—
Topic or Explanation
Biennial Report
Permit - Settlement Agreement1
Interim Status - Applicability
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Listing
National Uniform Manifest Requirements
Permit - Settlement Agreement1
Warfarin & Zinc Phosphate Listing
Lime Stabilized Pickle Liquor Sludge
Household Waste Exclusion
Interim Status - Applicability
Corrections to Test Methods Manual
Satellite Accumulation
Definition of Solid Waste
Dioxin Waste Listing and Management
Standards
Landfill Interim Status
Paint Filter Test
Small Quantity Generators
Deli sting
Household Waste Exclusion
Biennial Report/National Uniform Manifest
Salt Domes, Salt Beds, Underground
Mines and Caves Standards
Liquids in Landfills
Dust Suppression
Double Liners
Ground-Water Monitoring
Cement Kilns
Fuel Labeling
Corrective Action
Pre-construction Ban
Permit Life
Omnibus Provision
Continued...
DLINK9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
Revision Checklist Linkage Table (cont'd) SPA 9
Revision
Checklist Number
17 P
17 Q
17 R4
17 S
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28s
29"
30
Linked
Checklists
...
—
31,48
—
...
—
22
—
20
17 A,42,47
64
16
—
43
52
46
1,17 D
Topic or Explanation
Interim Status
Research and Development Permits
Hazardous Waste Exports
Exposure Information
TDI, TDA, & DNT Listing
Waste Fuel/Used Oil Fuel
Spent Solvents Listing
EDB Waste Listing
Four Spent Solvents Listing
Small Quantity Generators
Financial Responsibility - Settlement
Agreement
Paint Filter Test
Spent Pickle Uquor Listing
Corporate Guarantee
Hazardous Waste Tank Systems
Listings - 261.33(e)&(f) and Associated
Appendices
Biennial Report
31 17 R,48 Exports of Hazardous Waste
32 5,17 D,58 National Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest
33 — EDBC Listing
34 39,50,62,63,66,78 Land Disposal Restrictions
35 11,67,73 Corrections - Test Methods Manual
36 — Surface Impoundments: Closure/Post
Closure Care
37 13 Definition of Solid Waste
38 — Part B Information Requirements
Amendment
39 34,50,62,63,66,78 Land Disposal Restrictions
40 — List of Hazardous Constituents for
Ground-Water Monitoring
41 — Container/Liner Residues
42 17 A,23,47 Small Quantity Generators
.Continued...
DL1NKS.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Revision Checklist Linkage Table (cont'd) SPA 9
Revision Linked
Checklist Number Checklists Topic or Explanation
43 27 Corporate Guarantee
44 A — Permits/Corrective Action
44 B — Corrective Action Beyond Facility
Boundary
44 C — Corrective Action for Injection Wells
44 D 54 Permit Modification
44 E — Permit as a Shield Provision
44 F — Permit Conditions/Health-Environment
44 G — Post-Closure Permits, Scope of
Requirement
45 59 Miscellaneous Units
46 29 Listings 261.33(e),(f) and Associated
Appendices
47 17 A.23,42 Small Quantity Generators
48 17 R.31 Hazardous Waste Exports
49 — Sample Exemption
50 34,39,62,63,66,78 Land Disposal Restrictions
51 — Liability Coverage
52 28 Hazardous Waste Tank Systems
53 — Smelting Waste Listing
54 44 D Permit Modification
55 — Ground-Water Monitoring Statistical
Methods
56 — Iron Dextran Listing Removal
57 — Strontium Sulfide Listing Removal
58 5,17 D,32 National Uniform Manifest
59 45 Miscellaneous Units
60 — Incinerator Permits
61 — Changes to Interim Status Facilities
Reconstruction Limits
54 Modifications to Hazardous Waste
Management Permits
Procedures for Post-closure Permitting
62 34,39,50,63,66,78 Land Disposal Restrictions
63 34,39,50,62,66,78 Land Disposal Restrictions
Continued...
DLINK9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
Revision Checklist Linkage Table (cont'd) SPA 9
Revision Linked
Checklist Number Checklists Topic or Explanation
64 24 Delay of Closure Period for Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities
65 71 Mining Waste Exclusion I
66 34,39,50,62,63,78 Land Disposal Restrictions
67 11,35,73 Testing and Monitoring Activities
68 — Methyl Bromide Production Wastes
69 — Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
Production Wastes
70 — Updates to Part 124
71 65 Mining Waste Exclusion II
72 — Modification of F019 Listing
73 11,35,67 Analytical Test Methods
74 — Revision of Toxicity Characteristics
75 — 1,1-Dimethyihydrazine Production Wastes
Listing
76 — Criteria for Listing Toxic Wastes
77 17H Corrections - Double Liners
78 34,39,50,62,66 Land Disposal Restrictions
79 — Organic Air Emission Standards for
Process Vents and Equipment Leaks
'These are checklists affecting the lists of hazardous waste In 40 CFR 261, Subpart D.
1 While Revision Checklists 2 and 6 address similar topics, they affect different sections of
code,
2 Superseded by Revision Checklist 23.
Superseded by Revision Checklist 19.
4 Superseded by Revision Checklist 31.
5 Contains sections superseded by Revision Checklist 52.
* Superseded by Revision Checklist 46.
DLINK9.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIE, NO. 9541.00-14
Revision Checklist 17 H
The following version of Revision Checklist 17 H
should replace the Revision Checklist 17 H
of SAM Appendix J
-------
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 17 H
Double Liners
Note: Corrections were made to 264.221 (c) and 264.301 (c) by a May 9, 1990 (55 FR 19262;
Revision Checklist 77) notice. This correction notice was based on a decision reached in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on June 23, 1987 concerning a lawsuit filed against
EPA. States which have not yet adopted the Revision Checklist 17 H provisions are encouraged
to adopt the Revision Checklist 77 corrections when adopting the requirements addressed by
Revision Checklist 17 H.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART K - SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
DESIGN AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
apply to TSD facilities
two or more liners
t alternative design and
operating practices
t monofills
redesignate old
264.221 (c), (d) and
(e) as 264.22 1(f),
(a) and (h)
264.221(a)
264.221(0)
264.221 (d)
264.221(e)
264.221 (f)-(h)
!
SUBPART N - LANDFILLS
DESIGN AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
introductory text
two or more liners
t alternative design and
operating practices
t monofills
264.301 (a)
264.301(0)
264.301 (d)
264.301 (e)
- Page 1 of 3
DCL17H - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 17 h: Double Liners (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
redesignate old
264.301 (c),{d),(e),(f)
and (g) as 264.301 (f),
(o),(h),ro and (i)
1 landfills in Alabama
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.301 (f)-(i)
264.301 (k)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
Enuiy-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 265 - INTERIM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART K - SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
two or more liners
notify Regional
Administrator
f alternative design
and operating
practices
t monofills
t allows installed liner
to be permitted liner
265.221(a)
265.221 (b)
265.221 (c)
265.221 (d)
265.221(e)
SUBPART L - WASTE PILES
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
265.254 requirements
for new units,
expansions, and
replacements
265.254
SUBPART N - LANDFILLS
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
two or more liners
notify the RA
265.301(a)
265.30Kb)
- Page 2 of 3
DCL17H - 12MO/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO, 9541,00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 17 h: Double Liners (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
alternative design and
t operatinq practices
t monofills
f allows installed liner
to be permitted liner
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.301(0)
265.301 (d)
265.301(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL03 IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Applicable only to landfills in Alabama. States other than Alabama do not have to adopt this
provision.
- Page 3 of 3
DCL17H - 12/10/91
-------
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Revision Checklist 19
The following version of Revision Checklist 19
should replace the Revision Checklist 19
of SAM Appendix J
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 19
Burning of Waste Fuel and Used Oil Fuel
in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
50 FR 49164-49211
November 29, 1985
as amended on April 13, 1987, at 52 FR 11819-11822
(HSWA Cluster I)
Special Note on the Use of This Checklist
Used oil fuel standards at §266.40-44 are delegable to State programs although used oil is
not specifically listed as a hazardous waste pursuant to Section 3001 of RCRA. This is because
these regulations are promulgated pursuant to (1) the Used Oil Recycling Act (§3014(a) of RCRA)
which directs EPA to regulate recycled used oil even if it is not a hazardous waste, and (2) the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 {SARA §205(j) adding RCRA §3Q06(h)).
SARA §205(j) provides for delegation to States for used oil recycling standards even if used oil is
not a listed waste or identified as a hazardous waste.
A November 19, 1986 (51 FR 41900) Federal Register article did not affect the RCRA
regulations. Instead it addressed issues surrounding the potential listing of disposed used oil as
hazardous.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1 not hazardous unless
meet characteristic
261.3(c)(2)(ii)(B)
SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS
exceptions
mixed with used oil
261 .5(b)
hazardous waste
261.5(10
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
t used oil not regulated
under Subpart O
1
rather than burned
1 coke and coal tar
261.6{aH2)(iii)
used oil recycled
261.6(a)(3KHi)
261.6(a)(3)(vii)
November 29, 1985 - Page 1 of 5
OCL19.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 19: Burning of Waste Fuel and Used Oil Fuel
in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
1 fuels from oil-bearing
t hazardous waste from
petroleum refining,
production, etc.
t petroleum coke
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.6(a)(3)(viii)
261.6(a)(3)(ix)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EoTJTV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART O - INCINERATORS
APPLICABILITY
hazardous waste
burned in boilers &
industrial furnaces
264.340(a)(2)
PART 265 - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART O - INCINERATORS
APPLICABILITY
hazardous waste
burned in boilers &
industrial furnaces
265.340(a)(2)
PART 266 - STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS
WASTES AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
SUBPART D - HAZARDOUS WASTE BURNED FOR ENERGY RECOVERY
APPLICABILITY
hazardous waste
burned for energy
recovery
t exemption for used oil
266.30(a)
266.30(b)(1)
November 29, 1985 - Page 2 of 5
DCL19.9 - 12/10/91
if OO
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 19: Burning of Waste Fuel and Used Oil Fuel
in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
f exemption for
hazardous waste fuels
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.30{b)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PROHIBITIONS
1 prohibitions
permissible devices
(old 266.31 (b)(1))
cement kilns-
renumbered
266.31 (a)
266.3Kb)
266,31(c)
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FUEL
generators who
produce
generators who
market
generators who bum
266.32(a)
266,32(b)
266.32(c)
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FUEL
transporters
266.33
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO MARKETERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FUEL
prohibitions
1 notification
storaae
off-site shipment
1 required notices
recordkeepina
266.34(a)
266.34(b)
266.34(c)
266.34(d)
266.34(e)
266.34{f)
2 STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO BURNERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FUEL
prohibitions
1 notification
266.35(a)
266.35(b)
r~
November 29, 1985 - Page 3 of 5
DCL19.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 19: Burning of Waste Fuel and Used Oil Fuel
in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
1 storage
1 required notices
reeordkeeDing
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.35(c)
266.35(d)
266,35(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART E - USED OIL BURNED FOR ENERGY RECOVERY
APPLICABILITY
used oil burned for
enerqy recovery
"used oil" means
used oil mixed with
hazardous waste
subject to regulation
allowable levels of
constituents
266.40(a)
266,40Cb)
266.40(c)
266.40(d)
266.40(e)
PROHIBITIONS
market off-spec
used oil
burned off-spec
used oil
266.41 (a)
266.41(b)
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF USED OIL BURNED FOR ENERGY
RECOVERY
generators who
produce, market, or
bum used oil
266.42
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO MARKETERS OF USED OIL BURNED FOR ENERGY
RECOVERY
1 persons not
"marketers"
analysis of used oil
prohibitions
notifications
266.43(a)
266.43(b)(1)
266.43(b)(2)
266.43{b)(3)
November 29, 1985 - Page 4 of 5
DCL19.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIR, NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 19: Burning of Waste Fuel and Used Oil Fuel
in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
invoice system
required notices
recordkeepinq
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.43(b)(4)
266.43(b)(5)
266.43(b)(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO BURNERS OF USED OIL BURNED FOR ENERGY RECOVERY
prohibitions
1 notification
required notices
used oil fuel analysis
recordkeeping
266,44(a)
266.44(b)
266.44(c)
266.44(d)
266.44(e)
!
1
1
1
See also technical corrections at 52 FR 11819-11822 (April 13, 1987),
"Revision Checklist 13 introduced 266,36 addressing a conditional exemption for spent materials
and by-products exhibiting a classification of hazardous waste. Revision Checklist 19 removed
this section.
November 29, 1985 - Page 5 of 5
DCL19.9 • 12/10/91
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Revision Checklist 53
The following version of Revision Checklist 53
should replace the current version
of this checklist in SAM Appendix J
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 95A1.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 53 (AMENDED)
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste;
and Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification
53 FR 35412-35421
September 13, 1988
(Non-HSWA Cluster V)
Note: 1) The listing of K064, K065, K066, K090 and K091 was remanded by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (American Mining Congress vs. the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 907 F. 29 1179 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). As such, States are not required to list these wastes
at this time. However, since these wastes have been removed from the 261.4(b)(7) exclusion,
they may be brought under regulation as characteristic hazardous wastes, especially under the
Toxicity Characteristic.
2) Revision Checklist 53 has generally been superseded by Revision Checklists 65 and 71,
except for the K088 listing, spent potliners from primary aluminum reduction.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
EXCLUSIONS
ore and mineral solid
wastes not included in
the 261.4(b)(7)
exclusion
acid plant blowdown
slurry/sludge resulting
from thickening of
blowdown slurry from
primary copper
production
surface impoundment
solids contained in
the dredged from
surface impoundments
at primary lead
smelting facilities
sludge from treatment
of process
wastewater and/or
acid plant blowdown
from primary
zinc production
261.4(b)(7)
261.4(b)(7)(i)
261.4(b)(7)(ii)
261.4(b)(7)(iii)
September 13, 1988 - Page 1 of 3
DCL53.9 - 1Z/11/91
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RGRA REVISION CHECKLIST 53: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste;
and Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
spent potliners from
primary aluminum
reduction
emission control dust
or sludge from
ferrochromium silicon
production
emission control
dust or sludge from
ferrochromium
production
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.4(b){7)(iv)
261.4(b)(7Hv)
261.4(bW7Kvi)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUtV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES
add, after entries for
"Iron and steei" and
before entries for
"Secondary lead," the
followinq:
261.32
Industry and EPA hazardous
waste No.
Hazardous waste
Hazard
code
Primary aluminum: K088 Spent potliners from primary aluminum reduction
(T)
APPENDIX VII TO PART 261
BASIS FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS
add the following in
the appropriate
numerical sequence:
Appendix
WASTE
VII
September 13, 1988 - Page 2 of 3
DCLS3.9 - 12/11/91
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 53: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste;
and Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
EPA hazardous
waste No.
Hazardous constituents for
which listed
K088 Cyanide (complexes).
September 13, 1988 - Page 3 of 3
DCL53.9 - 12/11/91
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO, 9541.00-14
Revision Checklist 53
The following version of Revision Checklist 53
should replace the current version
of this checklist in SAM Appendix J
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 53 (AMENDED)
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste;
and Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification
53 FR 35412-35421
September 13, 1988
(Non-HSWA Cluster V)
Note: 1) The listing of K064, K065, K066, K090 and K091 was remanded by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (American Mining Congress vs. the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 907 F. 29 1179 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). As such, States are not required to list these wastes
at this time. However, since these wastes have been removed from the 261 -4(b)(7) exclusion,
they may be brought under regulation as characteristic hazardous wastes, especially under the
Toxicity Characteristic.
2) Revision Checklist 53 has generally been superseded by Revision Checklists 65 and 71,
except for the K088 listing, spent potliners from primary aluminum reduction.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
a'AlE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
EXCLUSIONS
ore and mineral solid
wastes not included in
the 261 .4(b)(7)
exclusion
acid plant blowdown
slurry/sludge resulting
from thickening of
blowdown slurry from
primary copper
production
surface impoundment
solids contained in
the dredged from
surface impoundments
at primary lead
smelting facilities
sludge from treatment
of process
wastewater and/or
acid plant blowdown
from primary
zinc production
261.4(b)(7)
261.4(b)(7)(i)
261.4(b)(7)(ii)
261.4(b)(7)(iii)
September 13, 1988 - Page 1 of 3
DCL53.9 - 12/11/91
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 53: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste;
and Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
spent potliners from
primary aluminum
reduction
emission control dust
or sludge from
ferrochromium silicon
production
emission control
dust or sludge from
ferrochromium
production
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.4(b)(7)(iv)
261.4(b)(7)(v)
261.4(b)(7)(vi)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
oTArk ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES
add, after entries for
"Iron and steel" and
before entries for
"Secondary lead," the
following:
261.32
Industry and EPA hazardous
waste No.
Hazardous waste
Hazard
code
Primary aluminum: K088 Spent potliners from primary aluminum reduction
(T)
APPENDIX VII TO PART 261
BASIS FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS
add the following in
the appropriate
numerical sequence:
Appendix
WASTE
VII
September 13, 1988 - Page 2 of 3
DCL53.9 - 12/11/91
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 53: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste;
and Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL
REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL
RCRA
CITAT
:N
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV- 1
ALENT |
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
EPA hazardous
waste No.
Hazardous constituents for
which listed
K088 Cyanide (complexes).
September 13, 1988 - Page 3 of 3
DCL53.9 - 12/11/91
-------
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
Revision Checklist 54
The following version of Revision Checklist 54
should replace the current version
of this checklist in SAM Appendix J
-------
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54
Permit Modifications for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
53 FR 37912-37942
September 28, 1988
as amended on October 24, 1988, at 53 FR 41649
(Non-HSWA Cluster V)
Note: The standards addressed by this checklist are less stringent than existing Federal
requirements; thus, authorized States are not required to adopt them. However, EPA strongly
encourages States to adopt this permit modification rule as promulgated. If preferred, States may
amend their programs to incorporate only selected portions of the rule. See 53 FR 37933-37934
for a discussion of this option.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALSS IS! ~~
h 1=5017-
ALiNT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 124 - PROCEDURES FOR DECISIONMAKING
SUBPART A - GENERAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
MODIFICATION, REVOCATION AND REISSUANCE, OR TERMINATION OF PERMITS
add reference "or
270.42{cr
add references to
"Classes 1 and 2
modifications as
defined in §270.42
(a) and (b)"
124.5(c){1)
124.5(cM3)
PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART D - CONTINGENCY PLAN AND EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
AMENDMENT OF CONTINGENCY PLAN
remove the comment
264.54(e)
SUBPART G - CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE
CLOSURE PLAN; AMENDMENT OF PLAN
add wording on
"notification" and
"review" to text
264.112(c)
September 28, 1988 - Page 1 of 16
DCLS4.9 - 12M1/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54: Permit Modifications
for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (eont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
insert "notification
or" prior to
"request"
insert "notification
of or" prior to
"request"
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 12(C)(1)
264,1 12(c)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAIOT IS":
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t POST-CLOSURE PLAN; AMENDMENT OF PLAN
add wording on
"notification" and
"review" to text
insert "notification
or" prior to
"rectuest"
insert "notification
of or" prior to
"request"
264.118(d)
264.118(cD(1)
264.11 8(d)(2)
PART 265 - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART G - CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE
t CLOSURE PLAN; AMENDMENT OF PLAN
revise last sentence
of paragraph by
deleting "major" and
inserting "Class 2 or
3" preceding "modifi-
cation" and delete
reference to
"S27Q.41 ,"
revise last sentence
of paragraph by
deleting "major" and
inserting "Class 2 or
3" preceding "modifi-
cation" and delete
reference to
"§270.41 ."
265.112(c) (3)
265.1 12(c)(4)
September 28, 1988 - Page 2 of 16
OCL54.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54: Permit Modifications
for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
replace "major
modification" with
"Class 2 or 3
modification" and
delete reference
to "§270.41"
replace "major
modification" with
"Class 2 or 3
modification" and
delete reference
"§270.41 ."
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.118(d)(3)
265.118(d)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOGS IS:
B3UWT
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 270 - EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM
SUBPART A - GENERAL INFORMATION
t DEFINITIONS
add "Component"
add "Facility
mailing list"
add "Functionally
equivalent
component"
270.2
270,2
270.2
t EFFECT OF A PERMIT
modification under
270.42
270.4(a)
SUBPART C - PERMIT CONDITIONS
CONDITIONS
add provision
270.42
APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS
for
270.300M2)
September 28, 1988 - Page 3 of 16
OCL54.9 - 12/11/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54: Permit Modifications
for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART D - CHANGES TO PERMITS
t TRANSFER OF PERMITS
renumber old 270.40
as 270.40(a); change
parenthetical clauses
ownership change
procedures as Class
1 modifications
270.40(a)
270.40(b)
f MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION AND REISSUANCE OF PERMITS
remove "Major" from
section heading;
remove reference to
270.42; request of
permittee, approval/
denial under 270.42
insert "by statute,
through" before
"promulgation";
insert "new or"
before "amended"
remove 270.41 (a)(3)(i)-
(iii)
remove (a) (5) and
redesignate existing
(a)(6) as (a)(5)
270.41
270.41 (a)(3)
270.41 (a)(3)(i)-(iii)
270.41 (a)(5)
t PERMIT MODIFICATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE
revise section
heading; remove
introductory material
putting into effect
Class 1 modifications
as listed in
Appendix I
notification of
Director bv permittee
to whom notice of
modification must be
sent and when
270.42
270.42(a)(1)
270.42(a)(1)(i)
270.42(a)(1Hii)
7
September 28, 1988 - Page 4 of 16
DCL54.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54: Permit Modifications
for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
rejection of modifica-
tion by Director
modifications requiring
Drior written approval
Class 2 procedures
instead of Class 1
procedures
heading for "Class
2 modifications"
Class 2 modifications
as listed in Appendix I
description of
exact chanqes
identification of
Class 2 modification
why modification is
needed
provision of applicable
information
to whom notice must
be sent and when
announcement of a
60-day comment
period
announcement of where
and when public
meeting will be held
name and phone
number of permittee's
contact person
name and phone
number of Agency
contact person
location for viewing
modification request
availability of
permittee's
compliance history
placement of modifica-
tion request copy in
vicinity of facility for
public accessibility
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(a)(1MIii)
270.42(a)(2)
270.42(a)(3)
270.42(b)
270.42(b)(1)
270.42fb)(1)(i)
270.42(b)(1){ll)
270.42(b)(1)(lli)
270.42(b)(1Hiv)
270.42(b){2)
270.42(b)(2)(i)
270.42(b)(2)(ii)
270.42(b)(2Hiii)
270.42(b)(2Hiv)
270.42(b)(2)(v)
270.42(b){2)(vi)
270.42(b)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
September 28, 1988 - Page 5 of 16
DCL54.9 - 12/11/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54: Permit Modifications
for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
when and where
permittee must hold
a public meetinq
public comment
period
requirements after
receipt of modification
request
approve request, with
or without chanqes
deny request
determine if Class 3
modification pro-
cedures are needed:
significant public
concern
complex nature of
chanqes
approve as temporary
authorization
notify permittee that
decision will be made
in 30 days
requirements if
decision is extended
for 30 days:
approve request, with
or without chanqes
deny request
determine if Class 3
modification pro-
cedures are needed:
significant public
concern
complex nature of
chanqes
approve as temporary
authorization
temporary or auto-
matic authorization
following failure to
make decision
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(b)(4)
270.42(b)(5)
270.42(b)(6)(i)
270.42(b)(6)(i)(A)
270.42fb)(6)(i)(B)
270.42(b)(6Hi)(C)
270.42(b)(6)(i)(C)(1)
270.42{b)(6)(i)(C)(2)
270.42(b)(6)(i)(D)
270.42(b)(6)(i)(E)
270.42(b)(6HH)
270.42(bH6)(ii)(A)
270.42(b)(6Hii)(B)
270.42(b)(6)(ii)(C)
270.42(b)(6)(ii)(C)
(1)
270.42(b)(6)(ii)(C)
(2)
270.42(b)(6)(ii)(D)
270.42(b)(6Hiii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
September 28, 1988 - Page 6 of 16
DCL54.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54: Permit Modifications
for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
requirements of |
permittee under
temporary or auto-
matic authorization
temporary authoriza-
tion to conduct
activities as in
modification request
unless final approval
or denial, authorization
for life of permit
deferment of
permanent authoriza-
tion if failure to
notify public
if no final approval
or denial or reelassifi-
cation, authority to
conduct activities as
described in modifica-
tion request for life of
permit unless later
modification
consideration and
response to all
significant comments
extension of time
periods for final
approval, denial or
reclassification as
Class 3
reasons to deny or
change Class 2 permit
modification terms
request is
incomplete
noncompliance with
appropriate
requirements
failure to protect
human health and
environment
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270,42(b)(6Miv)(A)
270.42(b){6)(iv)(A)
(1)
270.42(b)(6)(iv)(A)
(2)
270.42(b)(6){iv)(B)
270.42(b)(6Hv)
270.42(b)(6)(vi)
270.42(b)(6)(vH)
270.42{b)(7)
270.42(b)(7)(i)
270.42(b)(7)(l!)
270.42{b)(7)(iii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
1 STATE ATJAT
WORE
STRINGENT
36 15'
" BROADER
IN SCOPE
September 28, 1988 - Page 7 of 16
DCL54.9 - 12/11/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54: Permit Modifications
for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
commencement of
construction under
Class 2
heading for "Class 3
modifications"
requirements for
Class 3 modifications
listed Appendix 1
description of
exact changes
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(b)(8)
270.42(c)
270.42(c)(1)
270.42(c)(1)(i)
identification of
Class 3
modification 270.42(c)(1)(ii)
why modification
is needed 270.42(c)(1)(iii)
provision of appli-
cable information
to whom and when
notice must be sent
announcement of a
60-day comment
period
announcement of when
and where public
meeting will be held
name and phone
number of permittee's
contact person
name and phone
number of Agency
contact person
location for viewing
modification request
availability of
permittee's com-
pliance history
placement of modifica-
tion request copy in
vicinity of facility for
public accessibility
when and where
permittee must hold
a public meetinq
270.42(c)(1)(iv)
270.42(c)(2)
270.42(c)(2)(i)
270.42{c)(2Hii)
270.42(c)(2)(iii)
270.42(c)(2)(iv)
270.42(c)(2)(v)
270.42(c)(2)(vi)
270.42(c)(3)
270.42(c)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
September 28, 1988 - Page 8 of 16
DCL54.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIR. NO, 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54: Permit Modifications
for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
public comment
period
grant or deny modifi-
cation request after
public comment
period; consider and
respond to all
significant written
comments
heading for "Other
modifications"
other modifications
not explicitly
listed in Appendix 1
determination of
appropriate class:
changes that
necessitate Class 1
modifications
changes that
necessitate Class 2
modifications
variations in types
and quantities of
wastes manaaed
technological
advancements
changes necessary to
comply with new
requlations
Class 3 modifica-
tions description
heading for "Tempo-
rary authorizations"
granting of tempo-
rary authorizations
request for tempo-
rary authorization:
Class 2 modification
meetinq criteria
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
27Q.42(cH5)
270.42(c)(6)
270.42(d)
270.42(d)(1)
270.42{d){2)
270.42{d)(2){i)
270.42(d)(2)(li)
270.42(d)(2Hii)(A)
270.42(d)(2)(ii)(B)
270.42(d)(2)(ii)(C)
270.42(d)(2)(iii)
270.42(e)
270.42(e)(1)
270.42(eM2)(i)
270.42(e)(2)(i)(A)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOGS IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
September 28, 1988 - Page 9 of 16
DCL54.9 - 12/11/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54: Permit Modifications
for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Class 3 modification
meeting criteria and
providing improved
management or
treatment
what temporary
authorization request
must include
description of
activities
why temporary autho-
rization is necessary
sufficient information
to ensure compliance
to whom notice must
be sent
approve or deny
temporary authoriza-
tion quickly:
authorized activities
in compliance with
Part 264
necessity of temporary
authorization to
achieve an objective:
facilitate closure or
corrective action
activities
allow treatment or
storage in tanks or
containers of
restricted wastes
prevent disruption of
ongoing activities
respond to sudden
changes in types or
quantities of wastes
managed
protection of human
health and
environment
reissuance of
temporary authoriza-
tion for Class 2 or 3
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(e)(2)(i)(B)
270.42(e)(2)(ii)
270.42(e)(2)(ii)(A)
270.42(e)(2)(ii)(B)
270.42(e)(2)(ii)(C)
270.42(e)(2)(iii)
270.42(e)(3)
270.42(e)(3)(i)
270.42(e)(3)(ii)
270.42(eX3)(ii)(A)
270.42(e)(3)(ii)(B)
270.42(e)(3)(ii)(C)
270.42(eH3Hii)(D)
270.42(e)(3Hii)(E)
270.42(e)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALSS IS! '
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
September 28, 1988 - Page 10 of 16
DCL54.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54: Permit Modifications
for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
reissuance of Class 2
in accordance with
specific paraaraDhs
reissuance of Class 3
in accordance with
specific paragraph
heading for "Public
notice and appeals of
permit modification
decisions"
when and to whom
notification of
grant, denial or
automatic authoriza-
tion decisions must
be sent
appeal of grant or
denial decision
appeal of automatic
authorization
heading for "Newly
listed or identified
wastes"
continued authority
to manage wastes
listed in Part 261 :
in existence as a
hazardous waste
facility on
effective date of
final rule listing or
identifying, waste
submit Class 1
modification request
in compliance with
265 standards
for Class 2 or 3
modifications, submit
complete modification
request within 180
days
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(e)(4Mi)
270.42(e)(4)(ii)
270,42{f)
270.42(0(1)
270.42(0(2)
270.42(0(3)
270.42(a)
270.42(a)(1)
270,42(a)(1)(i)
270.42(a)(D(ii)
270.42(a)(D(Bi)
270.42(fl)(1)(iv)
AMALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
September 28, 1988 - Page 11 of 16
DCL54.9 - 12/11/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54: Permit Modifications
for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG IS:
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
certification that land
disposal units are in
compliance within 12
months
270.42(g)(1)(v)
expansions are not
under 25 percent
capacity limit for Class
2 modifications
270.42(g)(2)
maintenance and
notice of updated
list of permit
modifications
270.42(h)
remove 270.42(i)
through 270.42(p)
270.42(IHp)
add Appendix I;
classification
of modifications
270.42,
Appendix I
Appendix I to § 270.42—Classification of Permit Modification
Modification*
A General Permit Provisions
1 AdmmrstTative and informational cnanges 1
2 Correction of typographical errors 1
3 Eq^pment replacement or upgraong with functionary equivalent components (eg, pipe*, valves, pumpa. conveyor* controls) t
4 Changes m the frequency of or procedures tor monitoring, reporting, sampling, or maintenance activities 6y the permittee:
a To provide tor more frequent monrtonrxj. reporting, sampling, or maintenance 1
o Other changes.. _ 2
5 Scneduie of compliance
a Cnanges in «.ierim compuance dates, with pnor approval of the Dvector —.. ' I
D Ertenswn o* final compliance, date _ _ _... 3
11 Cnanges m expwinon dale of permit to anew earlier permrt termination. with poor approval o< the Director
Cnanges m ownershc or operational control of a ttcmty. provided the procedures o< f 270.40
4 Cnanges in frequency or content of msoection schedules _ - 2
5 Granges m the training clan:
a. That aflect the type or decrease the amount of training given to employees _ • 1
B Omer changes • t
6 Contingency plan:
a. Changes m emergency procedures (i.e., spill or release response procedures) 2
D Replacement wrth funcrwnatty equivalent equipment, upgrade, or relocate emergency equipment hsted '
c Removal ol eqmcment from emergency equipment l«st 2
a Changes m name, address, or phone number ol ccorotnators or other persons 01 agencies identified m the plan l
Mote: When a permit modification (such as introduction of a new unit) requires a cnange vn facHity plans or other general racily standards, tf.at cn«ngs ',-^.<
6e reviewed under the same procedures as the permit modification.
September 28, 1988 - Page 12 of 16
DCL54.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541,00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54: Permit Modifications
for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
§TATS ANAL63 IS:
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORI
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Uodrfcabom
C GfO'jfd-Aater Protection
* Cnanges to w««s:
• Change* in the number, location, depth, or design of upgradient Of downgtaclKmt wells ol permitted ground-water monitoring system . .
b Replacement of an eiistmg wed ttvai nas Been damaged or 'erxtered oopetaoie. without change to locttion. aes*gn. or depth of the ««n
2 Changes in ground-water sampling of analysis procedures or monitoring schedule, with prior approval of the Director
3. Granges in statistical procedure tor aeteffnmirx} whether • staflsfieaity sigmicint change m ground-water quality between upg»«die«t and c
w«tts has occurred, with prior approval of (tie Director '
•» Changes in point cl compliance ' ^
5 Changes in indicator paran^eters, hazardous constituents. or concentration limits itrx'ud»"<3 ACLs!
a As specified m the giouodwater protection standard- - .. . . . 3
D As specked 'n the detection «vooiio'"X} program ....... i
6 Changes to a detection monitoring program at required By I 26-* 96y) unless otherwise specified in this appendix . ; t
' Compliance monitoring program;
a Addition ol compliance monitoring program as required By H 264 98 :
b. Cnan9M t» th« clo«j»» Kfwduto tor my u«t, cnan^es •» tie ftn*l dosure seftedu* for tn« facfcty, or eitensKXi of the closure period, with pr*x
approval o< the Dwactor _ — _ _.
c OiBoges in tho expected year of final domre, wt>ere otfwf pe^^i conQ'txjns are "K3t crianged. with prior approval ol tf>e Director ^ ' i
d CnangM in procedures tor decontan«n«lx3n of laokty equipment or structures, wim pnor approval ol !h« Director • 'i
e. Cnangas m approved ooaun pun rwurang from unexpected evetis occwrmg 3umg parul or final closure, urtas* otherwise soeofied n the i
appandix _ _ _ „„. .( 2
S Creation of a n«w landfill unit as part of ctosure „ , i J
3. Addtton of 8w toBoxng nww unm to b« used temporanry lor ctoiorv actawties. )
a. Surfac* flnpoundrrwnts , _.._ _ _ ' 3
D- Incawalon - _ I 3
c. Waas prtes that do rwi comply with § 264 250(c) ; __ _,_ J 3
d. Wwt« p*e» mat comply witfi f 264.250«c! _ ; 2
e. Tar*» or oonianen (other than «pec*wd b«tow) ! 2
f Tank«iif^ Ifv
E Post-Ctosurs
1 Change* m name address, or pnone nurnBef of contact m post-closure plan , _ _ _ | t
2. Ertanswn o< penKkjBure car* panod - 1 j 2
3 Reduction n tw poat-ctDsm cam parted - _ - - | 3
4 Change* to in* expocttd year of fwa) dosura. wnart omer permrs condiBon* are net crianged _ ; i
S Changaa n pot* ctoaura ptan nacaasitated By events occurring ourmg me active life ol the facility, including partial and final closure ... ... ' 2
F ConU-ners )
1 Modification ot additkxt of contamer units: '
a Resulting m greater than 25% increase m th« ftcirrty's com*n« ssorage capsafy ._ -
b Resulting in up to 25% increaia in the lacHity's container storage capacity
2
a Modification o< a container urm wtlhout inefeasmq ft>e eapaerty 3* tfta unrl .. . '
b AOd'tion of a roof to a container gnu without alteration of the containment system . . :
3 Storage of Afferent wastes m containers- i
a. That require additional or different management prtc'.-ces rro<^ those auihoniea m the permit _ ., 3
B. That do not require additional or different manager-wit practices item those authorized in the permit _... ..._ 1 ;
Note: See § 270.42(g) lor mod''icaoon procedures to be used tor the management of newly listed or identified wasies. i
4 Other changes in container management practices- (e.g.. *s* space: fypes of containers; segregation) i -'
G Tafks
1
a Modriication or adojtton ol tar* units resulting m greater than 25^- «tcraase m the laciWy's tat* capacity, except as provided in Gi 1 HO and G(t lid)
tns appendix
o MockUcaaon or addition of uuw yruts resulting « up to 25% increase in the faculty's tank capacity, ercept as provided n GO K
-------
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54; Permit Modifications
for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG 15!
ALENT
MORE
STR1NQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPi
Modification*
c Addtiian oi a new tar* mat witt op«raw lor more than 90 day» using any ot (he to»k»*i«g physical or chemical treatment technotogies: nejtralrzahon
ae«»aienng, phase separation, or component separation ........................ - [[[
d Altec pnor approval ol the Director, addition of • new tank that wil operate tor up to 90 days using any of the foSowpg physical or chemical '
treatment technologies: neutralization, dewatenng, phase separation, or component separation ................ ............. ................... ....................... ............... !
2 Modifcation ot a tank unit or secondary containment system without increasing me capacity of the unit [[[ }
3 Replacement ol a tank wtn a tarn iftat meets she same oesign standards and nas a capacity *itim * / - 10% of me replaced tank provided ..... I
—The capacity cktlarence is no more ttwt 1 500 gaitons, •
—The facility's permitted tank capacity i* not increased, and !
—The replacement tank meets ifte same conditions m the permit
4 ModJiicatton ol a tank management practice ............ _... [[[ ;
5 Management oi itterent wasias « tanks:
a That require additional Of dtrlerent management practices, tan* oesxjn, different (ire protection specifications, or sgrnScanffy dttte'tm tank treat^er- '
process from that authorized in the pe'mit [[[ '
b That do noi require additional or orflarent management prac'-ces tar* design, different Tire protection specifications, of signrhcarfy *ferent tai*
treatment piocess than authorized m the permit ........................................ . ................. , ................................................. ........
Note: See I 27Q.42(g3 for mod ^cation procedures to be used 'Of the management of newly Msted cr identified wastes
t Modification or addition of surface impoundment units tr.a: resu'! IP inc.-easmg the (acuity's su^ace impoundment storage or treatment capacity ....... - . j
2 Replacement of a surface impoundment unit ........ _ ...... _____ ............ ______ ............... . ......... ______ [[[ - ............... - .......... !
3 Modification of a surface impoundment unit without increasing the family's surface impouncment sorags 01 tfeaimen1. ctpacny ana wtr.eut cioailj.ng •
we un>t's Hner. leak detection system, or leac^ate ccilectici syste~i .............. , [[[ .
4 Modiiication of a surface impoundment management prect:ce [[[ ........
5 Treatment, storage, or disposal o< different wastes in sjr*ace i^ooirO'nents,' j
a Tl'.at require adfliuor'ai or d.fferent management practices or we'ent design of we nner or leak detection system ihan a^-thonzed m f*.a permit ..
b. That do not require additional or different managemen! practices cr dHterent design of trie iner or leak detection system tfian autt'omed m me per mi- ,
Not«; S«e 5 270,42(g)"for modulation procedures to be used 'or the management of newly listed or identified wastes
1 €^:k)sed Waste ftte*. For aU waste pttes except those co"iot»«i9 w«h J 264.250(c). modifications are treated tne same as tor a land'iu The ioitc»;oq
mod 'ications are arpi'cable only to wasta Cues comply ng y, ;i 5 1& : 25C;c).
* Modification or addition of waste pile units'
a Resulting m greater than 25°» increase in the iacmty s waste s>* sto'age or treatment capacity ......... . . .J
o Resulting in up 10 25°o increase in !*ie facility's waste pe styaje V KeaiTo.'M c,i;acity ...
; '.*-«i, '-cation m «ast^ pile ur't * t^oi/t ^C'^asm^ ;ne cac^c •, c' "i »~ t
3. R eciacement ol a *a»ie c1'* «.nit untn another waste pilt unit QJ tn* $a*»e design and capaciry and (*cn5 m ••>« pc'"^' :
4 Moo*cation of a waste pH new
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54: Permit Modifications
for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE" ANALOG IS:
SSOTV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
en!s
12. Changes m background values for hazardous constituents m sort arxl soil-pore liquid [[[
13. Changes m sampling, analysts, or statistical procedure ........ [[[
14. Changes in land treatment demonstration program poor to or during the demonstration [[[
15. Changes in any condition specified in the permit for a land treatment unit to reflect 'esults of the iand treatment demonstration. pro<-:se<3 ae^-'man
standards are met, and (he Director's pnor approval has been recerved [[[
16. Changes to alto* a second land treatment demonstration to be conducted when the results ot the first demonstration nave not snown tie COPT: ens j
under which the wastes can be treated completely, provided the corxjrtions lot the second demonstration are substantially the same as :ne conations :
for the iirsl demons-nation and have received the poor approval of ff* Director [[[ 1
17. Changes to allow a second sand treatment demonstration to be conducted when the results of the first demonstration have not srvswn the ccnc, 'ions ;
under which the wastes can be treated completely, where the coodroons for the second demonstration are not substantially the same as the conditions
for the first demonstration [[[ . ....................... [[[ . ...... ..
18. Changes in vegetative cover requirements for closure ........ , ..... . [[[ . ............................................
.. Incinerators
1. Changes to increase by more than 25% any of the following hmrts authorized m the permit. A the/rial feed rate limit, a waste feed rate 'ir»m. or an
organic chlorine feed rate. limit. The Director will require a new tnai turn to substantiate compliance with the regulatory performance stanch-as unless
this demonstration can be made through other means ....................... [[[ .. .
2. Changes to increase by up to 25% any of the following limits autwzed ll requrf« a new trial bum to substantiate ;CT ia^:e <»•:" 're
regulatory performance standards unless this demonstration can s« ~ad« through other means ...... .....
t H the waste does not contain a POHC that is more dificu't to
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 54: Permit Modifications
for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
STATS ANAL66 IS:
ANALOGOUS
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT | FEDERAL RCRA CITATION | STATE CITATION
EQUIV- MORE BROADER
ALENT I STRINGENT I IN SCOPE
SUBPART F - SPECIAL FORMS OF PERMITS
t HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR PERMITS
revise last sentence
by omitting
parenthetical phrase
270.62(a)
revise last sentence
by omitting "as a
minor modification"
270.62(b)(10)
t PERMITS FOR LAND TREATMENT DEMONSTRATIONS USING FIELD TEST OR LABORATORY
ANALYSES ,
remove "as a minor
modification"; add
a new sentence on
second phase of
permit 270.63(d)(1)
remove phrase on
minor modifications
270.63(d)(2)
remove paragraph
270.63(d)(3)
September 28, 1988 - Page 16 of 16
DC154.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO, 9541.00-14
The Land Disposal Restrictions
Checklists - 34, 39, 50, 62, 63 and 66
The following versions of
Revision Checklists 34, 39, 50, 62, 63 and 66
should replace the current versions
of these checklists in SAM Appendix J
-------
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34
Land Disposal Restrictions
51 FR 40572-40654
November 7, 1986
as amended on June 4, 1987, at 52 FR 21010-21018
(HSWA Cluster I)
Notes: 1) The following Part 268 sections are not delegable to States because of the national
concerns which must be considered when decisions are made relative to them: 268.5 (case-by-
case effective date extensions); 268.42(b) (application for an alternate treatment method); and
268.44 (variance from a treatment standard). The preamble (51 FR 40618) to the November 7,
1986 rule (the first LDR rule), addressed by this present checklist, clearly states that 268.5 is not
delegable. The second LDR rule, called the California List Waste Rule (52 FR 25760, July 8,
1987; Revision Checklist 39), clarified that 268,42(b) and 268.44 are nondelegable. It also
clarified the delegability of 268.6. "No migration" petitions under 268.6 will be handled by EPA,
even though States may be authorized to grant these petitions in the future. States have the
authority to grant such petitions under RCRA Section 3006 because such decisions do not require
a national perspective as is the case for decisions under 268.5, 268.42(b), or 268.44. However,
EPA has had few opportunities to implement the land disposal restrictions and expects to gain
valuable experience and information from reviewing "no-migration" petitions.
2) In the past, the nondefegable sections/paragraphs of the LDR regulations have been omitted
from the LDR checklists because States could not assume the authority for them. However, this
procedure has led to confusion among the States on how to handle the sections/paragraphs in
their code. For this reason, the Agency has decided to include these nondelegable sections on
the LDR checklists. To differentiate these sections from the delegable portions of the LDR
restrictions, asterisks precede (a single row) and follow (a double row) each non-delegable section.
If States have already filled out a version of Revision Checklist 34 which does not include the
nondelegable sections, they need not fill out a revised version containing these sections. This
change in format was made only to improve clarity.
The Agency suggests that States incorporate the nondeiegable portions of the LDR regulation into
their regulations because this Incorporation aids the regulated community in knowing that the
extensions, exemptions and variances addressed by the nondelegable sections of code are
available to them, it is essential, however, that States leave the terms "Administrator", "Federal
Register" and "Agency" unchanged, i.e., States may not substitute analogous State terms for these
Federal terms. Similarly, States incorporating by reference must be careful to exclude these
sections from blanket substitutions of State terms for Federal terms. For a more complete
discussion of issues surrounding nondeiagable sections, see Appendix J of the State Authorization
Manual (SAM).
3) Note that while 268.40 is delegable to States, "Administrator" in the following phrase
"Approved by the Administrator under the procedures set for this in 268.42(b)" should not be
replaced with an analogous State term because it is referring to decisions under 268.42(b). Such
decisions will be made by the EPA Administrator.
November 7, 1986 - Page 1 of 19 00134.9 -12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
4) Revision Checklist 50 (53 FR 31138, August 17, 1988) amends certain sections of code
addressed by Revision Checklist 34, but does not affect the delegability outlined in the previous
note. Other related checklists include Revision Checklist 62 (54 FR 18836, May 2, 1989),
Revision Checklist 63 (54 FR 26594, June 23, 1989), Revision Checklist 66 (54 FR 36967,
September 6, 1989), Revision Checklist 78 (55 FR 22520, June 1, 1990), and Revision Checklist
83 (56 FR 3864).
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 260 - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE. SCOPE. AND APPLICABILITY
insert
"and 268"
insert
"and 268"
insert
"and 268"
insert
"and 268"
insert
"and 268"
260.1 (a)
260.1 (b)(1)
260.1(b)(2)
260.1(b)(3)
260.1(b)(4)
i
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION: CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
insert
"and 268"
insert
"and 268"
260.2(a)
260.2(b)
USE OF NUMBER AND GENDER
insert
"and 268"
260.3
SUBPART B - DEFINITIONS
DEFINITIONS
insert
"and 268"
260.10
November 7, 1986 - Page 2 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
0-9
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (confd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANA'LOTIS!
EflLTO-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART C - RULEMAKING PETITIONS
GENERAL
t Insert
"and 268"
260.20(a)
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
insert "268,"
insert ", 268"
EXCLUSIONS
insert "268,"
remove "267"
insert "268"
261,1 (a)
261.1(aH1)
261 ,4(c)
261.4{d)(1)
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED BY
CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS
insert
",268,"
insert
", 268,"
insert
". 268,"
insert
", 268,"
insert
", 268,"
261.5(b)
261 .5(c)
261.5{e) !
261.5(f)<2)
261.5(Q){2)
i
!
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
insert
"268,"
insert
"268,"
261 .6(a)(3)
261.6(c){1)
!
i
November 7, 1986 - Page 3 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
RESIDUES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN EMPTY CONTAINERS
insert
"268,"
insert
"268,"
261.7(aM1MII)
261.7(a)(2)(in
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
SUBPART C - CHARACTERISTICS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERAL
insert
"268,"
261.20(b)
SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
GENERAL
insert
"268,"
261.30(c)
PART 262 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION
reference to
exclusions/
restrictions
262. 11 (d)
PART 263 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
TRANSFER FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
insert
", 268"
263.12
November 7, 1986 - Page 4 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATS ANALOGS IS:
"B30W-
ALENT
MORI
^ STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE, SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
1 facilities to which
Part 264 applies
264. KM
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
1 insert
"Part 268"
insert
"268.7"
exempted surface
impoundment plan
specifications
264.13(a)(1)
264,1 3(b)(6)
264.13{b)(7)
I
SUBPART E - MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING
OPERATING RECORD
add "268,4(a)"
and "268.7"
land disposal units
under an extension or
petition and notice
by generator under
§268.7(aH3)
off-site treatment
facilitv
on -site treatment
facilitv
off-site land
disposal facility
1 on-site land
disposal facility
264.73(b)(3)
264.73(bK10)
264.73(b)(11)
264.73(b)(12)
264.73(b){13)
264.73{b){14)
November 7, 1986 - Page 5 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
~ STATE ANALOd IS:
1 EQUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 265 - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND APPLICABILITY
facilities to which
part 265 applies
265.1(e)
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
insert
"Part 268"
insert
"268.7"
exempt surface
impoundment plan
specifications
265.1 3(a)(1)
265.1 3M8)
265.73(b}(9)
265.73(b)(10)
265.73(b)(1D
265.73(bH12)
PART 268 - LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
November 7, 1986 - Page 6 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
~ "STATE ATHmg 15!
"ECU 17"-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE. SCOPE. AND APPLICABILITY
purpose
applicability
conditions for
continued land
disposal
persons with
an extension
1 persons with
an exemption
1 CERCLA/corrective
action
1 waste from small
quantity generators
<100 kg/mo as
defined in 261,5
268.1 (a)
268. Kb)
268. 1{c)
268.1(c)(1)
268.1(c){2)
288.1(c)(3)
268.1(c)(4)
DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PART
"hazardous
constituent or
constituents"
1 "land disposal"
all other terms
268,2(a)
268.2(a)
268.2(b)
DILUTION PROHIBITED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR TREATMENT
dilution not
substitute for
treatment
268.3
t TREATMENT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT EXEMPTION
1 exempt treatment
surface impoundments
268.4(a)
1 treatment in
impoundments
268.4(a)(1)
sampling, operating,
waste removal and
waste handling
procedures
268.4(a)(2)
November 7, 1986 - Page 7 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
1 design requirements/
exemptions
exempt under
264.221 (d),(e) or
265.221 (c),(d)
1 meets 33005(0(2)
1 satisfies §3005(j)(11)
no migration
1 written
certification
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.4(a)(3)
268.4(a)(3)(i)
268.4(a)(3)(ii)
268.4(a)(3)(iii)
268.4(a)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268.5 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 2 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section.into their code.
PROCEDURES FOR CASE-BY-CASE EXTENSIONS TO AN EFFECTIVE DATE
application to EPA
Administrator for an
extension to effective
date of any Part 268,
Subpart C restriction;
what the applicant
must demonstrate:
268.5(a)
good-faith effort to
locate and contract
with treatment,
recovery, or disposal
facilities nationwide
to manage waste
according to
Subpart C
effective date
268.5(a)(1)
binding contractual
commitment for alter-
native capacity that
meets Suboart D
treatment standards
268.5(a)(2)
November 7, 1986 - Page 8 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (eont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
demonstration that
alternative capacity
cannot reasonably
be available
by effective date
due to circumstances
beyond applicant's
control; how this must
be demonstrated
capacity being con-
structed or provided
by applicant must be
sufficient capacity for
entire quantity
of waste
1 detailed schedule for
obtaining required
permits or outlines of
how and when
alleviate capacity
available
arranged for adequate
capacity during exten-
sion and documented
in all site locations
where wastes will be
manaqed
surface impoundment
or landfill used must
meet 268.5(h)(2)
requirements
1 certification by
authorized represen-
tative signing an
application
Administrator may
request additional
information
extension applies
only to waste
generated at
individual facility
covered by
extension
FEDERAL RCFiA CITATION
268.5(a){3)
268.5(a){4)
268.5(a)(5)
268.5(a)(6)
268.5(a)(7)
268.5(b)
268.5(c)
268.5(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
|
|
;
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
|
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
I
I
November 7, 1986 - Page 9 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (confd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
1 Administrator may
grant extension of up
to 1 year from
effective date;
extension for 1
additional year if
268.5(a) demon-
stration can still be
made; no extension
beyond 24 months
from 268, Subpart C
effective date; length
of extension deter-
mined by Admini-
strator and basis;
public notice and
comment; final
decision published in
Federal Register
notify Administrator of
change in
certified conditions
written progress re-
ports at intervals
designated by Admini-
strator; what progress
reports must include;
conditions for revoca-
tion of extension by
Administrator
during period establi-
shed by Administrator
for which extension is
in effect:
268.5{a)(1) storage
restrictions do not
apply
disposal at new units,
replacement units, or
lateral expansion of
existing units in
compliance with
specific requirements
1 interim status landfill
requirements
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.5(6)
268.5W
268.5(a)
268.5(h)
268.5(h)(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
*
STATE ANALOG IS:
Eocnv^"
ALENT
•
I
268.5(h)(2)
268.5(hM2)(i)
MORE
STRINOENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
I
i
November 7, 1986 - Page 10 of 19
DCL34.9 - 1210/91
-------
DIE. NO, 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
permitted landfill
requirements
interim status surface
impoundment
requirements
permitted surface
impoundment
requirements
pending decision on
application, com-
pliance with all land
disposal restrictions
once effective date
has been reached
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.5(h)(2)(il)
268.5(h)(2)(iii)
268.5(h)(2)(iv)
268.5(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG IS:
MORE BROADER
STRINQENT IN SCOPi
Guidance note: 268.6 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 2 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
PETITIONS TO ALLOW LAND DISPOSAL OF A WASTE PROHIBITED
UNDER SUBPART C OF PART 268
submit petition to
Administrator;
demonstration of
no waste migration;
demonstration
components
identify specific
unit and waste
waste analysis
comprehensive
disposal unit
characterization
criteria which
demonstration
must meet
accurate and
reproducible sampling,
tests and data
268.6(a)
268.6{a)(1)
268,6{a)(2)
268.6(aW3)
268,6(b)
268.6{b)(1)
November 7, 1986 - Page 11 of 19
DCL34.9 - 1^10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Administrator
approved sampling,
testing and estimation
techniques
model calibration;
models verified
with actual data
quality assurance/
control plan approved
bv Administrator
uncertainty
analysis
petition submitted to
Administrator
1 signed
statement
Administrator may
request additional
information
waste unit to which
petition applies
Administrator gives
public notice in
Federal Register; final
decision in
Federal Reaister
term of petition
1 requirements prior
to Administrator's
decision
1 petition granted by
Administrator does
not relieve
responsibilities
under RCRA
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.6{b)(2)
268.6fb)(3)
268.6{b){4)
268,6{b)(5)
268.6(0)
268.6(d)
268.6(e)
268.6(f)
268.6(a)
268.6(h)
268.6{i)
268.6(i)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORi
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE ANALYSIS
1 generator determines
if restricted waste
1 notice by generator
to treatment facility
268.7{a)
268.7(a)(1)(i-lv)
November 7, 1986 - Page 12 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL RiQUIREMENT
1 generator notice/
certification to
disposal facility
information require-
ments in notice to
disoosal facility
1 certification
sianature/statement
1 generator notice to
disposal facility for
wastes under exten-
sion for variance
1 maintenance of data
supporting knowledge
of waste
1 tests by treatment
facility for wastes
with treatment
standards
1 notice by treatment
facility to land
disposal facility/
information needed
1 certification of
each shipment
wastes with
concentration
standards
1 wastes with
technology standards
1 requirements for
land disposal
facility
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7{a)(2)
268.7(aH2Hi)
268.7(a)(2)(H>
268.7{a){3)
268.7(a)(4)
268.7(b)
268.7(b)(1)(i-iv)
268.7(b)(2)
268.7(b)(2)(l)
268.7(b)(2)(ii)
268.7(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATf ANAL03 IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
i
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART C - PROHIBITIONS ON LAND DISPOSAL
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - SOLVENT WASTES
1 prohibited spent
solvent wastes
small quantity
generator 2-year
exemption
268.30(a)
268,30(a)(1)
November 7, 1986 - Page 13 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIRiMENT
CERCLA/corrective
action 2-year
exemption
1 concentration
specific exemption
(solvent waste with
1% total solvent
constituent)
landfill/surface
impoundment disposal
situations where
(a) and (b) do
not apply
1 wastes meet Subpart
D, 268 standards
1 disposal at facility
with successful no-
miqration petition
1 wastes for which
case-by-case ex-
tension has been
aranted
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268,30(a)(2)
268.30(a)(3)
268.30(b)
268.30(c)
268.30(c)(1)
268,30(cM2)
268.30(c)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
i
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITION - DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES
1 prohibited dioxin-
containing wastes in-
cluding FO22 wastes
situations where
(a) doesn't apply
1 waste treated to
meet Subpart D, 268
1 disposal at facility
with petition
1 extension
1 landfill/surface
impoundment disposal
268.31 (a)
268.31(b) i
268.31 (bKD
268.31 (b)(2) i
268.31 (b)(3) I
268.31 (c)
j
' -'*-,
* v!
November 7, 1986 - Page 14 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (confd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL5§ 13:
"lOLW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART D - TREATMENT STANDARDS
APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENT STANDARDS
2 applicability/
relationship
to prohibition
268.40
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
1 treatment standards/
Table CCWE
standards for common
constituents in
combined wastes
268.41 (a)
268.4Kb)
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS SPECIFIED TECHNOLOGIES
waste treated
by identified
technologies
268.42(a)
Guidance note: 268.42 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 2 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this paragraph into their code.
submit application to
Administrator
demonstrating
alternate treatment
method; criteria for
Administrator
to approve
268.42(b)
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS WASTE CONCENTRATIONS
section reserved
i 268.43
November 7, 1986 - Page 15 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
* I
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (oont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268.44 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 2 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
VARIANCE FROM A TREATMENT STANDARD
conditions for
variance; petition
Administrator; what
must be
demonstrated
268.44(a)
procedures in
accordance with
260,20
268.44(b)
1 statement signed by
petitioner or autho-
rized representatiye
268.44fc)
1
additional information
or samples may be
requested by
Administrator;
additional copies for
affected States and
region
268.44(d)
Administrator gives
public notification
in Federal Register;
final decision in
Federal Register
268.44(e)
268.7 waste analysis
requirements must be
followed for wastes
covered by variance
268.44(f)
November 7, 1986 - Page 16 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
1 requirements during
petition review
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.44(g)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANAL
MORE
STRINGENT
59 IS;
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART E - PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE
PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE OF RESTRICTED WASTES
1 exemptions to storage
prohibitions
1 on-site storage
exemption for
qenerator
1 treatment, storage,
and disposal
facility exemption
1 container labeling
1 tank labeling
1 transporter
exemption
storage up to
one year
storage longer
than one year
1 wastes affected
by a petition
or exemption
wastes meeting
specified treat-
ment standards
268.50(a)
268.50(a)(1)
268.50(a)(2)
268.5G(a)(2Mi)
268.50(a)(2)(ii)
268.50(a)(3)
268.50(b)
268.50(c)
268.50(d)
268.50(e)
APPENDIX I TO PART 268
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING
1 description
of TCLP
PROCEDURE (TCLP)
Appendix I
November 7, 1986 - Page 17 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ATO.OT IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MOHE
STRINQiNT
BROADER
IN SCOPi
APPENDIX II TO PART 268
TREATMENT STANDARDS (AS CONCENTRATIONS IN
THE TREATMENT RESIDUAL EXTRACT)
table
Appendix II
PART 270 - EPA-ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS; THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM
SUBPART B - PERMIT APPLICATIONS
CONTENTS OF PART B: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
copy of notice of
approval of petition
or extension
270.14(bK21)
SUBPART C - PERMIT CONDITIONS
ESTABLISHING PERMIT CONDITIONS
insert
"through 268"
remove "267"
270.32(b)(1)
SUBPART D - CHANGES TO PERMITS
3 MINOR MODIFICATIONS OF PERMITS
conditions for
treating non-
specified waste
prohibited from
disposal/treat-
ment standards
treatment under
standards/variance
no increased or
substantially
different risks
270.42(o)
270.42(o)(1)
270.42(o)(2)
270.42(o)(3)
November 7, 1986 - Page 18 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 34: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Federal/State
approval; allowable
modifications
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(oM4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL5S" 18
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
1
Also see technical correction to the rule at 52 FR 21010 (June 4, 1987).
The reference to "Administrator" near the end of this paragraph should not be replaced with an
analogous State term. See Note 3 as the beginning of this checklist.
3 States need to add 270.42(o) only if they adopted an analog to 270.42 - Minor Modification of
Permits - as part of their base program. Adoption of 270.42 is up to each State's discretion as
it is not required under 271.14.
November 7, 1986 - Page 19 of 19
DCL34.9 - 12/10/91
-------
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 39
California List Waste Restrictions
52 FR 25760-25792
July 8, 1987
as amended on October 27, 1987, at 52 FR 41295-41296
(HSWA Cluster II)
Notes; 1) The following Part 268 sections are not delegable to States because of the national
concerns which must be examined when decisions are made relative to them: 268.5 (case-by-case
effective date extensions); 268.42(b) (application for alternate treatment method); and 268.44
(variance from a treatment standard). "No migration" petitions under 268.6 will be handled by
EPA, even though States may be authorized to grant such petitions in the future. States have the
authority to grant such petitions under RCRA Section 3006 because such decisions do not require
a national perspective, as is the case for decisions under 268.5, 268.42(b) or 268.44. However,
EPA has had few opportunities to implement the land disposal restrictions and expects to gain
valuable experience and information from reviewing "no-migration" petitions.
2) In the past, the nondelegable sections/paragraphs of the LDR regulations have been omitted
from the LDR checklists because States could not assume the authority for them. However, this
procedure has led to confusion among the States on how to handle the sections/paragraphs in
their code. For this reason, the Agency has decided to include these nondeiegable sections on
the LDR checklists. To differentiate these sections from the delegable portions of the LDR
restrictions, asterisks precede (a single row) and follow (a double row) each non-delegabie section.
If States have already filled out a version of Revision Checklist 39 which does not include the
nondelegabie sections, they need not fill out a revised version containing these sections. This
change in format was made only to improve clarity.
The Agency suggests that States incorporate the nondelegable portions of the LDR regulation into
their regulations. It is essential, however, that States leave the terms "Administrator", "Federal
Register" and "Agency" unchanged, i.e., States may not substitute analogous State terms for these
Federal terms. Similarly, States incorporating by reference must be careful to except these
sections from blanket substitutions of State terms for Federal terms. For a more complete
discussion of issues surrounding nondelagable sections, see Appendix J of the State Authorization
Manual (SAM).
3) Note that while 268.40(b) is delegable to States, "Administrator" in the following phrase
"approved by the Administrator under the procedures set forth in 268.42(b)" should not be
replaced with an analogous State term because it is referring to decisions under 268.42(b) which
will be made by the EPA Administrator.
4) Revision Checklist 50 (53 FR 31138, August 17, 1988) amends certain sections of code
addressed by Revision Checklist 39, but does not affect the delegabiiity outlined in the previous
note. Other related Checklists include Revision Checklist 62 (54 FR 18836, May 2, 1989),
Revision Checklist 63 (54 FR 26594, June 23, 1989), Revision Checklist 66 (54 FR 36967,
September 6, 1989), Revision Checklist 78 (55 FR 22520, June 1, 1990), and Revision Checklist
83 (56 FR 3864, January 31, 1991).
July 8, 1987 - Page 1 of 13 00139,9 -12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 39: California List Waste Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 260 - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
SUBPART B - DEFINITIONS
REFERENCES
1 Parts 260
throuah 270
260. 11 (a)
PART 262 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART G- FARMERS
FARMERS
t pesticide disposal
2 by farmers
262.70
PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
annual removal of
specific residues
264.13(b)
(7) (Hi)
PART 265 - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
annual removal of
specific residues
265.13(b)
(7)(iii)
July 8, 1987 - Page 2 of 13
DCL36.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 39: California List Waste Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FiDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATI CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPi
PART 268 - LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE, SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
t pesticide disposal
bv farmers
268.1(eM5)
DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PART
add "halogenated
orqanie compounds"
revise
"land disposal"
add "polychlorinated
biphenyls"
268.2(a)
268,2(a)
268.2(a)
DILUTION PROHIBITED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR TREATMENT
add restriction
regarding circum-
vention of
effective dates and
avoidance of
prohibition of
Subpart C or RCRA
3004
268.3
TREATMENT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT EXEMPTION
provide clari-
fication and add
new section and
statutory prohibi-
tion references
add section con-
cerning hazardous
constituent
evaporation
268.4(a)(2)
268.4(b)
July 8, 1987 - Page 3 of 13
DCL39.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 39: California List Waste Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL6<3 IS:
SQOW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268.5 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 2 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
PROCEDURES FOR CASE-BY-CASE EXTENSIONS TO AN EFFECTIVE DATE
add ending clause
regarding situation
where treatment
standards have not
been specified
change "268.50(a)(1)"
to "268.50(a)"
add "and RCRA
section 3005(j)(1)"
to end of paragraph
add new paragraph
stating that land
disposal of specified
PCB wastes must
also comply with
40 CFR 761.75 and
Parts 264 and 265
268.5{a)(2)
268.5(h)(1)
268,5(h)(2)(iii)
268.5(h)(2)(v)
Guidance note: 268.6 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 2 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
PETITIONS TO ALLOW LAND DISPOSAL OF A WASTE PROHIBITED
UNDER SUBPART C OF PART 268
noneligibility of certain
liquid PCB waste for
"no migration"
petitions under 268.6
WASTE ANALYSIS ANI
268.32 exception:
268.6{k)
3 RECORDKEEPING
268.7(a)
July 8, 1987 - Page 4 of 13
DCL39.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 39: California List Waste Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
add 268.32 and RCRA
3004(d) prohibition
to notification
restrictions:
add 268.32 and
RCRA 3004(d) treat-
ment standards to
notification
add reference to
Subpart D and
prohibitions
in 268.32 and
3004(d) to notice
and certification:
add prohibitions in
268.32 and RCRA
3004(d) to notice;
add prohibitions in
268.32 and RCRA
3004(d) to
certification
add testing require-
ments of 268.32 for
wastes prohibited
under 268,32 or RCRA
3004(d):
add prohibitions in
268.32 and RCRA
3004{d) to notice;
add prohibitions in
268.32 and RCRA
3004{d) to certifi-
cation requirements:
add 268.32 and RCRA
3004{d) prohibi-
tions to certifica-
tion requirements
and to certification;
add testing require-
ments of 268.32 for
wastes prohibited
under 268.32 or
RCRA 3004(d)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(a)(1)
268.7(a)(1)(ll)
268.7(aM2)
268.7(a)(2)
(MB)
268.7(a)(2)(ll)
268.7(b)
268.7(W(1)(II)
268.7(bH2)
268.7(b)(2){l)
I 268.7{c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
feouiv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
i
July 8, 1987 - Page 5 of 13
DCL39.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 39: California List Waste Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART C - PROHIBITIONS ON LAND DISPOSAL
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - SOLVENT WASTES
add residues of
268,30 a(1), a(2),
and a(3) to wastes
not subject to
November 8, 1986,
land disposal pro-
hibition
268.3Q(a)(4)
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - CALIFORNIA LIST WASTE
prohibitions effec-
tive Juiv 8, 1987:
liquids/ph less than
or equal to 2.0;
!iquids/PCBs greater
than or equal to
50 ppm;
liquids/HOCs greater
than or equal to
1 ,000 mg/I and less
than 10,000 mo/I
November 8, 1988
date for contaminated
soil or debris from
response under
CERCLA 104 or 106
or RCRA corrective
action
prohibitions effec-
tive July 8, 1989:
liquid/HOCs greater
than or equal to
1,000 ma/1;
noniiquid/HOCs
greater than or
equal to 1,000 mq/kq
268.32(a)
268.32(a)(1)
268.32(a)(2)
26&32(a)(3)
268.32(d)
268,32(6)
268.32{eM1)
268.32(e){2)
July 8, 1987 - Page 6 of 13
DCL39.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 39: California List Waste Restrictions (corrt'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
July 8, 1987 and July
8, 1989 dates for dis-
posal and landfills and
surface impoundments
meeting 268.5(h)(2)
requirements
requirements don't
applv when:
granted a
268.6 exemption;
granted a
268.5 extension
in compliance with
Subpart D standards
or RCRA 3004(d) or
section prohibitions
requirements do not
apply when subject
to Part 268, Subpart
C prohibition
1 method
9095 required
applicability of
waste analysis/
recordkeeping
requirements
of 268.7:
initial generator
must use
261.22(a)(1)
procedures or
knowledge of pH;
pH less than 2.0
restriction;
initial generator
must test for or have
knowledge of HOC or
PCB concentration
levels; restriction
above levels
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.32{f)
268.32(a)
268.32(a)(D
268.32fa)(2)
268.32(a)(3)
268.32(h)
268.32(i)
268,320)
268.32{i)(1)
268.32(0(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATS ANAL03 IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
!
:
i
BROADER
IN SCOPE
I |
i t
July 8, 1987 - Page 7 of 13
DCL39.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 39: California List Waste Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART D - TREATMENT STANDARDS
APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENT STANDARDS
land disposal if
extract or residue
meets 268.41 Table
CCWE values
land disposal
after treatment
is acceptable
268.40(a)
268.40(b)
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS SPECIFIED TECHNOLOGIES
standard for
incineration
of liquid
hazardous wastes
containing PCBs
standard for
incineration of
non-liquid
hazardous waste
contain! nq HOCs
268.42(a){1)
288.42(a)(2)
July 8, 1987 - Page 8 of 13
DCL39.9 - 12MO/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 39: California List Waste Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268.42{b) is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 2 at the beginning of
this checklist regarding how to incorporate this paragraph into their code.
replace "level" with
"measure" before "of
performance"; replace
"will not present an
unreasonable risk to
human health or the
environment" with "is
in compliance with
Federal, State and
local requirements and
is protective of human
health and the
environment"; in last
sentence replace
"certification" with
"approval"
268.42(b)
SUBPART E - PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE
PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE OF RESTRICTED WASTES
storage prohibition
no prohibition
where treatment
standards are not
specified or are
met, or compliance
with 268.32 or
RCRA 3004 exists
liquid hazardous
waste containing
PCBs
268.50(a)
268.50(e)
268.50(f)
July 8, 1987 - Page 9 of 13
DCL39.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 39: California List Waste Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATi ANALOG IS:
BOUIV-
ALENT
MORi
STRINQSNT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX III TO PART 268
add new appendix:
HOC definition and
list of HOCs regu-
lated under 268.32
Appendix III
In determining the concentration of HOCs in a hazardous waste for purposes of the §268.32 land
disposal prohibition, EPA has defined the HOCs that must be included in the calculation as any
compounds having a carbon-halogen bond which are listed in this Appendix (see §268.2).
Appendix III to Part 268 consists of the following compounds: (For electronic version of checklist
see 52 FR 25791.)
Volatile
BromodichlorwnathaiM
BromoiMthiM
Carbon Tatnehiorida
Chlorabanzana
Z-Chlp»nt
1.2-Dibratnomathana
Dibromomathana
Tnn»-1.4-D(chloTo-Z buitn*
Dichiorodjfluoromtth • nt
1.1-OlciilaraMlMiM
1.1-OtehianMHiiyiaiM
Tran*-l.2-OichlorM(htnt
Tran*>lJ-Oichioraprap«n«
Mcthylm* chlortd*
TtindilonMtlMnc
TnbromomcUun*
Tnchlonxthcn*
TnchioreraonofluoraffltihuM
July 8, 1987 - Page 10 of 13
DCL39.9 - 1210/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 39: California List Waste Restrictions (eont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EOOI7-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
BW2-chloro«thoxy|tth«nt
Bii(2-chlomihyl)tth*r
p-Chloro«mlin«
Chlonjb*nnUt«
p-€hloro-a-cr**ol
2-Gilo«c«phth«ltnt
3-Chloropropionitrilt
m-Olchlorgfacnun*
p-0lchlorob«ru«n«
3.3'-D1chlorob«Ttt3din«
Htxachlarabtniena
HmchlorotoultditM
Hfx«chlorocyciop«nnditne
Hexidiloroprophern
4,*'-M«thyl«n«bii(2M:hlon}inilin«|
Pmuchiorotomzvni
Penlachioronitrob«nz*ne
Pentachlorophenol
Pronamid*
1.Z.4 5-Tetr»chlorob«nnne
2-3.4,»-Tetrichloropbenol
1,2.4-TrichlorDbefnen*
2.4.i-Trichlorooh»nol
14.8-Trichloroph«noi
Of o/tocAterin* Pntictf/tt
Aldrin
atoh«-8HC
deltt-BHC
gamou-BHC
Chlonlcnc
ODD
DOE
DDT
Dieidnn
EndonlfaR I
Endoiuif«n II
Endrin
Endnn aldthyd*
Heplichlor
Hepuchlor epoxrelt
Itodrin
Malhexyclor
Tox«ph«n«
14-Dichlorophennxj «c«tic ncid
Silvvx
ICi-T
PCS*
Aroeior lOtt
Arocinr 1221
Aroelor 1232
Aroclof 1242
Arocior 1241
Aroelor 1254
Arocior 1280
PCB« not
Oioxin* ami Furam
H«-«ichlOTOdib«Tiio-p-dioxmi
Hex»chlorodib«niofurtn
PsnUchlorodibwntofurin
Tttnchlorodib«nz»-p-dloxini
TttradiiorMlibtniafunB
July 8, 1987 - Page 11 of 13
DCL39.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 39: California List Waste Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"K3W7-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 270 - EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS:
WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM
THE HAZARDOUS
SUBPART D - CHANGES TO PERMITS
t,4 MINOR MODIFICATIONS OF PERMITS
add permitted when
waste prohibited
under RCRA
Section 3004
add permitted when
treatment according
to 268.4 and 268.3
and:
treatment standards
under 268.41 , 268.42
or 268.44 are met; or
no standards exist
and treatment
removes prohibitions
of 268.32 and RCRA
3004
allow facilities to
change operation to
treat or store If:
major permit
modification
is requested;
demonstrates
necessity to comply
with 268 or
RCRA 3004; and
ensures compliance
pending administra-
tive determination
27Q.42(oH1)
270.42(0X2)
270.42 (o)(2)(n
270.42(o)(2Kii)
270.42CD)
270.42{p}(1)
270.42(p){2)
270.42(D)(3)
i
i
-.
* «..
July 8, 1987 - Page 12 of 13
DCL39.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 39: California List Waste Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
iQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART G - INTERIM STATUS
CHANGES DURING INTERIM STATUS
no reconstructing;
changes do not
include tank/
container changes
to comply with
land disposal
restrictions
270.72{e)
1
See amendment to rule at 52 FR 41295 (October 27, 1987).
Note that the FR gives Subpart E, 262.51 as the citation for Farmers. This is not correct as
the August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28664) final rule regarding exports changed this section and moved
it to Subpart G, 262.70. This error was corrected at 53 FR 27164 (July 19, 1988).
The reference to "Administrator" near the end of this paragraph should not be replaced with an
analogous State term. See note 3 at the beginning of this checklist.
Note that 270.42 is not required by 271.14. Thus, this optional change applies only to States
that opted to include an analog to 270.42, i.e., Minor Modifications to Permits.
July 8, 1987 - Page 13 of 13
DCL39.9 - 12MO/91
a' «-* / ..
* »_./»-»'
-------
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50
Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes
53 FR 31138-31222
August 17, 1988
as amended on February 27, 1989, at 54 FR 8264-8266
(HSWA Cluster II)
Notes: 1) The "First Third" Scheduled Waste rule addressed by this checklist is the third in a
series of rules restricting the land disposal of hazardous waste. Previous related checklists
include Revision Checklist 34 {51 FR 40572; November 7, 1986) and Revision Checklist 39 (52
FR 25760; July 8, 1987). The First Third Scheduled Waste rule was subsequently modified by
corrections at 54 FR 18836 (May 2, 1989), and 54 FR 36967 (September 6, 1989) addressed by
Revision Checklist 62 and Revision Checklist 66, respectively. Also, related to this present
checklist are the Second Third Scheduled Wastes (54 FR 26594, Revision Checklist 63); the Third
Third Scheduled Wastes (55 FR 22520, Revision Checklist 78), and a correction to the Third Third
Scheduled Wastes (56 FR 3864; Revision Checklist 83). On August 19, 1991 (56 FR 41164;
Revision Checklist 95), the treatment standards for the K061 nonwastewater in the high zinc
subcategory were revised and finalized. The treatment standards for these wastes were first
promulgated by the First Third Scheduled Wastes rule.
2) The following Part 268 sections are not delegable to States because of the national concerns
which must be examined when decisions are made relative to them: 268.5 (case-by-case effective
date extensions); 268.42(b) (application for alternate treatment method); and 268.44 (variance from
a treatment standard). "No migration" petitions under 268.6 will be handled by EPA, even though
States may be authorized to grant such petitions in the future. States have the authority to grant
such petitions under RCRA Section 3006 because such decisions do not require a national
perspective, as is the case for decisions under 268.5, 268.42(b) or 268.44. However, EPA has
had few opportunities to implement the land disposal restrictions and expects to gain valuable
experience and information from reviewing "no-migration" petitions.
3) In the past, the nondelegabte sections/paragraphs of the LOR regulations have been omitted
from the LDR checklists because States could not assume the authority for them. However, this
procedure has led to confusion among the States on how to handle the sections/paragraphs in
their code. For this reason, the Agency has decided to include these nondefegable sections on
the LDR checklists. To differentiate these sections from the delegable portions of the LDR
restrictions, asterisks precede (a single row) and follow (a double row) each non-delegable section.
If States have already filled out a version of Revision Checklist 50 which does not include the
nondelegable sections, they need not fill out a revised version containing these sections. This
change in format was made only to improve clarity.
The Agency suggests that States incorporate the nondelegable portions of the LDR regulation into
their regulations. It is essential, however, that States leave the terms "Administrator", "Federal
Register" and "Agency" unchanged, i.e., States may not substitute analogous State terms for these
Federal terms. Similarly, States incorporating by reference must be careful to exclude these
sections from blanket substitutions of State terms for Federal terms. For a more complete
discussion of issues surrounding nondelagable sections, see Appendix J of the State Authorization
Manual (SAM).
August 17, 1988 - Page 1 of 37 DCLSO.S- 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
4) Certain sections or paragraphs of the land disposal restrictions are not delegable, specifically
§§268.5, 268.42{b) and 268,44. These continue to be nondelegable. With regard to §268,6, "no-
migration" petitions, EPA will continue to handle these petitions at Headquarters although States
may be authorized to grant these petitions in the future.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:' """
EQUIV- 1
ALENT 1
MORE SROADER
STRINGENT IN SCOPE
PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART B - GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
clarify language and
apply testing to soft
hammer wastes In
treatment surface
impoundments
apply to wastes that
do not meet treatment
standards
apply to wastes for
which no treatment
standards are
established
prohibited disposal
of residues under
268.32 or 3004{d)
prohibited disposal
of residues
under 268.33(f)
264.1 3(b)(7)
(Hi)
264.13{b){7)
(IHMA)
264.1 3(b)(7)
(lii)(B)
264.1 3(b)(7)
flHMBHI)
264.1 3(b)(7)
(iii)(B)(2)
*
August 17, 1988 - Page 2 of 37
OCL50.9 - 12/10/81
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-1A
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQlW-
ALENT
MORE I BROADER
STRINGENT \ IN SCOPi
SUBPART E - MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
1 OPERATING RECORD
remove "or" after
268.5; add clause on
268.8 certification;
add "applicable"
before "notice
required"; change
"268.7(a)(3)"
to "268.7(a)"
add "and the certi-
fication and demon-
stration, if
applicable" and "or
the owner or
operator"; change
"268.7(a)(1) to
"268.7 or 268.8"
add 1) clause on
certification/
demonstration, and
2) "or the owner
or operator";
substitute
"268.7 or 268.8"
for "268.7(a)(1)";
change placement of
"except the manifest
number," excluding
the word "for."
add "and demonstra-
tion if applicable";
move reference to
generator; replace
"268.7(b)(1) and (2)"
and "268.7(a)(2)" with
"268.7 and 268.8,
whichever is
applicable
264.73(b)(10)
264.73{b)(1D
264.73(b){12)
264.73(b)(13)
August 17, 1988 - Page 3 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
change structure;
add specific mention
of "the generator"
moving the place-
ment of the refer-
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ence to "treater"
and replacing it with j
"or owner or operator
of a treatment
facility"; replace
"268.7(a){2)" and
"268.7(b)(1)" with
"268.7"; add clause
on certification/
demonstration
referencing 268.8
add new paragraph
on off-site storage
facility
requirements
add new paragraph
on on-site storage
facility
requirements
264J3(bM14)
264.73(b)(15)
264,73(bM16)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SIA^6 ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
[
i
i
|
i
i
PART 265 - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
clarify language and
apply testing to soft
hammer wastes in
treatment surface
impoundments
apply to wastes that
do not meet treatment
standards
265.1 3{b)(7)
(HI)
265.13{b)(7)
fflIHA)
August 17, 1988 - Page 4 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
* V
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
apply to wastes for
which no treatment
standards are
established
prohibited disposal
of residues under
268.32 or 3004(d)
prohibited disposal
of residues under
268.33(1)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.13(b)(7)
fiitMB)
265.13(b)(7)
(lilMBHD
265.13(b)(7)
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
add 1) clause on
certification/
demonstration,
after "notice" and
2) "or the owner or
operator" after
"generator"; move
manifest number
clause; substitute
"268.7 or 268.8"
for "268.7(a)(D"
add 1) "a copy of
before "notice"
and 2) "and demon-
stration if
applicable" after
"certification";
restructure para-
graph and move
reference to
generator; replace
"268.7(b)" and
"268.7(a)(2)" with
268.7 or 268.8"
restructure para-
graph moving clause
on manifest number
and placement of
"treatment facility";
add 1) "owner or
operator of a"
before "treatment
facility" and 2)
"and the certifica-
tion and demonstra-
tion if applicable"
before "required";
replace "268.7(a)(2)"
and "268.7(b)(2)"
with "268.7 or
268.8";
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.73(b)(10)
265.73(b)(11)
265.73(b)(12)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
August 17, 1988 - Page 6 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
add new paragraph on
requirements for
off-site storage
facilities
add new paragraph on
requirements for
on-site storage
facilities
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.73CbM13)
265.74(b)(14)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOQ 1ST"
feouiv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 266 - STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES AND
SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
SUBPART C - RECYCLABLE MATERIALS USED IN A MANNER CONSTITUTING DISPOSAL
APPLICABILITY
add language to
reflect that products
for general public's
use are not subject
to regulation if they
meet treatment
requirements of 268
Subpart D or prohibi-
tion levels of 268.32
or 3004(d) where no
treatment standards;
zinc-containing
fertilizers using
K061 not subject to
this requirement
266.20(b)
August 17, 1988 - Page 7 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 268 - LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
SUBPART A - GENERAL
2 PURPOSE, SCOPE. AND APPLICABILITY
remove old
268.1(c)(3);
redesignate
268.1(c}(4) as
268.1(c)(3)
redesignate old
268.1(c)(5) as
268.1(c)(4)
and revise
add new
268.1 (c)(5)»
landfills/surface
impoundments, in
compliance with
268.8 with
respect to wastes not
subject to specific
treatment standards
or prohibitions
add new paragraph
preserving
waiver availability
under 121(d)(4)
26&1(c)(3)
268.1(c)(4)
268.1 (c)(5)
268. 1(d)
TREATMENT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT EXEMPTION
clarify language and
revise to apply to
soft hammer wastes to
treatment surface
impoundments that
meet a list of
conditions:
268.4(a)(2)
August 17, 1988 - Page 8 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
sampling and testing
requirements for
wastes with and
without treatment
standards; super-
natant and sludge
samples tested
separately
annual removal of
specific residues;
residues subject to
valid certifica-
tion; flow-through
standard of removal
for supernatant
requirements for
subsequent manage-
ment of treatment
residues in another
impoundment pro-
hibited unless
certification under
268.8 and standards
of 268.8(a) are met
recordkeeping require-
ments must be speci-
fied in the facility's
waste analysis plan
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.4(aM2)(i)
268.4(a)(2)(li)
268.4(aH2Hiii)
268.4(a)(2Kiv)
ANALOQOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
August 17, 1988 - Page 9 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
SCOT:
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268,5 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 3 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
PROCEDURES FOR CASE-BY-CASE EXTENSIONS TO AN EFFECTIVE DATE
replace all of the text
in the introductory
paragraph after "may
be disposed" with "in
a landfill or surface
impoundment unit only
if such unit is in com-
pliance with the
following
requirements:"
26&50M2)
Guidance note: 268.6 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 3 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
PETITIONS TO ALLOW LAND DISPOSAL OF A WASTE PROHIBITED
UNDER SUBPART C OF PART 268
monitoring plan
detecting migration
at the earliest time
sufficient information
to assure Admini-
strator that owner/
operator Is in com-
pliance with other
applicable Federal,
State and local laws
redesignate old
268.6(c) as 268.6(d);
add new paragraph
on what each petition
must include:
268.'6(aM4)
268.6(aM5)
268.6(c)
August 17, 1988 - Page 10 of 37
DCL50.9 - 1210/01
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring plan
including description
of monitoring program
to verify continued
compliance with
variance; information
which must
be included
media monitored
type of monitorinq
monitoring
station location
monitorinq interval
specific hazardous
constituents to
be monitored
monitoring program
implementation
schedule
monitoring
station equipment
sampling and
analytical techniques
employed
data
recording/reporting
procedures
268.6(c)(1) monitoring
program must be in
place by Administrator
specified time period,
as part of approval
of the petition
prior to prohibited
waste receipt at unit
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.6{c)(1)
268.6(c)(1)(i)
268.6(c)(1)(ii)
268.6(e)(1)(iii)
268.6(0(1 )(iv)
268.6(c)(1)(v)
268.6(c)(1)(vl)
268,6(c)(1)(vii)
268.6(c)(1)(viii)
268.6(cH1)(ix)
268.6(c)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
Si Ait ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
August 17, 1988 - Page 11 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
268,6(c)(1) monitoring
data sent to Admini-
strator according to
monitoring plan must
be according to
approved format and
schedule
monitoring data as per
268.6{c){1) monitoring
plan must be kept
in on-site
ooeratinq record
criteria the 268.6{e)(1)
monitoring program
must meet;
Administrator approval
for all sampling,
testing, and analytical
data; data accurate
and reproducible
Administrator approval
of all estimation and
monitorino, techniques
QA/QC plan for all
aspects of monitoring
program provided to
and approved by
Administrator
redesignate old
268.6(c) and (d) as
268.6{d) and (g)
respectively
redesignate old
268.6{e) as
268.6(h); add new
paragraph addressing
the reporting of
changes at unit and/or
surrounding environ-
ment that significantly
depart from variances
and affect
migration potential
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.6(c)(3)
268.6(cM4)
268.5(c)(5)
268.6(c)(5)fl)
268.6(cM5)(ii)
268.6(c)(5Hi)
268.6(d)
268.6(e)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
August 17, 1988 - Page 12 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
STATS ANALOG IS:
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALiNT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
changes to unit
design, construction or
operation proposed in
writing and a
demonstration to
Administrator 30 days
prior to change;
Administrator makes
determination if
petition is invalidated
and determines
appropriate response;
Administrator approval
before changes
can be made
268.6(e)(1)
within 10 days of
discovering change,
written notification to
Administrator if
condition is not as
predicted or modeled
in petition;
Administrator decides
if change requires
further action
268.6(e)(2)
redeslgnate old
268.6(f) as 268.6(i);
add new paragraph
on owner/operator
responsibilities
if hazardous
waste migration:
268.6(f)
immediate suspension
of restriction waste
receipt
268.6(1X1)
within 10 days
written notification
to Administrator
268.6ffl(2)
August 17, 1988 - Page 13 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12*10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Administrator decision
within 60 days as to
continued receipt of
prohibited waste;
Administrator deter-
mines if further
examination of any
migration warranted
redesignate old
268.6(d) as 268.6(a)
redesignate old
268.6(e) as
268.6(h)
redesignate old
268.6(f) as 268.6(1)
redesignate old
268.6(a) as 268.6(i)
redesignate old
268.6(h) as 268.6(k)
redesignate old
268.6(i) as 268.6(1)
redesignate old
268.6(i) as 268.6(m)
redesignate old
268.6(k) as 268.6(n)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.6(f)(3)
268.6(0)
268.6(h)
268.6(i)
268.6(i)
268.6(k)
268.6(1)
268.6(m)
268.6(n)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
3 WASTE ANALYSIS AND RECORDKEEPING
clarify language and
provide exception to
section 268.43
testinq requirements
268.7(a)
August 17, 1988 - Page 14 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIR. NO, 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
remove the clause
after "treatment
standards" which ends
with "exceeds" and
insert "set forth in
Subpart D of this
part or exceeds";
insert "or storage"
after "treatment";
remove "of this part"
after "268.32" and
"section" before
M3004(d}"
insert "treatment
storage, or" before
"land disposal
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(a)(1)
facility"; insert ;
"levels" after |
"prohibition"; remove
"of this part" after
"268,32" and "section"
before "3004(d>"
remove "an extension
268.7(aH2)
under §268. 1(c)(3)";
insert "with each
shipment of waste"
after "Subpart C";
replace "forward"
with "submit"; remove
"with the waste" and
"land disposal";
add new notice
requirements for
facility receiving
the waste
EPA hazardous
waste number
treatment standards
and applicable
268.32 or 3004(d)
prohibition
manifest number
of shipment
268.7(a)(3)
268.7(a)(3)fl)
268.7(a)(3)(ii)
268.7(a)(3)(iin
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALSQ IS:
EQUIV^
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
(
August 17, 1988 - Page 15 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
waste analysis
data
date waste is
subject to
prohibition
redesignate old
268.7(a)(4) as
268.7(a)(5); add
new paragraph
268.7(a)(4)
requires generator
notification for
268.33(f) only
prohibited wastes
EPA hazardous
waste number
applicable
268.33(f)
prohibitions
manifest number
of shipment
waste analysis
data
add new requirement
for retention of
waste analysis data
on-site in files
add five-year reten-
tion period for
notices, certifica-
tions, demonstra-
tions, etc. produced
relative to 268.7;
extensions during
enforcement actions
clarify language and
applicability of
testing requirements
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(a)(3)(iv)
268.7(a)(3)(v)
268.7(a)(4)
268.7(a)(4)(i)
268.7(a)(4)(ii)
268.7(a)(4)(iii)
268.7(a)(4)(iv)
268.7(a)(5)
268.7(aH6)
268.7(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
August 17, 1988 - Page 16 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541,00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
waste subject to
268.33(f) prohibi-
tions, but not 268.32
prohibitions or sub-
ject to certification
prior to disposal in
landfill or surface
impoundment unit and
disposal is in
accordance with
268.5(h)(2); same
for wastes subject to
268.33(f) and 3004(d)
prohibitions or
codified 268.32
prohibitions
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(c)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
|
LANDFILL AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
disposal of 268.33(f)
prohibited wastes
in landfills or
surface impoundments
in compliance with
268.5(h)(2) if
requirements of
268.8 are met
268.8(a)
good faith
generator effort
to contract with
treatment and
recovery facilities
providing greatest
environmental benefit
268.8(aH1)
demonstration and
certification
submitted to
Regional Adminis-
trator that
268.8(a)(1) require-
ments have been met
268.8(a)(2)
August 17, 1988 - Page 19 of 37
DCL50.9 - 1&10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
explanation and
certification when
no practically
available treatment
can be found
contracting and
certification when
practically available
treatments are found
copy of demonstration
and certification
sent to receiving
facilities for
shipments of waste
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.8(aH2Wi)
268,8(a)(2)(ii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
E5UW-
ALENT
MORI
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
certification only
for subsequent
shipments; generator
recordkeeping and
five year retention
generator copy of
demonstration and
certification sent to
receiving facilities
for shipments of
wastes with
practically available
treatment; certification
only for subsequent
shipments; generator
record-keeping and
five year retention
additional information
for certification if
requested by Regional
Administrator
notification when
change in conditions
forming basis of
certification
268.8(aM3)
268.8(a)(4)
268.8CW
268.8(b)(1)
August 17, 1988 - Page 20 of 37
OCLS0.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
redesignate old
268.7(b)(1) as
268.7(b)(4); add
new paragraph
268.7(b)(1) derived
from old 268.7(b)
on testing when
standards are
expressed as
concentrations in
waste extract
redesignate old
268.7(b)(2) as
268.7(b)(5); add new
paragraph 268,7(b)(2)
derived in part from
old 268.7(b) on testing
of 268.32 or 3004(d)
prohibited wastes not
subject to Subpart D
treatment standards
add new paragraph
on testing for wastes
with treatment
standards expressed
as concentrations
in waste
old 268.7(b)(1)
redesignated as
268.7(b){4)
old 268.7(b}{2)
redesignated as
268.7(b){5)
add new paragraph
for compliance
with generator
notice/certification
requirements if waste
sent off-site
notification with
each shipment for
waste subject to
268.33(f), but not
subject to 268.32
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(bH1)
268.7(bH2)
288.7(b)(3)
268.7(b){4)
268.7(b)(5)
268.7{b)(6)
268.7{b){7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
August 17, 1988 - Page 17 of 37
DCLS0.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
EPA hazardous
waste number
applicable 268.33{f)
prohibitions
manifest number of
waste shipment
waste analysis
data
no 268.7(b)(4) notifi-
cation for recyclable
materials used in a
manner constituting
disposal and subject
to 266.20(b);
268.7(b)(5)
certification and
268.7(b)(4) notice to
Regional Administra-
tor; records of
recipients of waste
derived products
clarify lanquaqe
have copies of notice
under 268.7(a) or
(b) and certifica-
tions in 268.8 if
applicable
retain rest of old
268.7(c), starting
with "test the
waste," and designate
as 268.7(c)(2)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(b)(7)(l)
268.7(b)(7)(ii)
268.7(b)(7)(iil)
268.7(bH7)(iv)
288.7(bH8)
268.7{c)
268.7(c)(1)
26&7(c)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
t=5U(V*
ALiNT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
August 17, 1988 - Page 18 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/81
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
invalidation when
Regional Administrator
finds practically
available treatment
method or a method
yielding greater
environmental benefit
than certified
when certification is
invalidated, generator
must cease shipment,
communicate with
facilities receiving
waste, and keep
records of
communication
receiving treatment,
recovery or storage
facilities keep copy of
generator's demonstra-
tion and certification
receiving treatment,
storage or recovery
facility certify
waste treated
according to
generators'
demonstration
receiving treatment,
recovery or storage
facility must send
generator demonstra-
tion/certification
and 268.8(c)(1)
certification to
facility receiving
waste or treatment
residues
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.8(b){2)
268,8(b)(3)
268.8(e)
268.8(c)(1)
268.8(c)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
August 17, 1988 - Page 21 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
3.1V
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA i
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
disposal facility must
assure certification
prior to disposal in
onrUill nr ci iriar*a
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"BSOW^
ALENT
MORI
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
impoundment unit and
units in accordance
with 268.5(h)(2) for
wastes prohibited
under 268.33(f)
268.8(d)
wastes may be
disposed in landfill
or surface impound-
ment meeting
268.5{h)(2) if
certified and
treated
268.8{e)
SUBPART C - PROHIBITIONS ON LAND DISPOSAL
5 WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - SOLVENT WASTES
repromulgate require-
ment to treat to
applicable standard
unless restricted
solvent falls into
treatability group
for which EPA has
determined no
capacity exists
remove final clause
starting with "not
subject to..." and
ending with "November
8, 1988"
change hyphenation;
add "; or" at end of
paragraph
268.30(a)
268.30(a){2)
26&30(a)(3)
August 17, 1988 - Page 22 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (eont'd)
SPA 9
FEDiRAL REQUIREMENT
change first "(2), and
(3)" to "(2), (3), and
(4)"; remove second
sentence concerning
disposal in landfills
prior to November
8. 1988
redesignate old
268.30(c) as
268.3Q(d); add new
paragraph 268.30(c)
prohibiting after
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.30{b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATS ANALOG IS:
"EOOW-
ALENT
MORi
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
November 8, 1990
land disposal of F001- l
F005 solvent waste
contaminated soil
and debris (and
their treatment
residues) resulting from
CERCLA action or
RCRA corrective
action; permitting
disposal in landfill or
surface impoundment
unit in compliance with
268.5(h)(2) prior to
November 8. 1990
268.30(c)
old 268.30(c) is new
268,30(d); revise
"(a) and (b)" to
read "(a), (b), and
(c)"; 268.30(d){1)-
(3) are the same as
the old 268.30(c)(1)-
(3) except in (3)
add "and units"
after "wastes"
268.30(d)
6 WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS-PIPKIN-CONTAINING WASTES
add phrase "unless
the following
condition applies:"
268.31 (a)
August 17, 1988 - Page 23 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/9t
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
contaminated soil
and debris waste
resulting from
response action
under CERCLA
or from a RCRA
corrective action
redesignate old
268.31 (b) as
268.31 (d); new
paragraph 268.31 (b)
prohibiting land
disposal of F020-F023
& F026-F028 dioxin-
containing wastes
after November 8,
1990
change years to
"1988" and "1990,"
respectively; insert
"(1 )" after "(a)";
replace "the facility"
with "such unit"
old 268.31 (b) is
new 268.31 (d);
in introductory
sentence insert "and
(b)" after "(a)";
268.31 (d)(1)-(3) are
the same as old
268.31 (b)(1)-(3)
except in (3) change
"extension from" to
"extension to"
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.31 (a)(1)
268.3Kb)
268.31 (c)
268.31 (d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
August 17, 1988 - Page 24 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - CALIFORNIA LIST WASTES
revise as an intro-
ductory paragraph to
read "The require-
ments of (a) and (e)
of this section do not
apply until:";
redesignate remainder
of old 268.32(d) as
268.32(d){2)
268.32(d)
add new paragraph
with July 8, 1989 as
the prohibition date
for contaminated
soil or debris not
resulting from a
CERCLA response or
RCRA corrective
action; disposal
between July 8, 1987
and July 8T 1989
permittexj in landfill or
surface impoundment
in compliance with
268.5(h)(2)
268.32(d)(1)
redesignate majority
of old 268.32(d) as
268.32(d){2); change
"1988" to "1990";
add sentence allowing
disposal between
November 8, 1988
and November 8,
1990 in landfill or
surface impoundment
in compliance with
268.5(h)(2)
268.32(d)(2)
7 change date to
November 8, 1988
268.32(e)
add clause on not
including wastes
described in
268.32(d)
268.32(e)(2)
August 17, 1988 - Page 25 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
••..
_>-* '
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
change "July 8, 1989"
to "November 8,
1988"; replace
-described" with
"included" and
"the facility" with
"such disposal"
insert ",(d)(" after
"(a)"
insert ",(d)," after
"(a)(3)"
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.32(1)
268.32(a)
268.32(h)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL53 15! '
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - FIRST THIRD WASTES
specific wastes
prohibited from land
disposal effective
August 8. 1988
268.33(8)
land disposal prohi-
bition of K061 waste
containing 15% or
greater of zinc
pursuant to
268.41 treatment
standard for K061
containing less than
15% zinc
268.33(a)(1)
wastes--K048» K049,
K050, K051, K052,
K061 (contain 5%
or greater zinc),
K071--prohibited
from land disposal
effective August 8,
1990
268.33(b)
August 17, 1988 - Page 26 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
effective August 8,
1990, land disposal
prohibition of
wastes specified In
268,10 having a
treatment standard
in 268, based on
incineration and
which are contami-
nated soil and
debris, Subpart D
between November 8,
1988 and August 8,
1990, landfill or
surface impoundment
disposal permitted
if in compliance with
268.5(h)(2) of
wastes included
under 268{b) & (c)
requirements of
268{a)-(d) do not
apply when:
waste meets
applicable 268,
Subpart D standards
granted an exemption
from prohibition for
wastes and units
under 268.6
granted an extension
to an effective date
for wastes under
268.5
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.33(c)
268.33(d)
268.33(6)
268.33{eXD
268.33(e){2)
268.33(e){3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPi
August 17, 1988 - Page 27 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
prohibition of
landfill or surface
impoundment disposal
of wastes specified
in 268.10 for which
treatment standards
do not apply (other
than 268.32 or
section 3004(d)
prohibitions) unless
268.8 demonstration
and certification
for a waste listed
in 268.10, initial
generator testing to
determine exceedance
of 268.41 & 268.43
treatment standards
and prohibition from
land disposal if
exceed standards
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.33W
268.33(a)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORI
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART D - TREATMENT STANDARDS
APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENT STANDARDS
replace "this
subpart" with
"§268.41"; remove
"without further
treatment"
land disposal of a
restricted waste
identified in 268.43
only if below Hsted
constituent
concentrations
268.40(a)
268.40(c)
August 17, 1988 - Page 28 of 37
OCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANA15S IS
EQUTV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
In Table CCWE
remove entry
specified below;
add subtables to
Table CCWE in
numerical order as
specified below
268.41 (a)
Delete the following entry:
Concentration (in mq/l)
FQ01-F005 spent solvents
Wastewaters
containing spent
solvents
All other
spent solvent
wastes
Methylene chloride (from the pharmaceutical
industry),..
12.7
.96
Add the following subtables to Table CCWE in numerical order by EPA Hazardous Waste Number:
(For electronic version of checklist, see 53 FR 31217.)
TABLE CCWE—CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
FOOS rwrtwasttwaters (see also TaBI*
CCW m § 268.43)
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)..
Lead..
Nickrt
Slv«f
i (Total)...
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1)
0.066
5.2
.51
.32
.072
Rewwved
K001 nonwastewatar* (so* also
Taan m f2M.*3!
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1)
0.51
KOZ2 norwut«waw* (SM also
TabW CCW m f 268.13)
QifQfTHufii (Tola!) .....
Nicfct! - -- - ..
K046 nonwisttwatcrs (Nonreacliva
SuOcaieqor,)
Lejd _
Concwitra-
bon (in mji
n
52
032
CoiK«f1tT»-
Uon (in mg/
1)
0 18
August 17, 1988 - Page 29 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
K048. K049. K050. KQS1 and KC52 Concww*
nomtwtewattrs (s*» also TasM Oon (in mg/
COW in § 268.43) 1)
Arsenic 0 004
Chfoffwrn (Total) u, , 1 7
MietMM , _ ;.. .048
S^tafituni „ „,.. „. .. 025
K061 nonwastewawrs (Low Zinc Concentra-
Cfcromium (Total). . 5.2
La*0 24
Nick** - i -32
KOS1 nonwajtewaters (Higtt Zinc Concemra-
Subcaiegofy — 15% or g'aasar total lion (m mg/
oner, •flvcav* unw ,»/8/90 1)
Cadmium 0.14
Chromium (Total) .. 52
LMd _ 24
NicKwi .. .... . 32
Conewwt.
K062 nonwastewatef* i Don (in mg/
1)
Chromium (Total) '• 0 094
Lead 37
ANALOGOUS ESUIV-
STATE CITATION ALENT
MafCury
KCS5 ncnv,asie waters (Solvent *
CCW in | 268.43)
Chromium (Total)........
Lead '
TaOto CCW tn § 288 43) .
|
Lead .... '
K101 and K102nonwasi»wat«fS i
(Low Arssnic Suocatego«v — )«ss ffian
1 % Total Arsenic)
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541,00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG 15!
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Add new Table CCW as shown below. Subtables are arranged in numerical order by EPA
Hazardous Waste Number. Additionally there is a listing after the subtables of "K" wastes which
are prohibited from land disposal. (For electronic version of table, see 53 FR 31218-31221.)
TABLE CCW—CONSTITUENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES
FOC1. FQQ2, R303, COQ4 and FOC5 ! Concentra-
wastewaters (Pharmaceutical ' tion (in mg/
irxjustry) I i)
Me'.hylena chloride..
0.44
F006 ncnwastewaters (see also
TaDleCCWE in 5268.H)
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
Cyanides (Total)..
Reserved
K001 nonwastewaters (see aiso
Table CCWE in §268.41)
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
Naphthalene
Pehtachloroptienol.
Phenanthrene „
Pyren» _.. —
Toluene
Xylenes .
8.0
37
8.0
7.3
.14
.16
K001 wastewalers
Pentacriioroprwnol .......
Pyrene .. _
Xylenes — .„
Lead ,
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1)
0.15
.38
.15
.14
.14
.16
.037
KOtS wastewaters
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
1)
Anthracene
Benzal cnlonde
Benzo (b and/or k) Muoranthene.,
Phananthrerw
Toluene..
Chromium (Toia/1 ,
Nickel _
1.0
.28
.29
.27
.15
.32
K01S nonwastewaters
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
Kg)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexacfitoroouiadiene
Hexachlorocyc:op«ntadiene
Htxachioroethana
Tetracnlofoethens
28
5.8
5.6
28
6.0
KQ1S was'.ewaters
Concenrri-
tion si.-i me'
t)
Hexachiorobenrene
Hexac.ilorcDutadiene
Hflxacft'o'OCyciopentadiene.
HexacMcroetnana
Tetrachioroethe.ie
OC33
.007
007
.033
.007
Cooeeotra-
1.1-Cicnloroetnane
1,2-CicMoroe:r'.an«
Hexacntorcethane
Pantachlcroetnane ,
1.i.t.T,cmor3e!nan»
i 60
: 5.0
8.0
28
55
28
5 6
8.0
KOI 8 wastewatefs
Concentra-
ucn i.n mg/
1)
o.oor
007
007
.007
.033
.007
.007
.OX!7
KOI9 rtorrwastewaters
Concentra-
tion (in mg/
kg)
8is(2-chloroethy1)ether
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform , _™
1.2-Oicnkjroemane
Hexachloroetfians
Naphthalene ""
Pfwiartthfwie
Tetrachlofoethens .
1.2,4-TricMorotwnzene .
1, t ,1 -TncntofOStnana
5.6
6.0
6.0
6.0
28
5 6
5.6
6.0
19
60
KOI 9 wastfjwaters
8isl2-cWofO9!tiyl)«Uier
Chtofobenzene. .«.
Chtoroform „
p-QichtefOb«nren« ..._ , „
1 2-0*cfMoro*3t^if*&
Hexacriloroethane .... ,,..„,.
Naphthalene _ _
Phenantnrena . -.
iZ^.'i-TstrachtofOCenzen* —
Tetrachloroethena
1 2 4-Tnchlorotoenzefw
I
| Conqartra-
! tfon (in mg/
' 1)
1
j 0007
.006
.; .007
,| .008
.; .007
i .007
: .033
.' .007
.1 .007
..; .017
..: .007
..i .023
007
K020 nonwastexatsfs
tiofl sin mg/
•9)
1,2-OichlOfoeltian*
1,1,2,2-TetracWofoeUiane....
60
56
KQ20 nonwastewaters
Tetracniocoei'iene
Conce^fra-
Uon {in mg/
kg)
60
August 17, 1988 - Page 31 of 37
OCL50.9 - 12/10/01
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
STATS ANALOG 13:
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FEDERAL RCRA CITATION i
ANALOGOUS EQUIV- MORE
STATE CITATION ALENT STRINQE*
Concentra-
K020 wasiewaters !ion (in mg/ KC3? nonwastewaters
t)
1 ,2-DiehIOfO«thar,e 0,007 Oisyifoton
1,1,2,2-Tetrachlofoethane -007 Tolyene •
TetracMoroethene ! -"07
Concentra-
K022 nonwastewzters (389 aiso „ n (i „, ^.037 wastewaters
Table CCWE in §268.41) u" ^ *
Acetophenone 1 9 Disuifoton
Phenol 12
Totuene , 0.034
Concentra-
K024 nonvrastewaters tion (in mg/ — —
Kc)
v t«?4$ nonw^awatws («Mt aiso
TaOieCC'.ve in §268.41)
Benzene
„ Bftnso^pyfftf1^ .
Concentra- SiS(2-stf*y!hexy!)phthaiate •••
i) Qi-n«butyt pfittiaiate ,. . ,
Ph.h.ii^ a«n 0 S4 Naorttfialen*
Phenanih'ene
Pyrene
KQ3Q nonwastewaters tion (in mg/ Xyienss
kg) Cyanides (Total)
H9xacnlorobutad;ene 5,6
Haxachloroettiana 28
HexacMcroofopene 19
P*»ntj|rhlorf7H<»n7*?n!* _ _._ 23
Pentacntofoettiana 5.8
1.2,4,5-Te!rachiofob«fttene 14 KC*fl wastawaters
TetrzeWsroethene 8.0
1 .2.*- 1 f cniorooenzene 19
8enzo(aipyrena
i _ Bis(2-einytne«yi)pninaiaie
CotKentra- chrysene
K030 was.ewaters non (,n mg/ a^ltyl phftaiate . ,
Ruorene
o-Oichlorobenzena 0.008 Napotnalene
p-Otchlorcbenzere , i .008 Phenan'hrene
He«acnk>fobulaaiens ! .007 P^eficH
Pen!acn!oro€tna00 .007 Tolyene
1 2 4 5-Tetfac^iGfobenzene J .017 Xy!s*ies
Tetrachloroetheoe .007 ChfOfDtufn (Totaf)
1 .2 4-Tnchioroben2en« ! .023 Lead ..... .... .....
BROADER
rr IN scopf
Concentra- | Concentra-
tiofi (in mg/ K049 nonwastewaters (see also , _Q/
kg) Taote CCWE m § 268.41) | Jon (in mg/
B*s{2-etfv/iriexynpmha!ate, ,.
Pr^8*ianthf ef!€f. ....,..,...,.*, «..,...-.....
• _ Pt^enot, ,.,„.„ .,..-. ...,.,,.......,.
Concentra. ^
oon (m mg/ ,'
^i Toluene
. Xylenes
Cyanides (Totas)
0.003
.028
K049 wastewaters
Concentra-
tion (in mg/ Anthracane
"* BBn,Bn«,
i Benzoiaipyfene
9.5 Bis(2-e!ftyir\exy!!pntnala!e
.8* Cartson disuifidc
...; 37 Chrysene . ,
22 2 a.Qimelfiyiphenoi
...', CRese»vedl Phananthrens
7.7
2 7
2.0
9.5
.... [Reserved]
u —
K049 wastawaters
' Oiromiutn (Total)
Lead -
0011
.047
i 043
.043
060
.011
.050
.033
.039 K050 nonwastewaters sses aiso
.047 Taoie CCWE in §263 41)
f}^5
.011
i on Benzolalpyrane
I JO Phenol
0.37 Cyanides (Total)
! 62
, 9 5
: 0.84
...; 37
i 2.2
1 67
., .......... CBeservedl
•• f
,., i 2.7
2.0
1 95
; [Reserved!
i 1.8
Concentra-
tor (m mg/
!)
0039
1 .Otl
i .047
: .043
011
043
033
Ot1
.039
; Concensra-
. UGn (;n rrg/
1)
047
ni t
20
.. .. " - J 7
Conce^tf 3.
'jon ifH ^Q/
"31
0 34
August 17, 1988 - Page 32 of 37
DCL50.9 - 1^10/81
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
1 Concentra-
K050 wastewaters don (in rrg/
1 D
•
Lead - —<•• • —•'• -03
KQ51 noowastewatefs (see also j hr.ftn5.? -I?/
Table CCWE in § 268.41) j "on j|" mg
Benzene...-.....,......................,.......-......,.—. 9 5
Sen zciai anthracene . . ; 14
8enzo(a)pyrene, .„....„ ..1 ,84
Cyanides (Tola!) i 1 8
; Concentra*
K051 waslewaters ; ton (in mg/
Acer.aohlfsne ; 0.050
Benie-s ! -0"
Benzataiartnracene 043
BiS(2-atnyliexyO phtraiate 043
Oi-n-buryl pwnalata 060
Fiuore^e , vtHj
PHananthfene 039
Phanol -O*7
Lead 03 7
Reproduced from JPii|
best available copy. \|::a/
ANALOGOUS
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION STATE CITATION
STATE ANALO<3 IS:
EQUIV- MC
ALiNT STRIf*
K052 nor.wastewaters (see also j 5°nf entra",
Table CCWE ,n § 258.41) ! tlon <'" /"S/
xg;
' Benzene : 9.S
i Benzotejpyrens I 0,84
o-Crssol 2.2
, p-CresOl „ ' 0 90
Nashtnaiene , : (Reserved)
Phenanthrene 7 7
Phenol 2 7
Gyan.'d^s (Total) . . 1 g
Ccncemra-
KC52 ,ts?:i,v3!srs lion tin. mg/
1)
Bertzsr.o - ! 0.01 i
8enic;5jpyrere .047
o-Cro;ol i 011
p-Cresol : ,' ,01 1
2 4-Oimetny'pher..'» .. ', Q33
Naphthalene _ - ,; 033
Pisnanmrene .- Q33
Phenol i Q47
Toluene .011
Xylenes., _. _ _ ; 011
Chromum (Total) - 20
j Concentra-
K062 wastewaters , son (m mg/
ChromiLim (Total) ; o.32
Lead "Q^
Kjk^kal "^
'**-**«3l i . i 4.4
I Concentra-
KQ71 wastQwaters I E5RE BROADER
K3ENT IN SCOPE
K086 nonwastewaters — Solvent • Concenua-
Washes Subcategory (see also TaOla (son (;n mg/'
CCWE in 1268.4!) ) kg) '
Acetone
DiS'2-eihylhexyl) phthai
n-o^tyl alcohol
Cyciohsxanone
E;hyi acetate
Wtethylene chloride. .,,.
Wethy! et^yl ketone
Wetnyl iscouf/l ketone
Tciuene
1.1,1.-TncM!oroetf:i,ie
Triwhioroethy'er.e
X,lenes
I 0,37
ate 49
37
.49
.49
.03?
.37
49
044
KC35 was;9«at-?'S— Solvent Aasnes Concar:ra-
S'jsca;s"0fv , llon '>'n ^3'
bis 2 ettiyiiietvi'srr.aiaw . . 044
n-Butyl alconot _ _ 031
Cyclohexancne _
Ethyl acetate
Etftyl benzene ,
Metfiyiena chloride
Methyi 305utyl katone
Naomnalens
Nitrooenzen«
Toluene
1 f.l.-Tftchlcrcethane.
Tnchioroetnylt'rtu
Xyienes
Chrc.^'um =rTcta!)
Lead _
_ 0^2
044
C3 1
015
_.. , .031
.._ _ .C31
C31
.031
.044
' 044
C31
....- 023
' C'.S
32
KCS? ncnwastewaiers ;sea also ' Con^2r!fa-
TaoieCCAE -n j 258.41) • .ion nn rrg/
Acenaohihaleoe , 3 4
Benzene. _ _; 071
C^rysene 34
Fuorartnens - 34
Inoeno (1 2.3-ca) pyte^e ; 3 4
Naphthaiena , 3.4
Phenan:nren« _.. n 4
Toluene
Xylenes _..
- _ i 65
_ i .070
DCLS0.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREM
ENT FEDERAt RCRA CITATION
i c
KQS7 wastewaters u<
AanaphtiulM. .
Indeno (1.2,3-cd) pyrene „..„.„., „,..[
Nap hthaiene. .„.,..,.,.,..,.,..,.....„....... ....
Toluene ,„..,,,..,„.,.. ..,,_.,.,«„„..,. „......,.„,
Xyienes ............. <-«„„.... .......i
Lead, .,.,..,.,,.,„,, ,...,, ...J
K099 nonwastwaters ti
2.4-OicWoropftenoscyaceuc acid. ...„..„„..
Hexac!Horofi mg/
ka)
1.0
.001
.001
.001
•oot K103 ncmwastewaters
.001
Benzene.. .._ «
.oncentra- N.trotwizene
'
.001
001 ' K 103 wastewaters
.001
001
001 Anilina
Phenol -
onjW
14
i Ccncertra- K104 noowastewaters
K101 wastswaters , tton t,n ,-.g/
Lead
't
Aniline _ —
0.27 Bsnzsne _.
2Q 2.4-Cinitropheool
24 Nitrotjsnzene
11 Phenol -
.027 Cyanides (Tota-j
ANALOGOUS EQW-
STAT1 CITATION ALENT
- !JQE"I t) (Base
ss 1/KlOO Nonw
5 f Genermtior
..... s s
18
ry (less than 0.01% t
d on No Ash| 3d 34
•ite water* (Based on Nu
l)
August 17, 1988 - Page 34 of 37
DCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
treatment standard
for combinations
of wastes with
different treatment
standards, must
meet lowest
standard
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268,43(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
B30W-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268.44 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 3 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
VARIANCE FROM A TREATMENT STANDARD
8 apply to Assistant
Administrator of
OSWER or delegated
representative for
site-specific
variance from
a treatment standard
if specified
conditions are
appropriate; what
applicant must
demonstrate
260.20(b)(1)-(4)
information must
be included
Assistant
Administrator or
delegated
representative
may request
additional information
268.44{h)
268,44(1)
268.44(i)
August 17, 1988 - Page 35 of 37
OCL50.9 - 12/10/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
if site-specific
treatment standard
variance then
compliance with
268.7 waste
analysis
requirements
during application
review process, com-
pliance with land
disposal restrictions
once effective date
for waste reached
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.44CN)
268,44(1}
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
^
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART E - PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE
PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE OF RESTRICTED WASTES
add to end of
paragraph
"or a valid
certification
under 268.8"
268.50fd)
1
In this section, the language is clarified and requirements are added to reflect soft hammer
certification and retention of records and to apply to storage facilities.
Revise this section to reflect soft hammer wastes.
In this section, apply testing and recordkeeping analyses to First Third wastes and storage
facilities and add notification requirements for soft hammer wastes.
Note that 268.8(d) has a typographical error. The reference to 263.33(f) should be 268.33(f).
Note that while 268.30(a){introduction), 268.30(a)(1), and 268.30(a)(4) appear in the FR
addressed by this checklist, they have not been changed by this FR. As such, 268.30(a)(1) and
268.30{a)(4) were not included in this checklist. An entry for the 268.30(a) introduction was
included, however, to help clarify the modifications to 268.30(a).
For this section, revise applicability from facility-wide to unit and reschedule CERCLA and RCRA
corrective action soil and debris dioxin-containing wastes prohibition from land disposal.
August 17, 1988 - Page 36 of 37
OCL50.9 - 1210/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 50: Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
8
Note that the FR addressed by this checklist did not change 268.32(e)(1), even though it
appears in the FR. Consequently, 268.32(e)(1) was not included in this checklist.
Note that Revision Checklist 66 (54 FR 36967; September 6, 1989) amended this paragraph
replacing "Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response" with
"Administrator."
August 17, 1988 • Page 37 of 37
OCL50.9 - 1010/91
Jdll
-------
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 62
Land Disposal Restrictions Amendments to
First Third Scheduled Wastes
54 FR 18836-18838
May 2, 1989
(HSWA Cluster II)
Notes: 1) This checklist amends the First Third Scheduled Waste requirements made to Part
268 by Revision Checklist 50 (53 FR 31138, August 17, 1988). Revision Checklist 66 (54 FR
36968, September 6, 1989) corrects the cross references in 268.33(a) to certain revisions made
by this present checklist. Also, EPA rescheduled all K015 and K063 nonwastewaters to the Third
Third as part of the May 2 rule addressed by Revision Checklist 62. Revision Checklist 66
removes these wastes from 268.33(a). States are encouraged to adopt the corrections addressed
by both Revision Checklists 62 and 66 at the same time the provisions addressed by Revision
Checklist 50 are adopted. States already authorized for the Revision Checklist 50 provisions are
encouraged to adopt the amendments and corrections addressed by Revision Checklists 62 and
66 as soon as possible.
2) This checklist does not affect any of the nondeiegable sections of Part 268.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
E"QDW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BHOAOiR
IN SCOPE
PART 268 - LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
SUBPART D - TREATMENT STANDARDS
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS WASTE CONCENTRATIONS
revise Table CCW as
shown below
268.43(a)
1
May 2, 1989 - Page 1 of 2
DCL62.9 - 12/11/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 62: Land Disposal Restrictions
Amendments to First Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EWI?-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROAD1R
IN SCOPE
No Und DiipOMl for
K004 Nonwastewstar forau of &•*• waatea
generated by tne process described in
tin waate lilting description and
disposed after August 17,1988. and not
generated ia the count of treating
waatanvBtw forma of these waatea (Based
oa No Generation)
KOH Nonwestewater form* of the** wastes
generated by th« process described is
thf waate lilting description ted
disposed after August 17,1988. and not
generated in lh« court* of treating
wai tewater forms of tbcH wastes (Bu«d
on No Generation)
K021 NonwaiMwater forma of these waatn
generated by the procew described in
the wastt lilting description a&d
disposed after August 17,1988. and not
generated la the COUIM of treating
westewater formj of these waetet (B***d
on No GeaerationJ
K025 Nonwutawattr forma of these waatae
generated by the procaaa described ia
the waste listing description and
disposed alter August 17,1988, and not
generated to the course of treating
waitawatar forma of these wutes {Baaed
on No Generation)
KOM Nonwtstewt ter forma of these waatM
generated by the process described la
the waste listing description and
disposed alter August 17,1988. and not
generated >B the course of treating
wastewater forma of these wastes (Based
on No Generation)
KOM 'Based on Reactivity)
KM8 Based on Reactivity)
K047 (Based on Reactivity)
Nonwastewater forms of theee wutes
generated by the process described in
the wsste listing description a&d
disposed after August 17.19*4. and not
generated ia the course of treating
wastewater forma of these waatea (Baaed
oa No Generation)
K061 Noawaatewaters—High Zinc
Subcategory (greater than or eo,ual to
13% total anc) (Based oa Recycling):
effective 8/8/90
K08B Noa-CaJdum Sulfate Stibcategory—
Nonwaatewater forma of these wastes
generated by the process described in
the waata listing description and
disposed after August 17,1988, and not
generated ia die course of treating
wastewater forma of these wastes (Based
on Recycling)
KlQO Noawaatewater forms of those "est
generated by the process described in
the waste listing description and
disposed after Auguat 17. IMS, and not
generated in the course of treating
wastewater forma of these wastes (Based
on No Generation)
[FR Doc. 8fr-10«n Filed S-t-89; &« an]
May 2, 1989 - Page 2 of 2
DCL62.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 63
Land Disposal Restrictions for
Second Third Scheduled Wastes
54 FR 26594-26652
June 23, 1989
(HSWA Cluster II)
Notes: 1) This is the fifth in a series of checklists (i.e., Revision Checklists 34, 39, 50 and 62)
addressing the land disposal restrictions. This present checklist (Revision Checklist 63) does not
amend any of the presently nondelegable sections of code (268.5, 268.6, 268.42(b), and 268.44).
Other checklists affecting the land disposal restrictions are Revision Checklists 66 (54 FR 36967;
September 6, 1989), Revision Checklist 78 (55 FR 22520; June 1, 1990) and Revision Checklist
83 (56 FR 3864; January 21, 1991).
2) This checklist may be subject to change in the future. EPA's State Programs Branch is
currently discussing the relationship of hazardous waste injection issues to the State authorization
program. In question are the changes made to 40 CFR Part 148 by the final rule addressed by
this checklist and whether they should be included in the checklist. This present checklist does
not include these changes.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUW^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 268 - LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
SUBPART C - PROHIBITIONS ON LAND DISPOSAL
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - SECOND THIRD WASTES
effective June 8, 1989
prohibition from land
disposal of specific
261.31, 261.32 and
261.33 wastes
268.34(a)
effective June 8, 1989
prohibition of land
disposal, except
underground injection
pursuant to 148.14{f)
and 148.15{d), certain
261.32 wastes
268.34(b)
effective July 8, 1989
prohibition from land
disposal of F006,
F008, F009, F011 &
F012
268.34(c)
June 23, 1989 - Page 1 of 9
DCLS3.9 - 12m/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 63: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Second Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
STATE ANALOG IS:
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
IQUtV-
ALiNT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
effective July 8, 1989,
F007 prohibited from
land disposal except
underground injection
pursuant to 148.14(f)
268.34(cM1)
July 8, 1989 until
December 8, 1989,
F011 & F012
prohibited from land
disposal pursuant to
268.41 & 268.43
treatment standards
for FOOT, F008 &
F009 nonwaste-
waters; effective
December 8, 1989,
F011 & F012
prohibited from land
disposal pursuant to
268.41 & 268.43 treat-
ment standards for
F011 & F012
268.34(c)(2)
effective June 8, 1991
wastes, specified by
section with Subpart D
treatment standard
based on incineration
and which are contam-
inated soil and debris
are prohibited from
land disposal
268.34(d)
requirements for
landfill or surface
impoundment disposal
of wastes included in
268.34(c) & (d)
between June 8, 1989
and June 8, 1991;
applies to F007, F008,
F009, F011 & F012
only between June 8,
1989 and July 8. 1989
268.34(e)
when the requirements
of 268.34(a)-(d) do
not apply
268.34(1)
June 23, 1989 - Page 2 of 9
DCL63.9 - 12M1/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 63: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Second Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
meet applicable 268
Subpart D standards
granted an exemption
pursuant to a 268.6
petition for the wastes
and units covered by
the exemption
268.34(a),(b) & (c) do
not apply if granted
extension under 268.5
for wastes covered by
extension
between June 8, 1989
& May 8, 1990,
prohibition from land
disposal in landfills or
surface impoundments
of 268.11 wastes for
which Subpart D treat-
ment standards are
not applicable,
including California
list wastes subject to
prohibitions under
3004(d) or 268.32;
exceptions under
268.8
initial generator testing
to determine if a
268.10, 268.11 and
268.12 waste exceeds
applicable 268.41 &
268.43 treatment
standards; land
disposal prohibited if
constituents exceed
Subpart D levels-all
268 requirements
apply
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.34(f)(1)
268.34(f)(2)
268.34{q)
268.34(h)
268.34(0
ANALOGOUS
STATi CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
,
June 23, 1989 - Page 3 of 9
DCL63.9 - 12/11/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 63: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Second Third Scheduled Wastes (corrt'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUK^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART D - TREATMENT STANDARDS
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
Table CCWE: remove
"Cyanides (Total)*"
Reserved" from the
F006 nonwastewaters
subtable; add the
subtables shown below
in alphabetical/
numerical order by
EPA Hazardous Waste
Number
268.41 (a)
June 23, 1989 - Page 4 of 9
OCL63.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 63: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Second Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALCS IS:
h EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE I BROADER
STRINGENT | IN SCOPE
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS SPECIFIED TECHNOLOGIES
incineration or burning
of the nonwastewater
form of specified
wastes listed in
268.10, 268.11 &
268.12
268.42(a)(3)
treatment by carbon
adsorption, incineration
or pretreatment
followed by carbon
adsorption of the
wastewater form of
specified wastes listed
in 268.10, 268.11 &
268.12
268.42(a)(4)
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS WASTE CONCENTRATIONS
add new sentence on
the basis for the
wastewater and
nonwastewater treat-
ment standards in
Table CCW; Table
CCW, as shown below]
and on pp. 26649- j
26652: 1) revise the !
following subtables-- j
F006 nonwastewaterss [
K024 wastewaters and!
nonwastewaters;
2) remove KOQ4 and
K008 from the
subtable for No Land
Disposal; 3} add
subtables in
alphabetical/numerical
order by EPA
hazardous waste
number, and 4) add
KQQ5 and K007 to the
subtable for No Land
Disposal
268.43(a)
June 23, 1989 - Page 5 of 9
DCL63.9 - 12/11/91
e>
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 63: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Second Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMEN
TABLE CCW— CONStrruEr.
CONCENTRATION IN WASTE
« * * * *
r FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS ESUTi?™'
STATE CITATION ALiNT
" STATE ANALO<5 IS:
MORE SR6ADER
STRINQENT IN SCOPE
IT F011 and F012 waatewaten (we Concentrauon ow««wmi»v«
S aiso Table CCWE m §288.41) *xvtnle
F007 Pfjoa, »no FJ09 . -
?w*«fi»<**:9fs *»=*« ai*o Table <
,
Cyjntdei (Total)..
Oyartaas(Amenaoiel ,
OC**V c in j cod. 41} j
Cyanides (Amenaoie) I
Chromium (Total)—. _ _J
I ggg ^ ^ \
1 3-outad»ne
3-Ctilorooropene
mcanr?iior F024 nonwastewaters (
nmg/kgj Ta»e CCWE m 1 28
530 i.t-Oicfttoroetfiane
30 t 2-DicrHoroethane
1 ,2-OtcMoroprooane
os-1 .S-OchlofOoropene..
trans-1 ,3-OiCftioroproperM
Sisj 2-etrty ^exy ijpnina'au
Hexacnloroethane , ...*
He«acntorodit>er'20-ruran
ncentrauon Hexacntofodibenzo-o-dio
(in mj/lj Pertacfiloroditsenzo-ryfar
Acry«amide
0 29 Bennne
_ J 0.28 Cyanides (Tola
tf*, »l«n Cjm;^rtal>on , .... .... ,
13. andKOl4 Concent? man
utewaters (in mq/kg>
..._ 1.8
. — _... !.4
„ 23
003
) S7
8.41! {inrng/koj K023, K093, and K094 . Concaiwaaon
nonwastewaterv (in mg/kg)
« J 00<4 Pt»fti««r nnhur
j 0.014 pntnaiic aoo1
Iride (measured ar
i ~ ~ y»
i O.CU
) 0.014
I1 1 S
„., 4 '.8 K023 KC
s J 0.001 was
nns 1 0.001
93, and K094 Concentration
jewaters (in mg/H
rnde (measured at
Te!racMorodioenza-i
"• '" PentacmorooiUenio-turans
028
0?i
0014
0.014 *«« ««
" * Pntnaac anflydm
a-ou PnmaJic acd) .
0.038
0.038
0001
; _j o.OOt Tacie CCV.i
n^MMM °tn^r
jnda (measured aa
1 28
aiMMttr. ; **£»%%»
1m (measured as i
_ 0.54
waters (see also : Cofxeitranon
:m§268.'U) (rfimq.^gi
F01 1 aro F012 ncnwaslewaters *
I
Cyanide* (Total) — j
' ENecsv* December 8. 1989: from
until December 8. 1969. sfiese wastes <
ine same treatment standards as FOO
F009 nonwastewalera (see tna TaC
§268.41).
(in mg/Hgj NcMN. _._
ItO
9.1
.., KOM and K010 nonwasM
july 8 1989
re suoiect ta
7, F008. snd CNorotorm _
«• CCWE «
| °-47 MeiacMorooutaoi
etfiane so
ene ; 58
' HeiacniOfoetriane , ; 28
Pemacfrtoroetfiafle ! S 6
~ '" i.i.t j-rencriic
waters i^JS!^" i,U.2-TetracWoi
,inmg/«gj l.l.l.Tncnfcxoetfi
1,1,2-Tncflloroen'
6.0 Tetracfitoroeny*€
Tjeinane ! 56
oeOiane. i 5,8
one _ ; 6.0
iane 80
June 23, 1989 - Page 6 of 9
DCL63.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 63: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Second Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
_ STATE ANALOG 18:
ANALOGOUS EQUlV- MORE
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FEDERAL RCRA CITATION STATE CITATION ALENT STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
K028 wmstewaler*
1 l-Octitoroeman.
Co^/1,fn K043.ai»«au'* ^^.r P021 nonwast^aw,
Q 007 5 i-flif hirtrnnhofwM n A ia Cv*ruel«d«s (Total)
CorKMiWjiiqn Cyartd.s (Amanatol*)
5'8 PQ29 wistewatent
60
6,0
5,8 Cyandn fTouo ........ ..«„..„..
w^vw-u. o.v M«x»cfiloroetha™» _ _..| 28 Cyarwm (AmwiaflM)...-
w:
K036 wasttwawrs
OMfoion
Cofx^ntrition
Q 025 • -
(m mg/kgt
CwanM^^ (Am«rulhf
gj4 P013 nonwaste»at«ra
1 !•'
. 0.68 Cyarwlm (AmcnabM)
; 1.9
Ccme«n*M0ri
(inmg/l|
0.47
Conc«ntraiion
(in mg/kg] — — — —^— — —— ——^^—,
9'1 Oiturtoton
1 i
, 0001
0001 P013 waswwatars
: 0.001
i 0.001
Q 001 Cyan»d«s (TotaO
ujncarmtion
(in mg/l) P039 *astewaisn
19
n m OiauMoton - _
0001 * ' •
i Concentration
i (it\ rag/fcg)
110
; 9.1
! Concentration
Im mq;t)
i 1.9
o.to
Concentration
(tn mg/kg|
j
...i 9.1
ConcentraMn
(in mg/ 1)
1.i
_4 0.10
Concentraton
(n mg/kg)
(m ffio/if
J ..•
i 0.10
Conotowoon
' On mg/kg)
...i 0.1
1 Concentration
: (ifl f^-'t)
0.025
June 23, 1989 - Page 7 of 9
DCL63.9 - 12/11/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 63; Land Disposal Restrictions for
Second Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
ANALOGOUS
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FEDERAL RCRA CITATION STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG
EQUIV- i MORE t
ALENT | STRINGENT
P083 nonwastewaters (in —/J^0 P094 wastewatan (S^St)0'' P1"* nonwattewt«*r*
Cyanides (Total) .....I 110 Pnorite.™ 0025 Cyanides (Total) .. __
Cyende< (Amenable* _ .....i 9.1 , CvanvUs (Ameiuitti
1 «»• » .mi j
1 OnQf nnrnnartiMintilrj COnCeill? 8tIOO
' Concentration rv;f/ nonwasivwaiera ,„. .-M*,*,—!
P063 «a»«wat*n j^^fi) !««»/*<»
Famohur 01
Pioewastewa,*,
Cyanides (Total) 1.9 ; Cyanides (Total) _. _
Cyanides (Amenable) i o.io Cyanides (Amenable)
pno7 w«a«fjnman Concentration
rrHWrtr l-«min™™i I )m ^^
P071 nonwaitewatem I ^"^gTJgf1
Pi 21 nonwastewatars
P098 nonwsatcwaterj Concenstwm
. ruvo nonwastewaten jm n^ijgj
PQ71 wastewatars (m^lfi)0"
• P121 wasiewirer*
Cyanides (Total) _...
_ _, Cyartdes (Amenaole)..-
P074 nonwastewatenj fsee also Concentration P09> ««atewateni (in m^( (j
Table CCW6 in } 268.41) (in mg/kg) • |
Cyanides (Amenablal , 9.1 , .... ' _.
U028 nonwastewatws
<2-etftytri«)ryi) ohtfialaie
IS:
BROADER
N SCOPE
Concentration
(in mg/kq)
110
9.1
Concerrtrauon
(in mg/l)
19
0.10
Concentration
I (in fng/kg)
110
"
Concentration
(•.n mg/l)
! 1.9
0.10
i
Concentrate*!
(m mg/kg)
1 28
P099 n^-an^gf^ (M1) „„ r^t^H^
P074 wastewatera i$ee also Tatile Concentration faBM CCWE m f 2S8.4lf (m mg,'i.g|
CCWE in f 2M.41) (in mg/()
: CyanKJes (Total) - — 1 110
Cyartdes {Total) ' 19 Cyan*oet (A/nenafiie) 9.1 g
Cyanides (Amenaole) ; 0. '0 _____ . _
Nickel ; 0,44
P099 wastewatws (see also Table ; Concentration
CCWE in (268.41) i |m mg,l)
U028 wastewaters
U069 nonwastewaters
P089 nonwastewatem ^Sg!?^ CyaMes (Total! 19 ^
• Cyanides (Amanaoia) - i 0.10 «— -*~ F v
Concentration
On mq/i)
054
; Concentration
i (in Mg/kg)
28
P««0x«i _. _ J 0.1
P104 rxjm»aste*a!ers (se« also i Conesmmoo*
* ! Tat>!« CC^E *n § 268.41) (m mg/fcgi
U069 wasiewaiers
poas w8$t«w«e«n Si^Sm0'1
i»n niQ/ip /« rr A i m Dhft-1 butyl ph'haJ3t>
0.025
r1— "~" . P104 wastewaters (see also Table Concentration
P094 nonwastewatert ,^!^^" utrwt in j zea 4ij iin mg/i)
U088 nonwastewate'S
I Cy«nrte« (Tqlal) 1.9
Prxxate 1 0.1 Cya«des (Amenable) 0.10
i Cor>C«"rritio«
.! 054
I Concentration
1 (in mg/kg)
28
June 23, 1989 - Page 8 of 9
DCL63.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 63: Land Disposal Restrictions for
Second Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
ANALOGOUS
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FEDERAL RCRA CITATION STATE CITATION
U088 wastewators ! CoJ^^,1Jon U»07 .astewalars ' C°^e™flf"
Qetfiyl pnm
date ] 054 tS-n-octyl phttialata 054
U190 nonwastewater, ', G^^n
Pwhiiic anftydrida (measured as
STAT1 ANALM IS:
EQUIV- MCJRE BROADER
ALENT STRINQ6NT IN SCOPE
U23S wastewatari ! Coocantranon
' (m fr^/ ij
tna-iZJ-Cixonxofopy!) priosonata...: 0.02S
Concantratxxi
U 1 02 nonwisttwatafs (X1 mg/fcg)
Dimaffryt pfttnalaM a
U102
D^myipnm
U10Tr
Oi-rMjctyt phi
— — r*ofl'"eT*friitWfi
Cofleannten U ' M ««!-at»f* | (,nV«!
PrW«lic aftrydnde (measured as '
gt4ta| .. O.S4 Phtftalc acid : 0-54
wm,Bt«watOT i C^^;ST U235 nom,is«h»«tM I C^^n
. . ' ya A _., i
tnMZ.3-O*ox»oorowl)pmj»pnai«.H O.t
meet lowest constituent
treatment standard
when mix wastes with
differing treatment
standards for a
constituent of concern 268.43{b)
No Land Disposal for
* * * * »
KU05 Nonwvalewaien generatt.'d by the
procts* described in the waste listing
description, and disposed after |une 8. 19(13
and not generated in the course of treating
wastewater forms of these, wastes. (Based
on No Generation]
K007 Nonwastewaters seneeated by the
process described in the waste listing
description, and disposed after )une 8. 19B9,
and not generated in the course of treating
wastewater forms of these wjsics. (Based
on No Generation!
• * • - • »
June 23, 1989 - Page 9 of 9
DCL63.9 - 12/11/91
-------
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 66
Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction to the
First Third Scheduled Wastes
54 FR 36967
September 6, 1989
as amended on June 13 1990, at 55 FR 23935
(HSWA Cluster I!)
Notes: 1) This is a correction and clarification of 53 FR 31138 (August 17, 1988) and 54 FR
18836 (May 2, 1989) addressed by Revision Checklists 50 and 62 which cover the First Third
Scheduled Wastes. As such, States which are not yet authorized for these checklists are
encouraged to apply for Revision Checklist 66 at the same time the provisions in Revision
Checklists 50 and 62 are applied for. States already authorized for Revision Checklists 50 and 62
requirements are encouraged to adopt the corrections addressed by Checklist 66 as quickly as
possible.
2) The following Part 268 sections are not delegable to States because of the national concerns
which must be examined when decisions are made relative to them: 268.5 (case-by-case effective
date extensions); 268,42(b) (application for alternate treatment method); and 268.44 (variance from
a treatment standard). "No migration" petitions under 268.6 will be handled by EPA, even though
States may be authorized to grant such petitions in the future. States have the authority to grant
such petitions under RCRA Section 3006 because such decisions do not require a national
perspective, as is the case for decisions under 268.5, 268.42(b) or 268.44. However, EPA has
had few opportunities to implement the land disposal restrictions and expects to gain valuable
experience and information from reviewing "no-migration" petitions.
3) In the past, the nondeiegable sections/paragraphs of the LDR regulations have been omitted
from the LDR checklists because States could not assume the authority for them. However, this
procedure has led to confusion among the States on how to handle the sections/paragraphs in
their code. For this reason, the Agency has decided to include these nondeiegable sections on
the LDR checklists. To differentiate these sections from the delegable portions of the LDR
restrictions, asterisks precede (a single row) and follow (a double row) each non-delegable section.
If States have already filled out a version of Revision Checklist 66 which does not Include the
nondeiegable sections, they need not fill out a revised version containing these sections. This
change in format was made only to improve clarity.
The Agency suggests that States incorporate the nondeiegable portions of the LDR regulation into
their regulations because this incorporation aids the regulated community in knowing that the
extensions, exemptions and variances addressed by the nondeiegable sections of code are
available to them. It is essential, however, that States leave the terms "Administrator", "Federal
Register" and "Agency" unchanged, i.e., States may not substitute analogous State terms for these
Federal terms. Similarly, States incorporating by reference must be careful to exclude these
sections from blanket substitutions of State terms for Federal terms. For a more complete
discussion of issues surrounding nondelagable sections, see Appendix J of the State Authorization
Manual (SAM).
September 6, 1989 - Page 1 of 9 Dciee.s -12/11/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 66: Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction to the
First Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
i:QUW-
ALiNT
MORE
STRINGENT
1ROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 266 - STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
SUBPART C - RECYCLABLE MATERIALS USED IN A MANNER
CONSTITUTING DISPOSAL
APPLICABILITY
delete the word
"constituent" from the
parenthetical phrase
following "recyclable
material"; add sentence
exempting from
regulation commercial
fertilizers produced
for the general
public's use that
contain recyclable
materials
266.20(b)
PART 268 - LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE. SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
substitute "restricted"
for "prohibited"
remove paraaraph
remove paraaraph
wastes which are not
subject to any
provisions of
Part 268
268. 1(c)
26&1(c)(3)
268,1{c)(4)
268,1(e)
September 6, 1989 - Page 2 of 9
DCL66.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIE, NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 66: Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction to the
First Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
wastes generated by
generators of less than
100 kg of hazardous
waste and less than
1 kg of acute
hazardous waste
waste pesticides
pursuant to 262.70
wastes identified or
listed as hazardous
after November 8,
1984 for which EPA
has not promulgated
land disposal
prohibitions or
treatment standards
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.1(e)(1)
268.1(e)(2)
268.1(eK3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATFIRAlOS 15!
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268.5 Is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 3 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
PROCEDURES FOR CASE-BY-CASE EXTENSIONS TO AN EFFECTIVE DATE
replace "the following
requirements:" with
"the technical require-
ments of the following
provisions regardless
of whether such unit
is existing, new or a
replacement for lateral
expansion"
268.5(h)(2)
September 6, 1989 - Page 3 of 9
DCL66^9 - 12/11/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 66: Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction to the
First Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
§TATE ANALOG 15:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268.6 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 3 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code,
PETITIONS TO ALLOW LAND DISPOSAL ~~
OF A WASTE PROHIBITED UNDER SUBPART C OF PART 268
amend paragraph
to read
"Immediately suspend
receipt of prohibited
waste at the
unit, and"
288.6(0(1)
WASTE ANALYSIS
add language to
indicate that
exemption from
prohibition is not
limited to extensions
under 268.5,
exemptions under
268.6 or a nationwide
capacity variance
under Subpart C
after "268.33(f)" add
parenthetical state-
ment including wastes
disposed of in units
other than landfills
or surface
impoundments
after "266.20(b)"
insert "regarding
treatment standards
and prohibition levels,";
insert "i.e.," preceding
"the recycler"
disposal of recyclable
material subject to
266.20{b)
268.7(a)(3)
268.7(aM4)
268.7(b)(8)
268.7(c)(4)
September 6, 1989 - Page 4 of 9
DCL66.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 66: Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction to the
First Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG 15:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
LANDFILL AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
specific requirements
for generator if no
practically available
treatment for waste:
prior to initial ship-
ment, demonstration/
certification to
Reqional Administrator
demonstration and
certification with
initial shipment;
certification with
subsequent shipments;
recordkeeping and
record retention
requirements for
generator if there
are practically
available treatments
for waste:
prior to initial
shipment, demonstra-
tion/certification to
Reqional Administrator
1 demonstration and
certification with
initial shipment;
certification with
subsequent shipments;
recordkeeping and
retention
add language requiring
submission of new
demonstration and
certification to the
receiving facility
268.8(a)(2)
268.8(a)(2){!)
268.8(aH2)(ii)
268,8(a){3)
268.8(a)(3)(l)
268.8(a)(3)(ii)
268.8(b)(1)
September 6, 1989 - Page 5 of 9
DCL66.9 - 12/11/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 66: Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction to the
First Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
insert ", for each initial
shipment of waste,"
between "must" and
"send"; add "(i) or
268.8(a)(3)(i)n after
"268.8(a)(2)"; add
sentence to end
requiring submission
of certification with
subsequent shipments
change "263.33(0" to
"268.33(f)"
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.8(c)(2)
268.8(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART C - PROHIBITIONS ON LAND DISPOSAL
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS-CALIFORNIA LIST WASTES
replace "such
disposal" with "such
unit"
268.32(f)
September 6, 1989 - Page 6 of 9
DCL66.9 - 12/11/91
.TO
-------
DIE. NO, 9541,00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 66: Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction to the
First Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
ST ATI ANALOS IS:
ECU IV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS-FIRST THIRD WASTES
change "K004
(nonwastewater)" to
"K004 wastes specified
in 268.43(a)"; change
"KOQ8 (nonwaste-
waters)" to "K008
wastes specified in
268.43(a)"; remove
"K015 wastewaters";
change "K021
(nonwastewater)" to
"K021 wastes specified
in 268.43(a)"; add
"nonwastewaters
specified in 268.43(a)n
following "K025";
remove "K083
(nonwastewaters)"; add
"nonwastewaters
specified in 268.43(a)"
following "K100"; add
"(wastewater), K101
(nonwastewater, tow
arsenic subcategory -
less than 1% total
arsenic)," following
"K101"; add
"(wastewater), K102
(nonwastewater, low
arsenic subcategory -
less than 1% total
arsenic)." following
"K102"
268.33(a)
September 6, 1989 - Page 7 of 9
DCL66.9 - 12/11/91
-------
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 66: Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction to the
First Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
replace "are not
applicable" with
"have not been
promulgated";
replace "unless the
wastes are the subject
of a valid demonstra-
tion and certification
pursuant" with "unless
a demonstration and
certification have been
submitted"
replace "extract or the
waste" with "extract
or the waste, or the
generator may use
knowledge of the
waste"
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.33(f)
268.33(a>
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART D - TREATMENT STANDARDS
Guidance note: 268.44 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 3 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
VARIANCE FROM A TREATMENT STANDARD
replace "Assistant
Administrator of the
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency
Response" with
"Administrator"
268.44(h)
i
SUBPART E - PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE
PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE OF RESTRICTED WASTES
reword paragraph
regarding exemptions
from land disposal
prohibitions
268.50{d)
September 6, 1989 - Page 8 of 9
DCL66.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 66: Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction to the
First Third Scheduled Wastes (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATS ANA15S IS-
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
1 An error in the September 6, 1989 rule (54 FR 36967) makes !t appear that the revisions to
268.8(a) include the removal of 268.8(a)(4). This was not the Agency's intent and 268.8{a)(4)
remains in the Federal code as introduced by Revision Checklist 50.
2 See technical correction at 55 FR 23935, June 13, 1990.
September 6, 1989 - Page 9 of 9
OCL66.9 - 12/11/91
-------
-------
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
The following pages should replace
pages 1 through 3 of SAM Appendix G.
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
APPENDIX G
Table G-1. List of Revision Checklists by Cluster
Table G-2. Numerical Listing of Revision Checklists
and Corresponding Cluster
Cluster Rule 51 FR 33712 (September 22, 1986)
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER
Purpose of Table G-1: This table lists revision checklists by cluster and includes the
Federal Register reference and date for each checklist as well as the due date for each
cluster. States should use this table for guidance on the timeframes for submitting the
program revisions represented by each checklist. For specific guidance on how the overall
cluster system works, States should refer to the requirements incorporated as part of the
Cluster Rule at 51 FR 33712 (September 22, 1986), For convenience, this rule has been
included at the end of this appendix.
"Non-Checklist" Entries: In addition to the checklists, Table G-1 contains two types of
entries:
- unnumbered, unbracketed entries-Many of these are "non-checklist" requirements
which States must adopt. These are also organized by cluster and include: State
availability of information, direct action (third party) against insurers, and radioactive
mixed waste. The rest of the "unbracketed, unnumbered" entries are HSWA
provisions that were subsequently dealt with by Revision Checklist 17--the HSWA
Codification Rule. These have a reference to Revision Checklists 17 A - 17 S.
- numbers in parentheses, bracketed entries-These typically are corrections or
amendments to a major final rule that were incorporated into the checklist for that
major final rule. Thus, the parenthesized number is used to indicate friat the listed
rule (in brackets) is not the main rule for the indicated checklist. These corrected
amendments are usually close enough in time to the initial final rule that the
correction/amendment was included on the checklist for the initial rule, rather than
develop a new checklist for the correction.
"Optional" Checklists are denoted by the "f which precedes the checklist number. In an
optional checklist, all changes represented by the checklist are less stringent then existing
Federal code. Thus, States are not required to adopt these regulatory changes. However,
if a State chooses to adopt similar provisions, they must be at least as stringent as the
Federal requirements. Note that, in most cases, it will make sense for a State that adopts
part of an optional checklist to adopt alf of the provisions in that checklist. Also, technical
corrections which are included on "optional checklists" with numbers in parentheses (see
"non-checklist-entries") are not marked as optional because, if a State chooses to adopt
that checklist, the technical corrections included on that checklist are not optional. The
reference to the checklist within the entry indicates whether or not the overall checklist is
optional.
In regard to checklists that contain both required and optional provisions, the State need
not adopt the less stringent requirements. For further information on optional provisions,
see the discussion in Appendix J, p. 4.
Updates: Table G-1 will be updated semiannually by the State Program Advisories
providing new revision checklists.
DAPPXQ9.9 - 12/13/91
-------
SPA 9
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER
Purpose of Table G-2: This table lists the revision checklists numerically. Also listed is
the cluster for each checklist. This table was developed as a quick reference for
determining which cluster a checklist is in. Previously, a table similar to Table G-1 listing
the revision checklists by cluster was used for this information. However, as the number of
revision checklists has grown, that table has become too lengthy to use efficiently for this
information.
Placement of Checklists In Each Cluster: For information on how a checklist is placed
in a cluster, see the discussion above for Table G-1.
Optional Checklists: See the discussion for Table G-1.
Updates; Table G-2 will be updated semiannually by the State Program Advisories
providing new revision checklists.
DAPPXG9.9 - 12/13/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO, 9541.00-14
ATTACHMENT D
Updated Consolidated Checklists
and Model Attorney General's Statement
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
Consolidated Checklists
The following checklists should replace
Consolidated Checklists C-1 through C-9
of SAM Appendix K
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C1
Hazardous Waste Management System: General
40 CFR Part 260 as of June 30, 1990
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
~K50W-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE, SCOPE. AND APPLICABILITY
part provides
definition of terms,
general standards,
and overview
information
purpose of 260.2
purpose of 260.3
purpose of 260.10
purpose of 260.20
purpose of 260.21
purpose of 260.22
',34
*,34
*,34
*,34
*,34
*
*
260.1 (a)
260.1 (b)(1)
260.1(bM2)
260.1 (b)(3)
260.1 (bM4)
260.1 (W(5)
260.1 (b)(6)
-
USE OF NUMBER AND GENDER
use of number and
gender in 260-265
and 268
masculine includes
feminine and neuter
words in singular
include plural
words in plural
include sinqular
*,34
*
*
*
260.3
260.3(a)
260.3(b)
260.3(c)
SUBPART B - DEFINITIONS
DEFINITIONS
terms have the
following meanings
throughout 260-265
and 268
*,34
260.10(intro)
Page 1 of 17
DC1.9 - 12/11/9!
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C1: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"above around tank"
"Act" or "RCRA"
"active life"
"active portion"
"Administrator"
"ancillary equipment"
"aquifer"
"authorized rep-
resentative"
"boiler"
"certification"
"closed portion"
"component"
"confined aquifer"
"container"
"contingency plan"
"corrosion expert"
"desiqnated facility"
"dike"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
*
24
*
*
28
*
*
13
*
*
28
*
*
*
28
M-13.71
*
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
(Di
(IMIi)
mom
(Dflv)
(2)
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
_
Page 2 of 17
DC1.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C1: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"discharge" or
"hazardous waste
discharge"
"disposal"
"disDosal facility"
"elementary
neutralization unit"
"EPA hazardous
waste number"
"EPA
identification number"
"EPA region"
"equivalent method"
"existing hazardous
waste management
(HWM) facility" or
"existing facility"
"existing portion"
"existing tank system"
or "existing
component"
"facility"
"Federal agency"
"Federal, State and
local approvals or
permits necessary to
begin physical
construction"
"final closure"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
*
*
*
*,52
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
28
*
*
*
24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260.10
260.10
260,10
260.10
(1)
(2)
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
(1)
(2)(i)
(2)fli)
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EOU1V-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 3 of 17
DC 1.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C1: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"food-chain crops"
"free liquids"
"freeboard"
"qenerator"
"qround water"
"hazardous waste"
"hazardous waste
constituent"
"hazardous waste
management unit"
"in operation"
"inactive portion"
"incinerator"
"incompatible waste"
"individual generation
site"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
24
*
*
M3
*
4
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
(1)
(2)
260.10
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORI
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 4 of 17
DC1.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C1: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"industrial furnace"
"inqround tank"
"injection well"
"inner liner"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
13
28
*
*
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260.10
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(12HD
(121(11)
(12)(iii)
(12)0v)
(12)(v)
(12)(vi)
260.10
260.10
260.10
I STATE ANALOS IS:
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
|
Page 5 of 17
DC 1.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C1: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"installation inspector"
"international
shipment"
"landfill"
"landfill cell"
"land treatment
facility"
"leachate"
"leak detection
system"
"liner"
"management" or
"hazardous waste
management"
"manifest"
"manifest document
number"
"mining overburden
returned to the mine
site"
"miscellaneous unit"
"movement"
"new hazardous
waste management
facility" or "new
facility"
"new tank system" or
"new tank component"
"on ground tank"
"on-site"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
*
*,45
*
*
*
28
*
*
*.5
".5
*
45
*
*
28
28
*
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
I STATE ANALCJ& is:
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 6 of 17
DC1.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST 01: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"open buminq"
"operator"
"owner"
"partial closure"
"person"
"personnel" or "facility
personnel"
"pile"
"point source"
"publicly owned
treatment works" or
"POTW"
"Regional Administrator"
"representative
sample"
"run-off
"run-on"
"saturated zone" or
"zone of saturation"
"sludqe"
"Small Quantity
Generator"
"solid waste"
"State"
"storaae"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
*
*
*
*,24
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
23
#
*
*
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260.10
(1)
(2)
(3)
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260,10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
i
5TSTTRRALOS I5i
ESUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINOENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 7 of 17
DC1.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C1: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"sump"
"surface impoundment"
or "impoundment"
"tank"
"tank system"
"thermal treatment"
"totally enclosed
treatment facility"
"transfer facility"
"transport vehicle"
"transportation"
"transporter"
"treatability study"
"treatment"
"treatment zone"
"underground
Injection"
"underground tank"
"unfiHor-use tank
system"
"unsaturated zone" or
"zone of aeration"
"United States"
"uppermost aquifer*
"vessel"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
*
*
28
*
*
*
*
*
*
t49
*
*
*
28
28
*
*
*
*
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10 -
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 8 of 17
DC 1.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO, 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST 01: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"wastewater treatment
unit"
"water (bulk
shipment)"
"well"
"well injection"
"zone of engineering
control"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
-.52
*
*
*
28
REFERENCES
"Parts 260 through
270"
"ASTM Standard Test
Methods for Flash
Point of Liquids by
Setaflash Closed
Tester"
"ASTM Standard Test
Methods for Flash
Point by
Pensky-Martens
Closed Tester"
"ASTM Standard
Method for Analysis
of Reformed Gas by
Gas Chromatoqraphy"
"ASTM Standard
Test Method for
Heat of Combustion
of Hydrocarbon
Fuels by Bomb
Calorimeter"
"ASTM Standard
Practices for
General Techniques of
Ultraviolet-Visible
Quantitative Analysis"
*,39
*
*
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260.10
(1)
(2)
(3)
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.10
260.1 1
260. 11 (a)
260. 11 (a)
260. 11 (a)
260. 11 (a)
260. 11 (a)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
|
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 9 of 17
DC1.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C1: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"ASTM Standard
Practices for
General Techniques of
Infrared Quantitative
Analysis"
"ASTM Standard
Practice for Packed
Column Gas
Crtromatoqraphv"
"ASTM Standard
Test Method for
Aromatics in Light
Naphthas and Aviation
Gasolines by
Gas Chromatoqraphy"
"ASTM Standard
Test Method for
Vapor Pressure-
Temperature Relation-
ship and Initial
Decomposition
Temperature of
Liquids by
Isoteriscope"
"APTI Course
415: Control of
Gaseous Emissions"
"Flammable and
Combustible Liquids
Code"
"Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods,"
Second Edition
47 analytical testing
methods in Third
Edition of "Test
Methods for
Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
*
M1
35,67
73
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260. 11 (a)
260, 11 (a)
260. 11 (a)
260.11(a>
260.11 (a)
260.11 (a)
260. 11 (a)
260. 11 (a)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 10 of 17
DC1.9 -
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C1: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
references available
at Office of the
Federal Register;
approved by director;
incorporation and
changes
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
*
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260.1Kb)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOS IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART C - RULEMAKING PETITIONS
t GENERAL
petition to modify or
revoke any provision
in Parts 260-265 and
268; purpose of
260.21 and 260.22
submission by
certified mail and
what each petition
must contain
Administrator makes
tentative decision to
grant or deny; notice
of decision
informal public
hearing
final decision
by Administrator
*,t34
*
*
*
*
260.20(a)
260.20(b)
260.20{b)(1)
260.20(b)(2)
260.2Q(b)(3)
260.20(b)(4)
260.20(c)
260.20(d)
260.20{e)
-
t PETITIONS FOR EQUIVALENT TESTING OR ANALYTICAL
petitions for a
regulatory amendment
to add testing or
analytical methods;
what must be
demonstrated to
the Administrator
*
260.21 (a)
. METHODS
Page 11 of 17
DC1.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C1: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
what the petition
must include
additional information
where an amendment
for a new test method
will be incorporated
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
*
#
M1
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260.2Kb)
260.21(b)(1)
260.21 (b){2)
260.21 (b)(3)
260.21 (b)(4)
260.21 fb)(5)
260.21 (c)
260.21 (d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
E5UIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINOENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
t PETITIONS TO AMEND PART 261 TO EXCLUDE A WASTE PRODUCED AT A PARTICULAR
FACILITY
petitions to exclude
a waste at a
particular generating
facility
procedures for
exclusion from
261.3(a)(2)(ii) or (c) a
waste described in
these sections and is
listed in or is
derived from a
waste in Subpart D;
demonstration the
petitioner must make;
operation of 261,
Suboart C
waste listed with
codes "I", "C", "R" or
"E" in Subpart D
*.t17 B
VM7 B
VM7 B
t17 B
260.22(a)
260.22(a)(1)
26G.22(a)(2)
260,22(b)
260.22(c)
260.22(c)(1)
260.22{c)(2)
Page 12 of 17
DC1.9 - 1&11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C1: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
waste listed with code
"T" in Subpart D
waste listed with an
"H" code in Subpart D
reserved for listing
radioactive waste
reserved for listing
infectious waste
demonstration
samples
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
VM7 B
t17 B
*.t17 B
t17 B
*
*
*
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260.22W)
260.22{d)(1)
260.22(d)(1)(i)
260.22(d)(1)(ii)
260.22{d)(2)
260.22(d)(3)
260.22(d)(4)
260.22fe)
260.22(e)(1)
260.22(e)(2)
260.22(e)(3)
260.22(e)(4)
260.22(f)
260.22(a)
260.22(h)
ANALOGOUS 1
STATE CITATION
• |
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROAbER
IN SCOPE
Page 13 of 17
DC1.9 - 12/11/91
J.'t
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C1: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
what each petition
must include in
addition to 260.20(b)
requirements
additional information
waste to which exclu-
sion applies
exclusion by
Administrator of only
part of waste for
which demonstration
was submitted
remove paragraph
260.22(m)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
*
*
*
*
VM7 B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260.22(1}
260.22(0(1)
260.22(0(2)
260.22(i)(3)
260.22(0(4)
260.22(0(5)
260.22(0(6)
260.22(0(7)
260.22(i)(8)
260.22(0(9)
260.22(0(10)
260.22(0(11)
260.22(0(12)
260.22(i)
260.22(k)
260.22(1)
260.22(m)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATS ANALOS IS:
EGU1V-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
t VARIANCES FROM CLASSIFICATION AS A SOLID WASTE
speculative
accumulation
returned to process
further reclamation
13
13
13
260.30(a)
260.30(b)
260.30(c)
Page 14 of 17
DC1.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C1: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK- "
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
• STSTE WWEOS m-
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES FROM CLASSIFICATION AS A SOLID WASTE
speculative accumula-
tion; standards and
criteria on which
Regional Administra-
tor's decisions will be
based
returned to process;
criteria on which
Regional Administra-
tor's determination
will be based
13
13
260.31 (a)
260.31 (a)(1)
260.31 (a){2)
260.31 (a)(3)
260.31 (a)(4)
260.31 (a)(5)
260.31 (b)
260.31 (b){1)
260.31 (b)(2)
260.31 (b)(3)
260.31 (b){4)
260.31 (b)(5)
260.31 (b)(6)
260.31 (b)(7)
260.31 (b)(8)
*"
Page 15 of 17
OC1.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C1: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
further reclamation;
factors on which
Regional Administra-
tor's determination
will be based
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
13
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260.31(0)
260.31 (c)(1)
260.31 (c)(2)
260.31 (c)(3)
260.31 (c){4)
260.31 (c)(5)
260.31 (c)(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EOlW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t VARIANCE TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A BOILER
case-by-case
determination; criteria
which must be
considered
provisions for
recovering and
exporting thermal
enerqv
integral desian
efficiency of energy
recovery
exported energy utili-
zation
customary use as a
"boiler"
other factors
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
260.32
260.32(a)
26Q.32(b)
260.32(c)
260.32W)
260.32{e)
260.32(f)
i
f PROCEDURES FOR VARIANCES FROM CLASSIFICATION AS A SOLID WASTE OR TO BE
CLASSIFIED AS A BOILER
procedures for evalu-
atinq applications
where to apply and
what the application
must address
13
13
260.33
260.33(a)
Page 16 of 17
DC1.9 -
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C1: Hazardous Waste
Management System: General (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
tentative decision;
notice/public hearing;
final decision; no
appeal
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
13
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
260.33(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t,1 ADDITIONAL REGULATION OF CERTAIN HAZARDOUS WASTE RECYCLING ACTIVITIES ON A
CASE-BY-CASE BASIS
case-by-case deter-
mination; factors
which will be consid-
ered
types of materials
accumulated or stored
method of accumula-
tion or storage
lenqth of time
release to the
environment
other factors
13
13
13
13
13
13
260.40(a)
260,4Q(a){1)
260.40{a)(2)
260,40(aK3)
260.40(a)(4)
260.40(a)(5)
.
t,1 PROCEDURES FOR CASE-BY-CASE REGULATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE RECYCLING
ACTIVITIES
procedures Regional
Administrator will use
for determination
notice to generator
who is accumulating,
setting forth factual
basis for decision and
262 Subpart A, C, D
& E compliance; public
hearing; final order;
appeals
accumulation as a
storage facility; permit
required; when to
apply; ways to
challenge decision;
public comment
period
13
13
13
260.41
260.41 (a)
260.41 (b)
i —
Not needed if the state does not allow the exclusion of 261.6(a)(2)(iv).
Page 17 of 17
DC 1.9 - 12/11/91
-------
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
40 CFR Part 261 as of June 30, 1990
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG i§:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
f identification of wastes
regulated under 262-
265, 268, 270, 271,
124 and subject
to notification
t Subpart A's purpose
t Subpart B's purpose
t Subpart C's purpose
t Subpart D's purpose
solid waste definition
applies only to waste
also hazardous for
purpose of implemen-
tation Subtitle C
identification of only
some of the materials
that are solid
hazardous wastes
conditions under which
a waste is still a
solid/hazardous waste
definitions
"spent material"
"sludge"
"by-product"
"reclaimed"
"used or reused"
*,34
*,23,34
*
*
*
13
M3
M3
13
13
13
13
13
13
261.1 fa)
261.1(a)(1)
261.1(a)(2)
261,1fa)(3)
261.1(a)(4)
261.1(b)(1)
261.1{b)(2)
261.1(bH2)(i)&(ii)
261.1(c)
261.1(0(1)
261.1(0(2)
261.1(0(3)
261.1(0(4)
261.1(0(5)
Page 1 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"scrap metal"
"recycled"
"accumulated
speeulatively"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
13
13
13
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.1(C)(6)
261.1 (CUT)
261.1(cM8)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANA16S IS:
EOUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
1 DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE
discarded/not
excluded
"discarded
material" is:
abandoned
recycled
inherently wastelike
"abandoned" means:
disposed of
burned/incinerated
accumulated, stored,
or treated in lieu of
disposal
materials are solid
wastes when
recycled
used in a manner
constituting
disposal
burning for
energy recovery
reclaimed
accumulated
speeulatively
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
261.2(a)(1)
261.2(a)(2)
261.2(a)(2)(i)
261.2(a)(2)(ii)
261.2{a)(2)flii)
261 .2(0)
261.2(b)(1)
261 .2(b)(2)
261.2(b)(3)
261 .2(c)
261.2(c)(1)
261.2(c)(1)(i)(A)&(B)
261,2(c)(1)(ii)
261.2(c){2)
261,2(cM2)(i)(A)&(B)
261.2(c)(2)(ii)
261.2(c)(3)
261.2(c)(4)
-
Page 2 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
inherently wastelike
F020, F021, F022,
F023, F026, & F028
criteria Administrator
will use to add to list
' CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
13
13
13
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261 .2(d)
261.2(d)(1)
261,2(d)(2)
261.2(d)(2H!)(A)&(B)
261.2{d)(2)(ii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t Materials That Are Not Solid Wastes When Recycled
criteria for showing
materials are not solid
wastes when recycled
materials that are solid
waste even when
recycling involves use,
reuse, or return to
oriqinal process:
13
13
261.2(e)(1)
261.2(e)(1)(i)
261.2(e)(1Mii)
261.2(eKD(iii)
261.2(e)(2)
261.2(e)(2Hi)
261.2(e)(2)(ii)
261.2(e)(2Miii)
261.2{e)(2)(iv)
documentation of
claims for not solid
waste or conditionally
exempt from
requlation
13
261. 2(f)
DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
solid waste is
hazardous if:
not excluded by
261, 4(b)
criteria to be met
I A
I A
I A
261. 3(a)
261.3(a)(1)
261.3(a)(2)
Page 3 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
exhibits characteristic
of Subpart C;
exception for specific
waste mixtures
is listed in Subpart D
mixture of solid waste
and a Subpart D
hazardous waste;
exceptions
mixture exemptions
specific events under
which a solid waste
becomes hazardous
Subpart D wastes,
when first meet
listinq description
mixture, when hazard-
ous waste added
when exhibits Subpart
C characteristics
unless and until
waste meets para-
graph (d) criteria:
remains a hazardous
waste
derived from a
hazardous waste
exemptions:
waste pickle liquor
siudqe
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
1 A,
65
i A
I A,
65
1 A
1 A
1 A
1 A
1 A
1 A
I A
1 A,
t8,t13
t8
t8
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.3(a)(2)(i)
261.3CaM2WH)
261.3(aM2)(iii)
261.3(aH2Miv)
261.3{aX2)(iv)(A)
261.3(aH2MivMB)
261.3(a)(2)(iv)(C)
261.3(aK2Hiv)(D)
261.3(a)(2)(iv)(E)
261 .3(b)
261.3(b)(1)
261.3(b)(2)
261.3(W(3)
261 .3(c)
261,3(cK1)
261.3(c)(2)(i)
261.3(cH2)(inCA)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
261.3(cX2)(ii)
STATE ANALOG IS:
~6<5uT5T
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 4 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2; Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
wastes from burning
material exempted at
261.6(a)(3)(v)
through (ix)
solid waste not
hazardous if it
meets criteria;
wastes not exhibiting
characteristics
excluded under
260.20 and 260.22
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
19
I A
i A
I A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.3(c)(2)(ii)(B)
261 .3(d)
261.3WH1)
261.3(d)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL6S IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
EXCLUSIONS
materials which are
not solid wastes
domestic sewaqe
domestic sewage
mixture
industrial wastewater
discharges
irrigation return
flows
nuclear materials as
defined by the Atomic
Enerqy Act, 1954
in-situ mining
pulping liquors
spent sulfuric
acid
reclaimed secondary
materials returned
to original process
generating them
solid wastes which
are not hazardous
wastes
I A
I A
I A
I A
I A
I A
I A
t13
t13
28
I A
261 .4(a)
261.4(a){1)(1)
261.4(a)(1)(H)
261.4(a)(2)
261.4(aM3)
261.4(aH4)
261.4(a)(5)
261.4(a)(6)
261.4(a)(7)
261.4(aK8)
261.4{a)(8)(i)
261.4(aM8)(ii)
261.4(a){8)(iii)
261 .4(aK8Kiv)
261 .4(b)
Page 5 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
household waste
crop and animal
waste returned to
soil as fertilizers
mining overburden
ash waste
drilling fluids
waste failing
Toxicity Characteristic
test because of
chromium
specific provisions
for exemption
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
1 A,T9,
t17C
I A
I A
I A
I A
! A,
74
I A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.4fb)(1)
261.4(b)(1)(i)
261.4(b)(1)(i)(A)&(B)
261.4(bH1)(ii)
261.4(b)(2)
261.4(b)(2)(i)
261.4(b)(2)(ii)
261,4(b){3)
261.4(b)(4)
261.4{b)(5)
261.4(b)(6)(i)
261.4(b)(6MiMA)
261.4(b)(6)(iKB)
261.4(b)(6)(i)(C)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
. _
Page 6 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
OSWE1 DIR, NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2; Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
specific wastes
meeting 261.4(b)(6)(i)
(A),(B)&(C) standards
ore processing
waste
CHECK-
L1ST
REFERENCE
I A
I A.53
65,71
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.4(b)(6)(ii)
261,4(b)(6)((i)(A)
261.4(b)(6)(ti)(B)
261.4(b)(6)(ii)(C)
261.4(b)(6Hii)(D)
261.4(b)(6)(ii)(E)
261.4(b)(6)(ii)(F)
261 ,4(b)(6){ii)(G)
261.4(b)(6)(ii)(H)
261.4{b){7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE AMALCS IS:
EQUIV-
AL1NT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 7 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
2 specific solid wastes
from the processing
of ores and minerals
cement kiln dust
waste
discarded wood
meeting certain
criteria
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
1 A,
65,71
I A, 71
71
I A
I A,
74
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.4(b)(7)(i)
261.4(b)(7Kii)
261.4(b)(7)(iii)
261.4(b)(7)(iv)
261,4(b)(7)(v)
261.4(bH7)(vi)
261,4(b)(7)(vii)
261.4(bH7Mviii)
261,4(b)(7Kix)
261.4(b)(7Mx)
261.4(b)(7)(xi)
261.4(b)(7)(xii)
261.4{bK7Mxiil)
261.4(b)(7)(xiv)
261.4(W(7)(xv)
261 .4(b)(7)(xvi)
261.4(bK7)(xvii)
261.4(b)(7)(xviii)
261.4(b)(7)(xix)
261.4(b)(7)(xx)
261.4(b){8)
261 .4(b)(9)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 8 of 24
DC2.9 - 1213/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
petroleum-contamin-
ated media and
debris that fail
the 261 .24 Toxicity
Characteristic test
(D018 through D043
only) and are
subject to Part 280
corrective action
exempt hazardous
waste
sample exemption
criteria
criteria for sample
collector & laboratory,
to qualify for
exemption
when exemption
does not aDDlv
CHECK-'
LIST
REFERENCE
74
1 A.34
1 A.34
1 A
1 A
! A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.4(b)(10)
261 .4(c)
261.4(d){1)
261.4(dH1HO
261.4(d)(1)(ii)
261.4(d)(1)(iii)
261.4(d){1)(iv)
261,4(d)(1)(v)
261.4(d)(1)(vi)
261,4(d)(2)
261.4(d)(2)(i)
261.4(d)(2)(ii)
261.4(d)(2MiiMA)
261.4(d)(2)(ii)(A)
(1H5)
261.4(d)(2)(iiHB)
261.4(d)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATS ANAL05 IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 9 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
mTFATwcoTris:
ECJuW".
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t Treatabiiity Study Samples
regulation of treata-
bility study samples
and relation to
quantity determina-
tion of 261 .5 and
262.34(d)
collection and
preparation of sample
for transport
accumulation or
storage of sample
prior to transport
transport of sample
to laboratory or
testing facility
applicability of
provisions for
exemption under
261.4(eM1)
sample size limit
by hazardous waste
type for sample
collector
weight limit for
each sample shipment
packaging require-
ments for sample
compliance with U.S.
DOT, USPS or other
for transport
information required
if DOT, USPS, or
other do not apply to
shipment
laboratory or testing
facility requirements
3 year maintenance
of specified records
records which must be
maintained
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
261.4(e){1)
261.4(eH1)(i)
261.4(e)(1)(ii)
261.4(eH1Hiii)
261.4(e)(2)
261.4(e)(2){i)
261,4{eM2Mii)
261.4(e)(2M!in
261,4(eM2)(iii)(A)
261.4(e)(2)(iii)(B)
(1H5)
261.4(eM2)(iv)
261.4(e)(2)(v)
261.4(e)(2}(v)
(A)-(C)
•
&
-
Page 10 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
biennial report
requirements
granting of requests
for additional
quantities; applica-
tion procedure
reason for request
and additional
quantity needed
required
documentation
description of
technical
modifications
equipment and
mechanical failure
information
other information
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.4(e)(2)(vi)
261 .4(e){3)
261.4(eH3)(i)
261.4(e)(3)(ii)
261.4(e){3Kiii)
261,4(e)(3)(iv)
261.4(e)(3Kv)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EoTJIV^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
- -
t Samples Undergoing Treatablllty Studies at Laboratories and Testing Facilities
requirements for
samples undergoing
treatability studies at
labs and testing
facilities
notification
requirements
EPA identification
number of laboratory
or testing facility
single day quantity
restrictions on
initiation of
treatment studies
limitations on storage
of treatability
study samples
exclusion of treatabil-
ity study residues
exclusion of added
treatment materials
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
261 .4(f)
261.4(f)(1)
261.4(f){2)
261.4(f)(3)
261.4(f)(4)
261.4(f)(4)(i)
261.4{«(4Hii)
Page 11 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
90 day/1 year
limitations on
duration of exemption
land placement and
open burning of study
samples not allowed
3 year maintenance
of treatability study
records
list of specific
information
needed for each
treatability study
3 year maintenance
of shipping records
and treatability
study contract
laboratory or
treatability study
facility annual
report requirement
required annual
report information
hazardous waste
determination for
unused samples by
facility
notification when
facility discontinues
treatability studies
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.4(f)(5)
261.4(f)(6)
261.4(f)(7)
261.4{f)(7)(iHvii)
261.4(f)(8)
261.4(0(9)
261.4(f)(9HiHvii)
261.4(0(10)
261.4(0(11)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
B30W-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
•
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED BY CONDITIONALLY
EXEMPT SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS
definition of a
conditionally exempt
small quantity
generator
exceptions to CESQG
requlatory exemption
quantity
determination
I A.23
I A,
17 A,
19,23,
34
i A,
t13,
23,34
261. 5(a)
261 .5(b)
261.5(c)
Page 12 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
quantity exclusions
acute hazardous
quantity limitations
1 kg acute hazard-
ous waste listed in
261.31, 261.32 or
261.33(e)
100 kg of spill debris
resulting from a spill
of acute hazardous
waste
requirements for
exclusion of acute
hazardous waste
Section 262.1 1
accumulation
treatment/disposal
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
I A.23
I A,23F
34,47
I A.14,
23
I A.14,
23
I A,
t17 A,
23
23
I A.23,
34,47
23,31
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.5(d)
261.5(d)(1)
261.5(d)(2)
261.5WM3)
261.5(e)
261.5(e)(1)
261.5(e)(2)
261. 5(f)
261.5(f)(1)
261.5(0(2)
261,5(f)(3)
261.5(f)(3)(l)
261.5(0(3)01)
261.5(0(3)flfl)
261.5(0(3)(iv)
261.5(0(3)(v)
261.5(0(3)(v)(A)
261.5(0(3)(v)(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 13 of 24
DC2.9 - 1&13/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2; Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
generator require-
ments for hazardous
waste to be
conditionally
exempt
Section 262.11
accumulation
treatment/di sposal
mixing with non-
hazardous waste
mixtures exceeding
exclusion level
mixtures with used
oil
removed
CHECK" "
LIST
REFERENCE
I A,
f17 A,
23
I A
I A,23,
34
I A,23,
31
I A,
t17 A.23
I A,
t17 A.23
t17 A.23
19,23
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.5(0)
261.5(aK1)
261.5(aM2)
261.5(a)(3)
261,5(a)f3Mi)
261.5(a)(3Hii)
261.5(a)(3Kiii)
261.5(aH3Miv)
261.5(a)(3)(v)
261.5(aM3)(vHA)
261.5(a)(3)(v)(B)
261 .5(h)
261,5{i)
261 .5(i)
261 .5(k)
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
requirements recycled
hazardous waste is
subject to
I A.13
261.6(a)(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 14 of 24
DC2.9 - 12^13/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
regulation under
Part 266
exemptions from rule
generator and
transporter
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
1 A.13
13
13
13,17 J,
19
13
13
I A.13,
34
13,31
31
31
13
13,19
13
13
13
13,19
t19
I A.13
FIDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.6(al(2)
261.6(a)(2)(i)
261.6(aX2Mii)
261.6(a)(2)(iii)
261.6(a)(2Hiv)
261.6(aM2Mv)
261.6(a)(3)
261.6(a)(3)(0
261.6(aH3Hi)(A)
261.6(a)(3)(i)(B)
261.6(a)(3)(ii)
261.6(aH3MiiH
261 .6{a)(3)(iv)
261.6(a)(3)(v)
261.6(a)(3)(vi)
261.6(a)(3)(vii)
261.6(a)(3)(vi!i)(A)
261.6(a)(3)(viii)(B)
261,6{a)(3)(viii)(C)
261,6{aK3)(ix)
261 .6(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 15 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
recycling facility
requirements
owners or operators
of RCRA facilities are
subject to Subparts
AA and BB of Parts
264 and 265 if they
recycle hazardous
wastes
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
13,34,
79
13
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.6(c)(1)
261.6(c)(2)
261.6(cM2)fi)
261.6(c)(2)(ii)
261.6(c)(2)(iii)
261 .6(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINSENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•-
RESIDUES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN EMPTY CONTAINERS
waste remaining
in container
container not
empty
definition of empty
definition of empty
for compressed aas
definition of empty for
acute hazardous wastes
listed in 261.31,
261.32 or 261.33(e)
I A.34
I A.34
I A.14
I A
I A
I A.14
I A
261.7(aM1)
261.7(a)(2)
261.7(b}(1)
261.7(bM1Hi)
261.7(b)(1)(ii)
261.7(bM1)CiiiMA)
261.7(b)(1Kiii)(B)
261.7{b)(2)
261.7(b){3)
261.7(b)(3)(i)
261.7{b)(3)(ii)
261.7{b)(3)(iii)
Page 16 of 24
DC2.9 - 1013/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
cHEek-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANA10S IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PCB WASTES REGULATED UNDER TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL ACT
exemption for certain
PCB-containing
wastes
74
261.8
t,3
SUBPART B - CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING THE CHARACTERISTICS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE
CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Administrator shall
identify and define
a characteristic of
hazardous waste in
Subpart C, only upon
specific determinations
*
261.10(3)
261.10(a)(1)
261.10(a)(1)(i)&(ii)
261.10(a)(2)
261.10(aH2)(n&fli)
, -.
CRITERIA FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE
meets one of the
following criteria
exhibits a Subpart C
characteristic
fatal to humans;
specific toxicity
levels; acute
hazardous waste
*
*
*
261. 11 (a)
261.11(a)(1)
261.11(a)(2)
Page 17 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-!*«../->
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST 02: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
contains any Appendix
VIII toxic constituent;
factors the Administra-
tor must assess; toxic
hazardous waste
hazardous under the
RCRA 1004(5)
definition of
hazardous waste
criteria for
establishing
exclusion limits
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
'.76
*
*
*
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.11(a)(3)
261,11(a)f3Hi)
261.11(a)(3MH)
261.11(a)(3)(Hi)
261.11(a)(3)(iv)
261.11(a)(3)(v)
261.11(a)(3)fvi)
261.11(aM3Hvii)
261.11(a)(3)(viii)
261.11(a)(3)flx)
261.11(a)(3)(x)
261.11(aH3Mxi)
261.11{b)
261.11(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG. IS: "
lOTJIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
SUSP ART C - CHARACTERISTICS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERAL
solid waste exhibiting
characteristics of
Suboart C
EPA hazardous waste
number
sample obtained using
Appendix I sampling
methods
*
*,34,
78
*
261.20(a)
261.20(b)
261.20(c)
Page 18 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE Af^|_Qg |g.
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
CHARACTERISTIC OF IGNITABILITY
liquid; flash point less
than 60C,
non-liquid; burns
under standard
temperature and
pressure
ignitable compressed
qas
oxidizer
EPA Number D001
I C
I C
I C
I C
I C,
78
261 .21 (a)
261.21{a)(1)
261.21(a)(2)
261,21{a)(3)
261 .21 (a) (4)
261.21{b)
CHARACTERISTIC OF CORROSIVITY
aqueous; ph < 2 or
> 12.5
liquid; corrodes steel
EPA Number D002
I C
I C
I C,
78
261 .22(a)
261.22(a)(1)
261 .22(a)(2)
261.22{b)
CHARACTERISTIC OF REACTIVITY
unstable; undergoes
violent change
reacts violently
with water
potentially explosive
generates toxic oases
cyanide or sulfide
bearing and can
generate toxic gases
detonation or ex-
plosion, if heated
detonation or
explosion at STP
I C
I C
I C
I C
I C
I C
I C
261.23(a)
261.23(a)(1)
261,23(aK2) .
261.23(a)C3)
261.23fa)(4)
261.23(aK5)
261.23{a){6)
261.23(a)(7)
Page 19 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
forbidden explosive
EPA Number D003
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
1 C
1C,
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.23(a)(8)
261.23(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
E5UIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
4 TOXICITY CHARACTER
test criteria and
waste list
EPA Numbers as in
Table 1
STIC
1C,
74
1C,
74,78
261.24(a)
261.24(b)
SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
GENERAL
hazardous if listed
in this subpart;
exclusions
hazard codes
EPA hazardous waste
number
261.31 or 261.32
listed wastes subject
to 261 .5 exclusion
Iimits--F020, F021,
F022, F023, F026
and F027
I B
IB,
74
I B,
34
14
261.30(a)
261.30(b)
261.30{c)
261.30(d)
HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
list of "F" wastes
I B,4,
13,14,
20,22,
69.t72,78
261.31
The correct list of "F" wastes to use for this consolidated base program checklist is the 261.31 table
found in the July 1, 1990 CFR.
HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES
list of "K" wastes
I B.18,
21,26,
33,53,
68,75
261.32
Page 20 of 24
DC2.9 - 12H&91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUriP
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
The correct list of "K" wastes to use for this consolidated base program checklist is the 261.32 table
found in the July 1, 1990 CFR.
DISCARDED COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, OFF-SPECIFICATION SPECIES, CONTAINER
hazardous
when discarded
chemical product
or intermediate
off-specification
product or chemical
intermediate
container/inner
liner residues
spitl cleanup
debris
acute hazardous
wastes
I B.13,
17 J.37
I B
I B
I B, 41,
78
I B
I B,7,
29,46,57
261.33
261 .33(a)
261.33(b)
261 .33(c)
261 .33(d)
261.33(e)
The correct list of "P" wastes to use for this consolidated base program checklist is the 261.33(e)
table found in the July 1, 1990 CFR.
toxic wastes
I B,7,
14,18,
22,23,
29,46,56
261.33(0
The correct list of "U" wastes to use for this consolidated base program checklist is the 261.33(f)
table found in the July 1, 1990 CFR.
APPENDIX I TO PART 261
REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING METHODS
list of sampling
protocols to be
followed in collecting
waste samples with
various properties
*
Appendix I
Page 21 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
SPA i
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOQOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX II TO PART 261
5 METHOD 1311 TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE (TCLP)
TCLP procedures
used to identify
wastes which are
hazardous
*,74
Appendix II
APPENDIX HI TO PART 261
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS TEST METHODS
analytical procedures
to determine whether
a sample contains
Appendix VII or VIII
constituents; Tables
1 through 3 which
cover analysis
methods for organic
chemicals, analysis
methods for inorganic
chemicals and mis-
cellaneous groups of
analytes, and
sampling and analysis
methods contained
in SW-846
",14,18,
21,22,33,
67,68,73,
75
Appendix III
-
APPENDIX VII TO PART 261
BASIS FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE
table of EPA
hazardous waste
numbers and the
hazardous constit-
uents for which
each is listed
*,4,14,
18,21,22,
33,53,68,
69,75,78
Appendix VII
Page 22 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
E5UIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX VIII TO PART 261
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
table listing common
names, chemical
abstracts names,
chemical abstracts
numbers, and EPA
hazardous waste
numbers for all
hazardous
constituents
*,4,14,
18,22,
29,46,
56,57,69
Appendix VIII
APPENDIX X TO PART 261
METHOD OF ANALYSIS FOR CHLORINATED DIBENZO-P-DIOXINS AND -DIBENZOFURANS
analytical procedure
to measure concen-
tration of chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans in
chemical wastes
14
Appendix X
Paragraph 261.2(a)-(e) originally appeared on Base Program Checklist I A, but Revision Checklist
13 completely superceded the original code.
The list of excluded wastes from the processing of ores and minerals, currently represented by
261.4(b){7)(i)-(xx) as per Revision Checklist 71, has undergone extensive formatting changes over
time. Checklist I A addressed a fairly short list of wastes numbered 261,4{b)(7)(i)-(vi). Revision
Checklist 65 made significant changes in that 261.4(b)(7)(i)(A)-(E) represented five wastes retained
under the exclusion, and 261.4(b)(7)(ii)(A)-(T) represented twenty wastes conditionally retained
under the exclusion. Citations numbered (b)(7)(iii)-(vi) were omitted at that point in time. Finally,
Revision Checklist 71 resulted in a list of 20 wastes retained under the exclusion, numbered
261,4(b)(7)(i)-(xx). Therefore, the references to Checklists I A and 65 in Column 2 are relevant
only insofar as the numbering format of the Federal RCRA citations are concerned, as opposed to
the text of the citations. Many of the wastes addressed by Revision Checklist 65 under
paragraphs (i) and (ii) are addressed in paragraphs (i)-{xx) in Revision Checklist 71.
States do not have to include this subpart as long as they regulate all of the wastes which are
listed by EPA or determined to be hazardous by the characteristics given in Subpart C of 40 CFR
Part 261.
Page 23 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C2: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQU1V-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
The title of this section was changed by Revision Checklist 74 from "CHARACTERISTIC OF EP
TOXICITY" to "TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC."
Revision Checklist 74 replaced the EP toxicity test procedures in this appendix with the toxicity
characteristic leaching procedures.
Page 24 of 24
DC2.9 - 12/13/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C3
Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste
40 CFR 262 as of June 30, 1990
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATS ARAiDTns:
Eouiy^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE, SCOPE. AND APPLICABILITY
establish standards
for generators
on-site generator
requirements
importer requirements
farmer's requirements
compliance require-
ments and penalties
requirements for
initiators of shipment
*
11,48
II
11,48
II
II
262.10(a)
262.10(b)
262.10(0)
262.10{d)
262.10(e)
262.1 Off)
-
HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION
determine if a waste is
a hazardous waste
excluded under 261.4
listed in Subpart D,
Part 261
identified in Subpart
C, Part 261
testinq
characteristics
refer to Parts 264,
265, 268 for possible
exclusions or
restrictions in use
*
II
II
II.78
II
II
34
262.11
262.1 1 (a)
262.11(b)
262. 11 (c)
262.11(c)(1)
262.11(c)(2)
262.11W)
EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS
EPA identification
number required
application for
EPA ID number
II
II
262.12(a)
262.1 2(b)
Page 1 of 13
DC3.9 - 12/11/91
'•* "-**«
~-j**.^. •
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C3: Standards Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
hazardous waste
must not be offered
to transporters or
TSDFs without
EPA ID numbers
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
II
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
262.12(C)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANA103 IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART B - THE MANIFEST
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
offsite transportation;
manifest preparation
designated facility
permitted to handle
waste
designated alternate
facility
procedures when
transporter unable to
deliver
exemption for gener-
ators of 100 kg to
1000 kg/month under
specified conditions
II.5
II
li
II
23
262.20(a)
262,20(b)
262.20(c)
262.20(d)
262.20{e)
262.20(eM1)
262.20(eM1)m
262.20(e)(1)(ii)
262.20(e)(2)
-
1 ACQUISITION OF MANIFESTS
use consignment
State's manifest
use generator State's
manifest
obtain manifest from
any source
5
5
5
262.21 (a)
262.21 (b)
262.21 (c)
NUMBER OF COPIES
file copies; copy
returned to qenerator
II
262.22
Page 2 of 13
DC3.9 - 12*11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C3: Standards Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHICK-
LIST
REFERENCED
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALB5"'1S: "
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRIN0ENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
USE OF THE MANIFES1
generator's duties
generator's sianature
initial transporter's
siqnature & date
retain copy
copies to
transporter
shipment by water
shipment by rail
shipment to state
lacking authorization
for particular waste
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
71
262.23(3)
262.23(a)(1)
262.23(a)(2)
262.23(aK3)
262.23(b)
262.23(c)
262.23{d)
262.23(dM1)
262.23(d)(2)
262.23(dK3)
262.23(e)
-
SUBPART C - PRE-TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS
PACKAGING
package according to
DOT regulations on
packaging under 49
CFR 173, 178 & 179
II
262.30
LABELING
label according to
DOT regulations on
hazardous materials
under 49 CFR 172
II
262.31
Page 3 of 13
DC3.9 - 12M1/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C3: Standards Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHICK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL06 IS:
EQUIV.
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
MARKING
mark each package
according to DOT
regulations on
hazardous materials
under 49 CFR 172
mark each container
of 110 gal, or less;
specific wording in
accordance with
49 CFR 172.304
II
II
262.32(a)
262.32(b)
PLACARDING
placard prior to off-
site shipment; DOT
regulations for
hazardous materials
under 49 CFR 1 72,
Subpart F
II
262.33
ACCUMULATION TIME
90 days accumulation
without a permit;
specific provisions
which must be met
specific portions of
265 which apply
date each period of
accumulation begins
is marked and visible
labeled or marked
"Hazardous Waste"
compliance with 265,
Subparts C and D,
265.16, and
268.7(a){4)
consequences of
accumulation for longer
than 90 days; criteria
for extension beyond
this period
II. 23
11,28
II
II
11,78
II
262.34(a)
262.34(a)(1)
262.34(a)(2)
262.34(aH3)
262.34(a)(4)
262.34(b)
Page 4 of 13
DC3.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C3: Standards Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
accumulation of up
to 55 gal. of hazar-
dous waste or 1 qt.
acutely hazardous
at point of generation;
provisions which must
be complied with; pro-
cedure if quantity
limit is exceeded
180 day accumulation
for 100 kg to 1,000
kg/month generator,
provided:
quantity never
exceeds 6000 kg
compliance with 265,
Subpart I, except
265.176
compliance with
265.201
compliance with
262.34{a)(2)&(3) and
265, Subpart C
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
12
23
23
23,28
28
23,28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
262.34fe){1)
262.34{c){1)0)
262.34(c)(1HH)
262.34{c)(2)
262.34(d)
262.34(d)(1)
262.34(d)(2)
262.34(d)(3)
262.34{d)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 5 of 13
DC3.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C3: Standards Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
2 compliance with
specific emergency
precautions and
procedures
200 miles or more
transport, 270 day
accumulation time;
compliance with
262.34W)
requirements if
accumulation in
excess of 6000 kg
or longer than 180
days (270 days)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
23,28
23
23
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
262.34{d)(5)
262.34(d)(5)fl)
262.34(d)(5)(ii)
262.34(d)(5HH)(A)
262.34(d)(5Kii)(B)
262.34(d)(5)(ii)(C)
262.34fd)(5Hi!i)
262.34(d)(5Kiv)
262.34(dK5)(iv)(A)
262,34(d)(5MivMB)
262.34(d)(5)(iv)(C)
26Z34(d)(5)(iv)
(CM1H5)
262.34(e)
262.34(0
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
SUBPART D - RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
RECORDKEEPING
manifest copy reten-
tion for 3 years
biennial report and
exception report
retention for 3 years
II
il,t1
262.40(a)
262.40(b)
Page 6 of 13
DC3.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C3: Standards Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
test results and waste
analyses retention for
3 years
automatic extension of
retention periods
during unresolved
enforcement action
cHKK-
LIST
REFERENCE
II
II
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
262,4Q(c)
262.40(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATS ANAL5S 15:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
BIENNIAL REPORT
off-site shipper must
submit a biennial
report; form used and
what must be
submitted
EPA ID number
calendar year covered
off-site TSD facility
information
transporter information
hazardous waste in-
formation and how it
must be reported
describe efforts to
reduce volume and
toxicity
a description of
changes in
volume and toxicity
3 certification
on-site handler; sep-
arate annual reports
for exports
11,1,31
II
II
11,31
11.31
11,31
17 D
17 D
M,
17 D
11,1,31
262.41 (a)
262,41 (a)(1)
262.41 (a)(2)
262.41 (a)(3)
262.41 (a){4)
262.41 (a)(5)
262.41 (a)(6)
262.41 (a)(7)
262.41 (a)(8)
262.41 (b)
•
-
EXCEPTION REPORTING
generators of greater
than 1000 kg/month;
requirements if
manifest copy not
received within
35 days
II.42
264.42(a)(1)
Page 7 of 13
DC3.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C3: Standards Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
if manifest copy not
received within 45
days, must submit
exception report;
what the report must
include
generators of 100
to 1000 kg/month;
requirements if
manifest copy not
received within
60 days
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
II.42
42
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
262,42(a)(2)
262.42(a)(2)(i)&(iO
262,42(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
ADDITIONAL REPORTING
additional information
may be required
under 2002(a) and
3002(6) of RCRA
regarding quantity
and disposition
II
262.43
-
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERATORS OF BETWEEN 100 AND 1000 KG/MONTH
requirements the
generator of 100 to
1000 kg/month is
subject to
23,42
262.44
262.44(a)
262.44(b)
262.44(c)
4,5
SUBPART E - EXPORTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
APPLICABILITY
establishes
applicability
31
262.50
6 DEFINITIONS
"consiqnee"
"EPA Acknowledgment
of Consent"
"primary exporter"
31
31
31
262.51
262.51
262.51
Page 8 of 13
DC3.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C3: Standards Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"receiving country"
"transit country"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
31
31
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
262,51
262.51
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
exports prohibited
unless:
notification
consent of
receivinq country
EPA Acknowledgment
of Consent
conformation
to terms
31
31
31
31
31
262.52
262.52(8)
262.52(b)
262.52(0)
262.52(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO EXPORT
contents of
notification
office to
notify
changes in original
notification
31
31
31
262.53(a)
262.53(a)(1)
262,53(a)(2)
262.53(a)(2)(i)
262.53(a)(2Hii)
262.53(a)(2)(iii)
262.53(aH2)(iv)
262.53(aX2)(v)
262.53(a)(2)(vi)
262,53(aH2)(vii)
262.53(aK2Hviii)
262.53(b)
262.53{c)
Page 9 of 13
DC3.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C3: Standards Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
additional
information
EPA notification
to receiving and
transit countries
EPA notification to
primary exporter
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
31
31
31
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
262.53(d)
262.53(e)
262.53(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIAL MANIFEST REQUIREMENTS
compliance with
260.20 through
262.23 requirements;
exceptions:
consignee
alternate consignee
point of departure
item 16 of
manifest
obtaining manifest
acknowledgment of
receipt by consignee
procedures when
unable to deliver
copy of
Consent
manifest copy to
Customs official
at border
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
262.54
262.54(a)
262.54(b)
262.54(c)
262.54(d)
262.54(e)
262.54(0
262.54(g)
262.54(g)(1)
262.54(g)(2)
262.54(g)(3)
262.54(h)
262.54(1)
.
-
—
EXCEPTION REPORTS
exporter requirements
for exception reports
manifest within
45 days
31
31
262.55
262.55(a)
Page 10 of 13
DC3.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C3: Standards Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
confirmation
within 90 days
returned waste
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
31
31
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
262.55(b)
262.55(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG! IS:
EBUI7-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
ANNUAL REPORTS
reporting require-
ments; contents of
report
office
filed with
31
31
262.56(a)
262.56{a)(1)
262.56(aH2)
262.56(a)(3)
262,56(a)(4)
262.56(a)(5)
262.56(a)(5HO&(in
262.56(a)(6)
262.56(b)
-
-
RECORDKEEPING
length to
keep records
retention period
extension
31
31
262.57(a)
262.57{a)(1)
262.57(aM2)
262.57(aK3)
262.57(a)(4)
262.57(b)
I
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
reserved
31
262,58
Page 11 of 13
DC3.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C3: Standards Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG IS:
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART F - IMPORTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
IMPORTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
applicability
manifest
requirements;
exceptions
obtaining manifest
31
31
31
262.60(a)
262.60(b)
262.60(b)(1)
262.60(b)(2)
262.60(c)
SUBPART G- FARMERS
6
FARMERS
provisions for
variance
31 ,t39
262.70
APPENDIX TO PART 262
UNIFORM HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST AND INSTRUCTIONS (EPA FORMS 8700-22 AND
8700-22A AND THEIR INSTRUCTIONS)
uniform hazardous
waste manifest
form; instructions
*,5,
17 D,
31.32,58
Appendix
This section appeared in Base Program Checklist II but was completely reorganized and reworded
by Revision Checklist 5.
Note that 262.34(d)(1)-(4) was originally introduced by Revision Checklist 23. Revision Checklist
28 added a new 262.34(d)(3) and redesignated 262.34(d)(3) and (4) as 262.34(d)(4) and (5).
This requirement appeared in the original program addressed by Base Program Checklist II as
262.41 (a)(6).
This subpart appeared in the original program addressed by Base Program Checklist II (amended
by Revision Checklist 5 and 17 R) as "Special Conditions". However Revision Checklist 31 (51
FR 28664, August 8, 1986) completely changed this subpart renaming it "Exports of Hazardous
Waste".
Page 12 of 13
DC3.9 - 12M1/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C3: Standards Applicable
to Generators of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Special Notes: (1) States cannot assume the authority to receive "Notifications of Intent to
Export." In addition, States are not authorized to transmit such information to foreign countries
through the Department of State or to transmit "Acknowledgements of Consent" (see 50 FR 28678
(August 8, 1986) and the instructions to Appendix J of the Revised SAM for further clarification).
(2) Hazardous waste, identified or listed by the State as part of its authorized program which are
broader in scope (not in the Federal universe), will not be subject to the export regulations.
Note that 262.51 was incorrectly changed to "Farmers" at 52 FR 25760 (July 8, 1987); however,
this error was caught when the Revision Checklist (39) for this rule was developed and it was not
incorporated into this checklist. This section was subsequently moved back to its correct place
and the appropriate 262.51 put back into the CFR by the final rule (53 FR 27164, July 19, 1988)
addressed by Revision Checklist 48.
Page 13 of 13
DC3.9 - 12/11/91
Ji J.
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C4
Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste
40 CFR Part 263 as of June 30, 1990
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOS IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
SCOPE
transportation
standards
on-site transportation
excluded
compliance with
262 required if
transporter:
transports waste into
U.S. from abroad
mixes wastes of
different DOT shipping
descriptions
III
III
III
III
III
263.10(a)
263.10{b}
263.10(c)
263.10(c)(1)
263.1 0(cM2)
-
EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
EPA identification
number required
application for
EPA ID number
III
III
263. 11 (a)
263.1Kb)
TRANSFER FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
exception for storage
of 10 days or less
III.34
263.12
SUBPART B - COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANIFEST SYSTEM AND RECORDKEEPING
THE MANIFEST SYSTEM
manifest required;
conditions for
accepting exported
waste
signature and date;
copy to generator
manifest accompanies
waste; EPA
Acknowledgment
of Consent also
accompanies exports
111,31
111
111.31
263.20(a)
263.20(b)
263.20(c)
Page 1 of 5
DC4.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C4: Standards Applicable
to Transporters of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
procedures when
delivering waste to
another transporter or
to the designated
facility
water transporters,
conditions under
which 263.20(c), (d) &
(f) do not apply
delivered by water
shipping paper; EPA
Acknowledgment of
Consent for exports
signature of owner
signature of
transporter
copies retained
rail shipments; con-
ditions under which
263.201 (c), (d) & (e)
do not apply
duties of the initial
rail transporter
shipping paper; EPA
Acknowledgment of
Consent for exports
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
HI
III
ill
111.31
III
III
III
III
111
111.31
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
263.20(d)
263.20(d)(1)
263.20(d)(2)
263.20(d){3)
263.20(6)
263.20(e)(1)
263.20(e)(2)
263.20(e)(3)
263.20(e)(4)
263.20(e)(5)
263.20{f)
263.20(0(1)
263.20(0(1)0)
263.20(f)(1)(ii)
263.20(f)(1)(iii)
263.20(0(1 HiiWAMC)
263.20(0(1 )(iv)
263.20(0(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
•
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 2 of 5
DC4.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C4: Standards Applicable
to Transporters of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
procedures when
waste is delivered
to designated
facility
procedures when
delivering to non-rail
transporter
acceptance from a
rail transporter by a
non-rail transporter
procedures when
transporting waste
out of U.S.
date waste
left U.S.
signature and
copy retention
return signed copy
to generator
copy to U.S. Customs
official at departure
point
transporters of waste
from a generator of
100 kg/mo to
1000 kg/mo not
subject to 263.20 or
263.22 provided:
reclamation
agreement provided
for in 262.20(e)
CHECK;
LIST
REFERENCE
III
III
III
III
111
III
111,31
31
23
23
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
263.20(0(3)
263.20m(3Hi)
263.20(fH3)(ii)
263.20(f)(4)
263.20(0(4)0)
263.20(0(4)(B)
263.2G(f){5)
263.20(0)
263.20(a)(1)
263.20(aM2)
263.20(g)(3)
263.20(a){4)
263.20(h)
263.20(h)(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
-
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
1HOADER
IN SCOPE
Page 3 of 5
DC4.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C4: Standards Applicable
to Transporters of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
what the transporter
must record
handling of records
3-year record
retention
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
23
23
23
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
263,20(h)(2)
263.20(h)(2)(i)
263.2Q(h)(2)fli)
263.20(h)(2Hiii)
263.20(h)(2Hiv)
263,20(h)(3)
263.20(h)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
f "E5UW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANIFEST
delivery of entire
quantity to:
designated facility
alternate
designated facility
next designated
transporter
designated place
outside the U.S.
requirements if
unable to deliver
waste
III
111
III
III
111
III
263.21 (a)
263.21(aMD
263.21 (a){2)
263.21 (a)(3)
263.21 (a)(4)
263,2Kb)
RECORDKEEPING
3-year record
retention
water transporter, 3
year record retention
of shipping paper
for shipments by
rail:
initial transporter
retains manifest and
shipping paper for
3 years
111
HI
III
III
263.22(8)
263.22(b)
263.22(c)
263.22(c)(i)
Page 4 of 5
DC4.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C4: Standards Applicable
to Transporters of Hazardous Waste (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
final transporter
retains manifest or
shipping paper for
3 years
transporter of waste
out of U.S. retains
manifest for 3 years
automatic extension
of retention periods
cHEek-
LIST
REFERENCE
III
III
III
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
263.22(c)(ii)
263.22(d)
263.22(e)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL66 IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART C - HAZARDOUS WASTE DISCHARGES
IMMEDIATE ACTION
transporter action in
event of discharqe
removal/authorization
by Official
duties of transporter:
notice to National
Response Center
111
III
III
111
263.30{a)
263.30(b)
263.30(c)
263,30(c)(1)
-
written report to DOT
111
263.30(c)(2)
water transporter
must give same
notice as required
by 33 CFR 153.203
for oil and
hazardous substances
Ml
263.30W)
DISCHARQE CLEAN UP
transporter must clean
up hazardous waste
discharge
III
263.31
Page 5 of 5
DC4.9 - 12/11/91
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5
Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
40 CFR Part 264 as of June 30, 1990
Note: Several sections of Part 264, Subpart H, were revised by the September 1, 1988 final rule (53
FR 33938, i.e., reserved Revision Checklist 51), entitled "Standards Applicable to Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities; Liability Coverage."
Pursuant to the settlement agreement resulting from litigation surrounding this rule, EPA will be
amending this rule in the future. States should not incorporate changes made by the September 1,
1988 rule until the amendments are promulgated, even though the changes were incorporated in the
1989 and the 1990 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) when they were published by the Office of
the Federal Register. Paragraphs that were changed, removed, or renumbered by the September 1,
1988 rule are marked with an "V" in this consolidated checklist. Because the September 1988 rule is
the only rule since July 1, 1988 to affect these specific paragraphs, States may use the text of the
1988 CFR as guidance in modifying such paragraphs or in assessing their equivalency with Federal
code. In addition to the changes to existing paragraphs, the September 1, 1988 rule inserted the
following new paragraphs: 264.141 (h), 264.147(a)(4)-(7), 264.147(b)(5)-(7), 264.147(h)-(j), and
264.151 (k)-(m). These paragraphs will not be added to Consolidated Checklist C5 until the ••_
amendments to the rule are published. The following paragraphs were revised by Revision Checklist
51: 264.147(a); 264.147(a)(2)&(3); 264.147{b), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4); 264.147(g), (g)(1), and (g)(2);
and 264.151 (b)&(g)-(j). Revision Checklist 51 removed and reserved 264.147(g)(1)(i) and
redesignated 264.147(h) as 264.147(k).
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
55UIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
purpose
applies to all owners
and operators of
TSDFs with
exceptions
ocean disposal/
permit by rule
UlC/permit by rule
*
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.1(a)
264.1 (b)
264.1(c)
264. 1(d)
Page 1 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
POTW/permit by rule
post-authorization
rulemaking
exceptions
wastes excluded by
261.5
recyclable materials
generator
accumulating waste
in compliance with
262.34
farmers
enclosed treatment
facilities as defined
in 260
elementary neutrali-
zation units as
defined in 260
reserved
person involved in
treatment or
containment activities
during an immediate
response; list of
situations
transfer facilities
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
iV A
IV A
IV A.13
IV A
IV A.48
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1(6)
264. 1(f)
264.1 (flm
264.1 (f)(2)
264.1 (f)(3)
264.1(0)
264.1 (a)(1)
264.1 (a)(2)
264.1 (a)(3)
264.1 (a)(4)
264.1(a)(5)
264.1fa)(6)
264.1(aK7)
264.1 (a)(8)0)
264.1(a)(8)(i)(A)
264.1 (a)(8Hi)(B)
264.1 (a)(8)(i)(C)
264.1 (a)(8)(ii)
264.1 (a)(8)(iii)
264.1 (a)(9)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE I
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
"
Page 2 of 159
DC5.9 - 13/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE, NO. 9541.00-14
SPA i
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5; Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
addition of
absorbent materials
applies to all facilities
that treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous
waste referred to in
268
reserved
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
34
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 (Q)(10)
264. 1(h)
264.2
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
^ STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
RELATIONSHIP TO INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
compliance with 265
until final permit
issued
*
264.3
IMMINENT HAZARD ACTION
enforcement actions
under RCRA 7003
*
264.4
-
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
APPLICABILITY
subpart applies to
hazardous waste
facilities except as
provided in 264.1
264.18{b) applies only
to facilities regulated
under Subparts I-O
and X
*
*,45
264.10(8)
264.10{b)
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
EPA identification
number required
IV A
264.11
REQUIRED NOTICES
hazardous waste from
foreiqn source
hazardous waste from
off-site source
requirements under
ownership transfer
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.12(a)
264.12(b)
264.12{c)
Page 3 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
••J '» •»-
-Ur JL *-
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
— • CHECK
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE AFJAL55 IS!
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
analysis required
prior to handling any
hazardous waste or
264.1 13(d) non-
hazardous waste
data to be included
in the analysis
when analysis must
be repeated
inspect each shipment
develop and follow
written waste
analysis plan:
parameters which will
be analyzed
test methods
sampling method
frequency of reviewing
or repeating analysis
analyses from
generators
meeting of additional
waste analysis
requirements
for surface impound-
ments exempted from
land disposal
restrictions under
268.4(a):
sampling impound-
ment contents
IV A,34,
t64
IV AJ8
IV A
IV A,t64
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A,t64
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A,
16.34,79
34
34
264.13(a)(1)
264.13(aK2)
264.1 3(a)(3)
264.1 3(a)(3)(l)
264.1 3(a)(3)(ii)
264.13(aH4)
264.1 3(b)
264.1 3(b)(1)
264.13(b)(2)
264.1 3(b)(3)
264.13(bM3)ffl
264.13(b)(3)ffl)
264.13(b)(4)
264.1 3(b)(5)
264.1 3(b)(6)
264.13{b){7)
264,13(bM7>m
•
^
Page 4 of 159
DC5.9 -
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
analysis procedures
annual removal of
residues; criteria:
do not meet 268,
Subpart D, treatment
standards
where no treatment
standards established
analysis plan for
off-site facilities
procedures for
identifying each waste
moved at facility
sampling method
used to obtain a
representative sample
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34,39,
50
50
50
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.13(b)(7)(ll)
264.1 3(b)(7) (Hi)
264.1 3(b)(7)(Ili)(A)
264.13(b)(7)(lii)(B)
264.1 3{b)(7)(iH)(B)
(1)
264.13(b)(7)(iii)(B)
(2)
264.13{c)
264.13(c)(1)
264.13(c)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
,
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALM
MORE
STRINGENT
IS-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
SECURITY
prevent unknowing
entry and minimize
unauthorized entry
unless can
demonstrate
264.14(a)(1) & (2)
if demonstration
not successful:
24-hour surveillance
barrier around active
portion and control
of entry
sion
IV A
*
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.14(a)
264.14(a)0)
264.1 4(a)(2)
264.14(b)
264.14(b)0)
264.14(b)(2)(l)
264.14(b)(2)(li)
264.14(0)
GENERAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
what must be
inspected for
develop and follow
written schedule
IV A
IV A
264.15(a)
264.15(b)(1)
Page 5 of 159
DC5.9 - 12M1/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST 05: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
keep schedule at
facility
identify items that
are to be looked for
frequency of
inspection
remedy of problems
inspection uncovers
recordkeeping
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A,
28,45,79
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCHA CITATION
264.15(b)(2)
264.1 5{bM3)
264.15(bH4)
264.15(c)
264.15(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PERSONNEL TRAINING
personnel complete
training to ensure
compliance with 264
director of
training program
must be designed
to respond effectively
to emergencies
timing of instruction
annual review of
initial training
required at 264.1 6(a)
IV A
IV A
IV A
.
IV A
IV A
264.16(a)(1)
264.16{a)(2)
264.16(a){3)
264.16(a)(3)(i)
264.16(aM3Mii)
264.1 6(a)(3Hi!i)
264.16(a)(3Kiv)
264.16(a)(3){v)
264.16(a)(3Mvi)
264.16(b)
264.16(c)
-
Page 6 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
recordkeeping
how long training
records must be kept
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.16(d)
264.1 6(d)(1)
264.16(d){2)
264.16fd){3)
264.16{d)(4)
IV A
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
264.16(6)
!
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
15:
bROADER
IN SCOPE
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE, REACTIVE
precautions to prevent
waste ignition or
reaction
precautions to
prevent specified
reactions
documentation of
compliance with
264.17(a) & (b)
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.1 7(a)
264.17(b)
'264.1 7(b)(1)
264.17{b)(2)
264.17(b)(3)
264.17(b)(4)
264.17(b)(5)
264.17(c)
OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
-
-
LOCATION STANDARDS
seismic
considerations:
distance to
faults
definitions:
"fault"
"displacement"
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.18(a)
264.18(a){1)
264.18(a)(2)
264.18(a)(2)(i)
264.1 8(a)(2)(li)
Page 7 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"Holocene"
floodplains:
if located in 100 year
floodplain, special
construction, unless:
removal procedures
in place
washout would not
be hazardous
considering specific
factors
definitions:
"1 00-vear floodplain"
"washout"
"1 00-vear flood"
prohibition of waste
in salt domes, salt
bed formations,
underground mines,
and caves
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A.45
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
17 E
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.18(a)(2)(iin
264.18(b)
264,1 8(bH1)
264.18(bK1)(i)
264.1 8(bH1)(ii)
264.18(b)(1Hii)(A)
264.1 8(b)(1)(iiMB)
264.1 8(b)mnWC)
264.18(b)(1)Oi)(D)
264.1 8(b)(2)
264.1 8{bM2HI)
264.1 8(b)(2)(ii)
264.18(b)(2){iii)
264.18(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
SUBPART C- PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION
APPLICABILITY
all HW facilities,
except as 264.1
provides
*
264.30
DESIGN AND OPERATION OF FACILITY
requirements regarding
desiqn and operation
IV A
264.31
Page 8 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMiNT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
REQUIRED EQUIPMENT
what a facility must
be equipped with
internal communica-
tions or alarm
telephone or
equivalent
fire extinguisher,
fire control equipment,
spill control equip-
ment, and decon-
tamination equipment
water of adequate
volume and pressure
*
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.32
264.32(3)
264.32(b)
264.32(c)
264.32(d)
TESTING AND MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT
what equipment must
be tested and
maintained
IV A
264.33
ACCESS TO COMMUNICATIONS OR ALARM SYSTEM
handling hazardous
waste-what equipment
personnel must have
immediate access to
what equipment must
be immediately
available when
one employee only
IV A
IV A
264.34(a)
264,34(b)
REQUIRED AISLE SPACE
determination of
space between aisles
reserved
IV A
264.35
264.36
Page 9 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV- 1 MORE
ALENT| STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
ARRANGEMENTS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES
specific arrangements
which must be made
document refusals to
enter into arrangement
in operating record
IV A
IV A
264.37{a)
264.37(a)(1)
264.37(a)(2)
264.37(aK3)
264.37(a)(4)
264.37(b)
•-
SUBPART D - CONTINGENCY PLAN AND EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
APPLICABILITY
applies to all HW
facilities, except as
264.1 provides
*
264.50
PURPOSE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTINGENCY PLAN
contingency plan
required; purpose
when to implement
plan
IV A
IV A
264.51 (a)
264.5Kb)
CONTENT OF CONTINGENCY PLAN
describes actions
to take when
emergency
relationship to
SPCC or other plans
arrangements with
local police, fire
department, etc.
list names and
addresses; keep up
to date; listed in
order to assume
responsibility as
alternates
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.52(3)
264.52(b)
264.52(c)
264.52W)
Page 10 of 159
DC5.9 - 12^11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
list of emergency
equipment at facility
evacuation plan
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.52(8}
264.52(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOQ 15:
' BOOIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
COPIES OF CONTINGENCY PLAN
copies of plan
and all revisions
must be:
maintained at
facility
submitted to
local police,
fire department,
hospitals, etc.
*
IV A
IV A
264.53
264.53(a)
264.53CW
•-.
AMENDMENT OF CONTINGENCY PLAN
when plan must
be reviewed, and If
necessary, amended:
facility permit
revision
plan fails in an
emergency
facility change
list of emergency
coordinators changes
1 list of equipment
changes
*
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A,
t54
264.54
264.54(a)
264.54(b)
264.54{c)
264,54(d)
264.54(e)
EMERGENCY COORDINATOR
duties
IV A
264.55
EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
procedures for
imminent or actual
emergency
release, fire,
explosion
IV A
IV A
264.56{a)
264.56(aK1)
264.56(a)(2)
264.56(b)
Page 11 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
hazard assessment
report of emergency
coordinator's findinos
notify local
authorities
report to on-scene
coordinator or Nation-
al Response Center
coordinator; what the
report must include
measures during
emergency
procedures if facility
stops operation
treatment, storage, or
disposal of material
resulting from
emergency
procedures after
emergency
notifications prior to
resuming operations
operating record
information; written
report to Regional
Administrator
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.56(C)
264.56W)
264.56(d)(1)
264.56(d){2)
264.56(d)(2)(i)
264.56(d)(2)(ii)
264.56(d)(2)(iii)
264.56(dH2)(iv)
264.56(d)(2)(v)
264.56(d)(2Hvi>
264.56(e)
264.56(f)
264.56(0.)
264.56(h)
264.56(h)(1)
264.56(h)(2)
264.56(1)
264.56(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
.
Page 12 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
what the report to
Regional
Administrator
must include
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.56(0(1)
264.56(!)(2)
264.56(0(3)
264.56(i)(4)
264.56(0(5)
264.56(0(6)
264.56(i)(7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUlV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART E - MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING
APPLICABILITY
subpart applies to
both on- and off-site
facilities; exceptions
IV A,
17 D
264.70
USE OF MANIFEST SYSTEM
duties of owner
or operator when
receiving waste
accompanied by
manifest
IV A
264.71 (a)
264.71 (a)(1)
264.71 (a)(2)
264.71 (a)(3)
264.71 (a)(4)
264.71 (a)(5)
Page 13 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
duties of owner
or operator when
receiving waste
accompanied by
shipping paper
facility that
initiates shipment
must comply with 262
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
*
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.71 (b)
264.71 CbMD
264.71 (b)(2)
264.71 (b)(3)
264.71 (b)(4)
264.71 (b)(5)
264.71 (c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EQUIV- MORE
ALENTI STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
MANIFEST DISCREPANCIES
definition of
manifest discrepancies
actions on
discovering a
discrepancy
IV A
IV A
264.72(a)
264.72(a)(1)
264.72(a>(2)
264.72(b)
OPERATING RECORD
written operating
record at facility
information which
must be recorded:
description and
quantity of waste;
dates of treatment,
storaqe, and disposal
location of waste
and quantity at each
location
records and results of
waste analyses
reports of incidents
which require
implementing
contingency plan
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A,
16,34,79
IV A
264.73(a)
264.73(b)
264.73(b)(1)
264.73(b){2)
264.73{b)(3)
264.73(b)(4)
Page 14 of 159
DCS.9 - 1»11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
records and results
of inspections
ground-water monitor-
ing, testing, date,
and corrective action
notices to
qenerators
closure and post-
closure cost estimates
annual certification
regarding waste
minimization
records of hazardous
waste placed in land
disposal units under
extension, petition,
or certification;
268.7(a) notice by
generator
off-site treatment
facility requirements
on-site treatment
facility requirements
off-site land
disposal facility
requirements
on-site land
disposal facility
requirements
off-site storage
facility requirements
on-site storage
facility requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A,
28,45,79
IV A
IV A
17 D
34,50
34,50
34,50
34,50
34,50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.73(bK5)
264.73(b)(6)
264.73(bH7)
264.73(b)(8)
264.73(b){9)
264.73(b)(10)
264.73{b)(11)
264.73(b)(12)
264.73(b)(13)
264.73(b)(14)
264.73(b)(15)
264.73(b){16)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
|
!
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOS
MORi
STRINGENT
-
IS:
&RQADER
IN SCOPE
-
AVAILABILITY. RETENTION. AND DISPOSITION OF RECORDS
all records available
for inspection
retention period
extension under
unresolved enforce-
ment action
copy of records to
Regional Administrator
and local authority
at closure
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.74(a)
264.74(b)
264.74(c)
Page 15 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
Of si If
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (eont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ECJUnT
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
BIENNIAL REPORT
when to submit, what
form, and what must
be reported:
EPA identification
number
calendar year
covered by report
EPA I.D.'s of
generators; name and
address for foreign
generators
description and
quantity of
wastes received
methods of handling
reserved
closure cost estimate;
post-closure cost
estimate
volume and toxicity
reduction efforts
volume and toxicity
reduction achieved
2 signed
certification
IV A.t1
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
30
30
IV A.30
264.75
264.75(a)
264.75(b)
264.75(0)
264.75(d)
264.75(e)
264.75(1)
264.75(0)
264.75(h)
264.75(1)
264.75(i)
•
-
UNMANIFESTED WASTE REPORT
when an unmanlfested
report is required;
form which must be
used; information it
must include
EPA identification
number
date waste received
generator and
transporter EPA
identification numbers;
address and name
IV A.1
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.76
264.76(a)
264.76(b)
264.76(c)
Page 16 of 159
DCS.9 - 12?11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
description and
quantity of
unmanifested waste
handlinq method
signed
certification
explanation of why
unmanifested
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.76(d)
264.76(e)
264,76(f)
264.76(p)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
ADDITIONAL REPORTS
what else must be
reported to Regional
Administrator
releases,
fires, explosions
3 facility closures
as otherwise required
by Subparts F, K
through N, AA and BB
*.t1
IV A
IV A
*,79
264.77
264.77(a)
264.77(b)
264.77(c)
•
•
-
SUBPART F - RELEASES FROM SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS
APPLICABILITY
applies to all HW
facilities; satisfy
requirements of
264.90(a)(2)
what each solid waste
management unit must
comply with
exemptions from
Subpart F's
requirements:
exempted by
264.1
IV A,
17 L
IV A,
17 L
IV A,
t17l
IV A,
t17l
264.90(a)(1)
264.90{a)(2)
264.90(b)
264.90(b)(1)
Page 17 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
operates a unit which
Regional Admin-
istrator finds meets
certain requirements
HW levels not
statistically
significantly above
background levels;
unsaturated zone
monitoring meets
264.278; only for
post-closure care
period
no potential for
migration; certifi-
cation by qualified
geologist or
qeotechnical enqineer
designs and
operates pile in
compliance with
264.250{c)
requirements under
Subpart F apply
during active life;
after closure:
requirements not
apply if all
wastes, etc. removed
or decontaminated
requirements apply
during post-closure
if detection monitoring
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A,
t17 I
IV A,
t17 1
IV A,
t17l
IV A,
t17 I
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.90(b)(2)
264.90(b)(2)fi)
264.90(b)(2)fii)
264.90(b){2Hiii)
264,90(b)(2)(iv)
264.90{b)(2)(v)
264.90(bK2)(vi)
264.90(b)(2Hvii)
264.90{b)(3)
264.90(b)(4)
264.90(bH5)
264,90(c)
264.90(c)(1)
264.90(c)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EHUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
•
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
.
Page 18 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
requirements
apply during
compliance period
if compliance
monitoring or
corrective action
Subpart F require-
ments apply to
miscellaneous units
when necessary to
comply with 264.601
throudh 264.603
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
45
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.90(c)(3)
264.9Q(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV- Mt)RE
ALENT | STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
REQUIRED PROGRAMS
monitoring and
response program
when hazardous
constituents detected
at compliance point;
compliance monitoring;
"detected" defined
corrective action
program when ground-
water protection
standard is exceeded;
"exceeded" defined
corrective action
program when
hazardous constituents
exceed concentration
limits
in other cases
detection monitoring
instituted
specific elements of
monitoring and
response program
specified in permit
IV A
IV A,
55
IV A,
55
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.91 (a)
264.91 (a)(1)
264.91 (a)(2)
264.91 (a)(3)
264.91 (a)(4)
264.91 (b)
•
*
Page 19 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STANDARD
owner must comply
with permit conditions
designed to ensure
that 264.93 hazardous
constituents entering
ground water not
exceed 264.94
concentration limits;
ground-water
protection standard
IV A.55
264.92
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
hazardous
constituents
specified in permit
to which 264.92
ground-water protec-
tion standard applies;
hazardous
constituents
are identified in 261,
Appendix VIII and
have been detected
in uppermost aquifer
IV A
!
264.93(a)
-
-
-
Page 20 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
exclusion of Appendix
VIII constituents from
permit; what Regional
Administrator must
consider before
qrantinq an exemption
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
j
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.93{b)
264.93(b)(1)
264.93(bH1)0)
264.93(b)(1){ii)
264.93(b)(1)(iii)
264.93{b)(1)(iv)
264.93(b)(1Hv)
264.93(b)(1)(vi)
264.93(b)(1)(vii)
264.93(b)(1)(viii)
264.93(b)(1)(lx)
264.93(b){2)
264.93(b)(2)(i)
264.93(b)(2)(ii)
264.93(b)(2Hiii)
264.93(b){2Hiv)
264.93(b)(2)(v)
264.93(b)(2)(v1)
264.93(b)(2)(vii)
264.93(b)(2)(viii)
264.93{b)(2)(ix)
264.93
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
determination
regarding use of
ground water
around facility; ID
of drinking water
sources and exempted
aquifers under 144,8
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.93(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
£i3UW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
CONCENTRATION LIMITS
Regional Administrator
will specify ground-
water concentration
limits for 264.93
hazardous constituents
not exceed
backqround
not exceed Table 1
constituents
not exceed an
alternate limit set
by Regional
Administrator
factors Regional
Administrator will
consider for setting
alternate limits
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.94(a)
264.94(a)(1)
264.94(a){2)
264.94(a)(3)
264.94(M
-
-
-
Page 22 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
potential adverse
effects on ground-
water quality
considering specific
factors
potential adverse
effects on
hydraulically
connected surface-
water quality
considering specific
factors
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.94(b)(1)
264.94(b)(1Hi)
264.94(b)(1)(B)
264.94{b)(1Kiii)
264.94{b)(1)(iv)
264.94{bM1)(v)
264.94(b)(1)(vi)
264.94(b)(1Hvii)
264.94(b)(1)(viii)
264.94(b)(1){ix)
264.94{b)(2)
264.94(b)(2)(n
264.94(b)(2)fli)
264.94(b)(2Kiii)
264.94{bH2)(iv)
264.94(b)(2Mv)
264.94(b)(2Hvi)
264.94(bM2Hvii)
264.94{bK2)(viii)
264.94(b)(2)(ix)
264.94(b)(2)(x)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
feduiV-
ALENT
[
MORE
STRINGENT
iROADER
IN SCOPE
-
-
I i
|
i
i
i
Page 23 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
?•», ?*--''
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
in determining
use of ground water
around facility,
Regional Administrator
must consider any
identification of
underground sources
of drinking water and
exempted aquifers
under 144.8
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.94(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
POINT OF COMPLIANCE
point of compliance
specified in permit
for 264.92 ground-
water protection
standard; point of
compliance defined
definition of waste
management area
IV A
IV A
264.95(a)
264.95(b)
264.95(b)(1)
264.95(b)(2)
""-
COMPLIANCE PERIOD
compliance period
specified in permit
for 264.92 ground-
water protection
standard; definition
of compliance period
when compliance
period begins
end of period;
extension until
meet ground-water
protection standard
of 264.99
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.96(a)
264.96(b)
264.96(c)
Page 24 of 159
DCS.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
1 CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5f ATI ATWLCS 15!
iQUW
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
GENERAL GROUND-WATER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
owner or operator
must comply with the
following ground-water
monitoring program
requirements:
sufficient number of
wells installed at
appropriate locations
and depths that:
represent
background quality
sample wells not
hydrauiically
upgradient where
specific conditions
are met
represent ground-
water quality passing
point of compliance
contamination detec-
tion when migration
to uppermost aquifer
separate ground-water
monitoring units not
needed for multiple
units if meet certain
requirements
well casing
requirements
consistent sampling
and analysis
procedures that
are reliable
appropriate and
accurate sampling
and analysis methods
*
IV A
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A
55
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.97
264.97(a)
264.97{a)(1)
264.97(8X1 Hi)
264.97(aH1 )(iXA)
264.97(8X1 HiXB)
264.97(8X2)
264.97(a)(3)
264.97{b)
264.97(c)
264.97(d)
264.97(d)(1)
264.97(d){2)
264.97(dX3)
264.97(d)(4)
264.97(6}
j
I
'-
•
I
[
i
!
Page 25 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FiDiRAL REQUIREMENT
ground-water surface
elevation determination
for each sample
detection monitoring,
sampling procedures;
number and kinds of
samples, sample size
sequencing of at
least four samples;
requirements to
determine interval
between
alternate sampling
procedure
6 removed
removed
specify statistical
evaluation methods
for ground-water data
and specify in permit;
requirements for use
of listed methods
parametric ANOVA
followed by multiple
comparisons
procedures
ANOVA based on
ranks followed by
multiple comparisons
procedures
tolerance or
prediction interval
procedure
control chart
approach
another statistical
method approved by
Reqional Administrator
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A.55
55
55
55
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.97(f)
264.97(d)
264.97(a)(1)
264,97(a)(2)
264.97(a)(3)
264.97(a)(3)(i)
264.97(a)(3)
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
performance standards
for statistical methods
chosen under
264.97(h):
appropriate for
distribution of
chemical parameters
or hazardous
constituents;
transformed or
distribution-free test
individual well
comparison - 0.01
Type I error; multiple
comparisons - 0.05
Type I error, but
maintain 0.01 Type I
error for individual
wells
for control chart
approach, what must
be approved by
Regional
Administrator
for tolerance or
prediction interval,
what must be
approved by Regional
Administrator
account for data
below detection
limit and
requirements
procedures to correct
or control for
seasonal and spatial
variability '•
maintenance of i
ground-water i
monitoring data in \
facility operating
record; when data
must be reviewed
CHECK- "
LIST
REFERENCE
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.97(1)
264.970) (1)
264,97(i)(2)
264.97(i)(3)
264,97(i)(4)
264.97(i)(5)
264.97(1) (6)
264.97(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANAtoS
MORE
STRINGENT
IS: ~
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 27 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards (or Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
DETECTION MONITORING PROGRAM
owner's
responsibilities:
owner or operator
must monitor for
indicator parameters;
Regional Administrator
will specify
parameters in permit
owner or operator
must have ground-
water monitoring
system at compliance
point and comply with
264,97(a)(2), (b) & (c)
ground-water monitor-
ing program for each
chemical parameter
and hazardous
constituent; record of
ground-water
analytical data
Regional Administrator
specifies frequency of
samples and tests;
four well samples per
well semi-annuaiiy
owner must determine
ground-water flow
rate and direction
at least annually
determine if
statistically significant
evidence of
contamination
methods which
can be used
*
IV A
IV A
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A
IV A.55
IV A.55
264,98
264.98(a)
264,98(a){1)
264.98(a){2)
264.98(a)(3)
264.98(a)(4)
264.98(b)
264.98(c)
264.98W)
264.98(8)
264.98(f)
264.98(f)(1)
•
Page 28 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWEH DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
7 determine evidence of
contamination at each
monitoring well at
compliance point; time
period determined and
specified in permit by
Reqional Administrator
8 what owner or
operator must do if
statistically significant
evidence of
contamination
8 notification of
Reqional Administrator
8 immediate determina-
tion if 264, Appendix
IX constituents are in
qround water
8 for constituents found,
resample in one
month; if confirmed,
form basis of com-
pliance monitoring;
no resample - initial
analysis is basis
application for permit
modification
,9 identification of
Appendix IX
constituent
concentration
8 proposed changes to
ground-water monitor-
ing system
8 proposed additions
or changes to
monitoring frequency
8 proposed concentra-
tion limit or notice
of intent for alternate
concentration limit
8 what must be
submitted within
180 days
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A,55
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A,55
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A,55
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.98{f)(2)
264.98(0)
264.98(q)(1)
264.98(a)(2)
264.98(q){3)
264.98(a)(4)
264.98(a)(4)(0
264.98(q)(4)(ii)
264.98(q)(4){iii)
264.98(a)(4)(iv)
264.98(a)(5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALCxS IS:
'EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 29 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
8 data to justify
alternate concentra-
tion limit
8 engineering feasibility
plan for corrective
action
8 concentration of
264.98(g)(2)
constituents does not
exceed values of
Table 1, 264.94
8 alternate
concentration limit
demonstration that a
source other than
regulated unit caused
contamination
notify Regional
Administrator of
intent to submit
demonstration
within 90 days,
report demonstrating
that another source
caused contamination
or there was an error
in sampling, analysis
or evaluation
within 90 days,
application for permit
modification
continue to monitor
according to detection
monitoring proqram
10 what must be done if
detection monitoring
program no longer
satisfies requirements
removed
10 removed
removed
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A.55
55
55
55
55
55
IV A,
40,55
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A,55
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.98(aM5Hi)
264.98(a)(5Hii)
264.98(aM5)(HHA)
264.98(aM5)(il)(B)
264.98(aH6)
264.98{g)(6){i)
264.98(a)(6)(ii)
264.98(fl)(6)(iil)
264,98(a)(6Hiv)
264.98(h)
264.98(0*
264,98(i)
264.98(k)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STR1NQENT
.
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 30 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EoTJIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROGRAM
owner or operator
responsibilities:
monitor ground water
to determine if in
compliance with
264.92; Regional
Administrator specifies
ground-water protec-
tion standard in the
facility permit
ground-water
monitoring system at
compliance point;
what it must comply
with
Regional Administrator
specifies procedures
and statistical methods
sampling program
for each chemical
parameter or
hazardous constituent
record of ground-water
analytical data
statistical evidence of
increased contamina-
tion of any chemical
parameter or
hazardous constituent
method(s) to determine
statistically
significant evidence
of increased
contamination
within reasonable
time period, determine
if statistically
significant evidence of
increased contamina-
tion at each monitoring
well at compliance
point
*
IV A
IV A
IV A,55
IV A,55
IV A.55
IV A.55
55
55
264.99
264.99(a)
264.99(a)(1)
264.99(aH2)
264.99(aM3)
264.99(a)(4)
264.99(b)
264.99(c)
264.99(c)(1)
264.99
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
determine flow rate
and direction
Regional Administrator
specification of sample
and test frequencies;
four samples per well
semi-annualiy
annual analysis at
each well's com-
pliance point for
all 264, Appendix IX
constituents;
procedures regarding
new constituents not
in. permit
11 actions when
constituents exceeded
264.94 limits
12 demonstration that
increase due to other
sources; what must be
done
13 permit modification
when compliance
monitoring no longer
satisfies 264.99
13 removed
removed
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A,
40,55
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A
IV A.55
IV A
IV A.55
IV A.55
IV A.55
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.99(6)
264,99(f)
264.99(0)
264.99(h)
264.99(hM1)
264.99(h)(2)
264.99{h)(2)(i)
264.99(h)(2)(iH
264.99(0
264.99(0(1)
264.99(0(2)
264.99(0(3)
264.99(0(4)
264.99(i)
264.99(k)
264.99(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 32 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWE1 DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRIN8ENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
owner or operator
responsibilities
take corrective action
to assure compliance
with 264.92 standard;
standards set in
permit
list of hazardous
constituents
concentration limits
compliance point
compliance period
implement corrective
action program to
prevent hazardous
constituents from
exceeding limits;
specific measures
set in permit
permit States time
to begin corrective
action; requirements
in lieu of
264.99{h)(2)
ground-water monitor-
ing program to
demonstrate
effectiveness of
corrective action
corrective action to
remove or treat in
place hazardous
constituents exceed-
inq 264.94 limits
compliance point,
downgradient
property boundary
release beyond
facility boundaries
*
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A,
44 B
44 B
44 B
264.100
264.100(a)
264.1 00(a)(1)
264.100(a){2)
264,1QO(a){3)
264.100(a){4)
264.100(b)
264.100(c)
264.100(d)
264.100(e)
264.100(e){1)
264.100(e)(2)
"
Page 33 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
corrective action
measure must be
completed within
reasonable period
when corrective action
can be terminated
period of
corrective action
report in writing on
effectiveness of
corrective action;
submit semiannually
permit modification if
corrective action
program no longer
satisfies 264.100
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A,
44 B
IV A,
44 B
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.100(e)(3)
264.100(e)(4)
264.100(f)
264.100(a)
264,100{h)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EODTV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
14
14
CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS
if seeking permit,
institute corrective
action to protect
health and environ-
ment from hazardous
waste releases
corrective action
specified in permit;
schedule of compliance
and financial
responsibilltv
corrective action
beyond facility
boundaries
17 L
17 L
44 B
264.101(a)
264.10Kb)
264.1 01 (c)
SUBPART G - CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE
APPLICABILITY
except as 264.1
provides otherwise;
264.111 through
264.115 apply to
all owners and
operators of ail
hazardous waste
management facilities
*
IV A.24
264.110
264.110(a)
Page 34 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
264,116 through
264.120 apply to all
owners and operators
of:
all hazardous waste
disposal facilities
waste piles and
surface impoundments
from which wastes are
removed at closure
tank systems required
under 264.197 to meet
landfill requirements
ensck-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A.24
IV A.24
IV A,24
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.110(0)
264.1 10(b)(1)
264.110(b)(2)
264.1 10(b)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
1
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATS ANAU3S
MORE
STRINGENT
!S:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
CLOSURE PERFORMANCE STANDARD
manner of closinq
minimizes further
maintenance
controls, minimizes,
or eliminates
post-closure escape
complies with require-
ments of Subpart G
plus specific sections
of 264
*
IV A,24
IV A.24
24.45
264.111
264.111(a)
264.111(b)
264.111(c)
\
I
i
i
CLOSURE PLAN; AMENDMENT OF PLAN
written plan required;
contingent closure
plans; submitted with
permit; condition of
permit
what the approved
closure plan must be
consistent with;
furnished on request
removed
removed
content of plan
IV A,
t24
IV A,
t24,45
IV A,
t24
IV A,
t24
IV A.24
264.112(a)(1)
264.112(a)(2)
264.112(a)(3)
264.1 12(a)(4)
264.112(b)
i
Page 35 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
•UP v>_r
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
how each HW
management unit
will be closed
final closure/
maximum extent of
facility not closed
durinq active life
maximum inventory of
hazardous waste ever
on site over active
life
description of steps
needed to remove or
decontaminate all
residues/equipment
other activities to
assure closure
schedule for closure
for each unit; what
schedule must include
estimate year of
final closure for
facilities using trust
funds for financial
assurance
amendment of plan
written request
prior to notification
of partial or final
closure
required written
request when:
changes affect
closure plan
change in expected
year of closure
unexpected events
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
24
24
24
24
24
24
t24
IV A,
24,t54
24,t54
24,t54
24
24
24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.112(b)(1)
264.112(b)(2)
264.112{b)(3)
264.11 2(b)(4)
264.112(b)(5)
264.112(bH6)
264.112(b)(7)
264.112(0)
264.1 12(c)(1)
264,11 2(cH2)
264.1 12(c)(2)fl)
264.11 2(c)(2«TO
264.1 12(cH2)(iii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUlV-
AliNT
MORE
STRINGENT
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
-
Page 36 of 159
DCS.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
submit written request
60 days prior to
change; 30 days after
unexpected event;
surface impoundment
and waste piles
special requirements
Regional
Administrator may
request modification;
procedures
i CHICK-
LIST
REFERENCE
24
24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.112(cH3)
264.1 12(c)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STAT1 Am0S IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
15 Notification of Partial and Final Closure
16 procedures and
requirements for
notification of
partial and final
closure
24
24,t64
t64
24
264.1 12(dHD
264.1 12(dl(2)
264.11 2(dU2W)
264.1 12(d)(2)(li)
264,1 12(dH3)
remove wastes;
decontaminate and
dismantle equipment
t24
264.1 12(e)
CLOSURE; TIME ALLOWED FOR CLOSURE
treat, remove, or
dispose of all
hazardous wastes
within 90 days
of receipt of final
volume of hazardous
waste, or finai
volume of non-
hazardous waste
IV A,
24,t64
264.113{a)
Page 37 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
modification and
demonstration
requirements for
extending period
complete partial or
final closure within
180 days of receipt
final volume
modification and
demonstration
requirements for
extending closure
period
how 264,1 13(a){1) &
(b)(1) demonstrations
must be made
CHECK-
UST
REFERENCE
IV A.24
IV A.24,
164
IV A,
24
IV A,
24.t64
IV A.24
IV A.24,
t64
IV A,
24
24.t64
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.113(aM1MI)
264.113(a)(1MI)(A)
264.113(aK1)(ii)(B)
264.1 13(a)(1)On(C)
264.1 13(a)(2)
264.113(b)
264.1 13(bM1 Mi)
264.1 13tt>M1MHHA)
264.1 13tt>M1Mii)(B>
264.113(b)(1HH)(C)
264.1 13(b)(2)
264.113(c)
264.113(0(1)
264.1 13(c)(2>
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG 15:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t
15 NONHAZARDOUS WAS!
receive only non-
hazardous wastes
after the final receipt
of hazardous wastes
at specified units
FE RECEIPT CONDITIONS
64
264.1 13(d)
Page 38 of 159
DCS.9- 12K1/81
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
permit modification
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
64
FEDERAL fiCRA CITATION
264.11 3(d)(1)
264.1 13fd)mfi)
264.113(d)(1)(ii)
264.1 13(d)(1)(iii)
264.113{d)(1)(iv)
264.1 13(d)(1Mv)
264.1 13(d)(2)
264.113(dW3)
264.1 13WM4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5lj°ilt ANALOQ IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
15 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
special requirements
for surface impound-
ments not in
compliance with liner
and leachate collec-
tion system
requirements
plans which must be
submitted with
request to modify
permit
remove all
hazardous wastes
removal within 90
days; extension
64
64
64
64
264.113(6)
264.11 3fe)(1)
264.113feX1)m
264.1 13(eK1Kii)
264.113(eH2)
264.11 3(e)(3)
Page 39 of 159
DC5.9 - 1»11/81
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
actions to be taken
if a release is
detected
semi-annual
reports
conditions under
which Regional
Administrator may
require closure
actions to be taken if
owner or operator
fails to implement
corrective measures
or If no substantial
progress pursuant to
264.113(e)(6) has
been made
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
64
64
64
64
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 13(e)(4)
264.11 3(e)(4)m
264.113(eU4MI)
264.1 13(e)(4)(iii)
264.1 13(eM5)
264.1 13(e)(6)
264.113
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECk-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SIATt ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
POST-CLOSURE CARE AND USE OF PROPERTY
continue care
30 years
monitoring and
report nq requirements
maintenance and
monitoring for waste
containment systems
reduction or extension
of time period for
post-closure care by
Regional Administrator
conditions for
continuation of
security requirements
of 265.14
limits on post-closure
use of property;
exceptions
post-closure activities
in accordance with
plan as specified In
264.118
IV A.24
IV A,
24.45
IV A,
24,45
IV A.24
IV A.24
IV A.24
IV A.24
264,1 17(a)(1)
264.117(a)(1)(i)
264.117(a)(1)(H)
264.117(a)(2)
264.117(a)(2)(i)
264.117(aM2MI)
264.1 17(b)
264.1 17(b)(1)
264.117(b)(2)
264.117(c)
264.117(0X1)
264.1 17(eH2)
264.1 17(d)
POST-CLOSURE PLAN; AMENDMENT OF PLAN
17 written post-closure
plan; contingent plans;
condition of RCRA
permit
17 activities specified In
post-closure plan
and their frequency
17 monitoring activities
and their frequency
17 maintenance
activities and
their frequency
IV A.24
IV A.24
IV A,
24.45
IV A.24
264,118(3)
264.118(b)
264.118(b)(1)
264.1 18(W(2)
Page 41 of 159
DC5.9 - 12?11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
17 integrity of cap
and final cover
17 function of monitor-
ing equipment
17 person or office
to contact
18 availability and
retention of plan
19 written notification
of or request for
modification of plan
notification or
request may be
made at any time
must submit written
request whenever:
changes that affect
plan
change in expected
closure year
events affecting
plan
timing of modification
request; submittal of
post-closure plan
Regional
Administrator's
request for
modifications
CWCK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A,
24,45
IV A,
24,45
IV A.24
IV A.24
IV A,
24.t54
24.t54
24,t54
24
24
24
24
24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 18(b)(2M)
264.118(b)f2)(ii)
264.118(W(3)
264.118(c)
264.1 18(d)
264.1 18(d)(1)
264.1 18(dH2)
264.1 18fd)(2M)
264.1 18
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
21 requirement to enter
note on deed; survey
plat; submit
certification
22 modification to
remove hazardous
wastes; criteria of
264.117(c); removal
of notation; addition
of notation
— CRECTC —
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A.24
IV A.24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.11 9{b)
264,119(b)(1)
264.119(b)(nm
264.1 19(bH1 Mil)
264. 119(b)(1 Hill)
264.11 9(bM2)
264.119(c)
264.1 19(c)(1)
264.1 19(cH2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE crTATION
STATE mum i§:
KHJW-
AUsNT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION OF POST-CLOSURE CARE
completion of
23 post-closure period
21,22 removed
IV A.24
IV A.24
264.120
264.120(a)
264.1 20(a)(1M3)
264.1 20(W
SUBPART H - FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABILITY
264.142, 264.143,
264.1 47-264.1 S1
requirements;
exceptions
264.144 and 264.145
requirements apply to
disposal facilities
waste piles and
surface impoundments
tank systems
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
28
264.1 40(a)
264.1 40(W
264.1 40(b)(1)
264.1 40(b)(2)
264.1 40(b)(3>
Page 43 of 159
DC5.0- 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
State and Federal
government
exemptions
CheCK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.140(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG
EHJWT
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS AS USED IN THIS SUBPART
"closure plan"
"current closure
cost estimate"
"current post-closure
cost estimate"
"parent corporation"
"post-closure plan"
terms used in
financial tests
"assets"
"current assets"
"current liabilities"
"current plugging and
abandonment cost
estimate"
"independently
audited"
"liabilities"
"net worWna capital"
"net worth"
"tangible net
worth"
"bodily Injury" and
"property damage"
"accidental
occurrence"
"legal defense
costs"
"nonsudden accidental
occurrence"
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
24
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.141(a)
264.141(b)
264.1 41 (c)
264.141 (d)
264.141(6)
264.1 41 (ft (Intro)
264.1 41(f)
264.1 41 (f)
264.1 41 (f)
264.1 41 (f)
264.141(0
264.1 41 (f)
264.1 41 (f)
264.141(1)
264.1 41 (f)
264.141(0)
264.141(0)
264.141(0)
264.141(0)
Page 44 of 159
DCS.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"sudden accidental
occurrence"
CHECK-'
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.141(0)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EoIIIV-
L ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
L IN SCOPE
COST ESTIMATE FOR CLOSURE
owner or operator
must have written
cost estimate
24 equal to cost of
final closure
based on costs of
hiring third party
no incorporation
of salvaqe value
no incorporation
of zero cost
adjust closure cost
estimate for inflation
first adjustment
subsequent
adjustments
revised closure cost
estimate
cost estimates to be
kept at facility
IV A,
24,45
24
24
24,t64
24,t64
IV A.24
IV A
IV A
IV A,24
IV A
264.142(a)
264.142(a)(1)
264.142(a)(2)
264.142(a)(3)
264.142(a)(4)
264.142(b)
264.1 42(b)(1)
264.1 42(b)(2)
264.142(c)
264.142(d)
-
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR CLOSURE
options to establish
financial assurance
closure trust fund;
requirements;
trustee must have
authority
wording identical to
264.1 51 (a){1);
Schedule A update
annual payments;
npay-in_period"
first payment for new
facility; subsequent
payments
payments for
permitted facility
accelerated payments
*
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.143
264.143(a)(1)
264.143(a)(2)
264.143(a)(3)
264,143(a)(3)(i)
264.143(a)(3)(ii)
264.143(a)(4)
Page 45 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
payments if previous
use of alternate
mechanisms
compare new estimate
to trust fund
release of excess
amount
substitution of
other financial
assurance
timing of release
of funds
reimbursement for
closure activities
termination of trust
if alternate financial
assurance or release
from 264.143
requirements
surety bond
guaranteeing payment
into a closure trust
fund; requirements;
obtain from an
acceptable surety
company
wording identical to
264.151{b)
establish standby
trust fund
trust agreement
submitted with
surety bond
until standby trust
fund is funded, fol-
lowinq not required:
payments into
trust fund
Schedule A update
annual valuations
notices of
nonpayment
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A.24
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 43(a)(5)
264.1 43(a)(6)
264.1 43(a)(7)
264.1 43(a){8)
264.143(a)(9)
264.143(a)(10)
264.1 43(a)(11)
264.1 43(a)(11)(i)
264.143(aK11Kii)'
264.1 43(b){1)
264.1 43{b)(2)
264.143(b){3)
264.143(b)(3)fl)
264,143(bK3)(ii)
264.1 43(bX3HiiKA)
264.1 43(b)(3)(ii)(B)
264.1 43(b)(3)(li)(C)
264.143(b)(3)(li)(D)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MQRfe
STRINQENT
i
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 46 of 159
DC5.9 - 1211/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
surety bond
quarantees:
funding of standby
trust fund
fund equal to penal
sum within 15 days
of administrative
or judicial order
alternate financial
assurance following
notice of
cancellation
when surety
becomes liable
penal sum equal to
current cost estimate
penal sum increase
or decrease
surety may cancel
bond after 120 days
owner or operator
may cancel bond
if written consent
surety bond
guaranteeing
performance of
closure; requirements;
obtain from
acceptable surety
company
identical wording
as in 264.151(0)
establish standby
trust fund
trust agreement
submitted with
surety bond
until standby trust
fund is funded, the
following not required:
payments to trust
fund
Schedule A update
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A,24
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264,143(b)(4)
264.1 43(W(4)fl)
264.1 43{b)(4)(ii)
264,1 43(b)(4)(iii)
264.143(b) (5)
264.1 43(b)(6)
264.1 43(b)(7)
264.143(b)(8)
264.143(b)(9)
264.143(cH1)
264.1 43(cH2)
264.143(0) (3)
264.1 43(c)(3)(i)
264.1 43(cH3)(ii)
264.1 43(c)(3)(ii){A)
264.143(eK3)(ii)(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
5TATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
t
!
Is:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
"
I
i
Page 47 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
annual valuations
notices of
nonpayment
what the bond
must quarantee
surety will become
liable when owner/
operator fails to
perform as bond
guarantees; following
final Administrative
Order perform final
closure or deposit
penal sum in standby
trust fund
amount of penal sum
if current closure cost
estimate increases to
an amount greater
than penal sum, then
increase penal sum
within 60 days
surety may cancel
bond; procedures
owner or operator
may cancel bond if
Regional Administra-
tor consents in writing;
conditions
surety not liable for
deficiencies in closure
performance after
Regional Administrator
releases owner or
operator from requiring
264.143
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A,24
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 43(c)(3)(ii)(C)
264.1 43(c)(3)(il)(D)
264.143(c)(4)
264.1 43(c)(4)(i)
264.143(c)(4)fll)
264.1 43(c){5)
264.1 43(cM6)
264.143(c)(7)
264.143(c)(8)
264.1 43(c)(9)
264.1 43(cH9Xn
264.143fcH9)(ii)
264.1 43(c)(10)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
-
BROADiR
IN SCOPE
-
Page 48 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
closure letter
of credit; when
letter must be
submitted to
Regional Administra-
tor; conditions of
letter and who can
issue it
identical to
wording in 264.1 51 (d)
establish standby trust
fund; meets require-
ments of 264.143(a)
except:
originally signed
duplicate to Regional
Administrator with
letter of credit
unless standby trust
fund is funded, the
following are not
required:
payments into
trust fund
Schedule A update
annual valuations
notices of nonpayment
letter of credit
accompanied by letter
from owner/operator;
information it must
contain
terms of letter
of credit
issued in amount
equal to current
closure cost estimate
except as provided in
264.143{q)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.143(d)(1)
264.1 43(d)(2)
264.1 43(d)(3)
264.143(dH3)(i)
264.143(d)(3)(il)
284.143(d)(3)fli)(A)
264.143{d)(3Hii)(B)
264.143(d)(3)fli)(C)
264.1 43(d)(3)OD(D)
264.143(d){4)
264,143{d)(5)
264.143(d)(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
. 'EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
i
Page 49 of 159
DC5.8 - 12/11/81
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
if current closure cost
estimate increases to
an amount greater
than penal sum, then
must increase penal
sum within 60 days;
actions when closure
costs decrease
after final RCRA 3008
determination,
Regional Administrator
may draw on letter of
credit
if no alternate finan-
cial assurance,
Regional Administrator
can draw on letter of
credit; procedures for
doing so
conditions under which
the Regional Admin-
istrator will return the
letter of credit for
termination
closure insurance
must conform to
264.143(e) require-
ments; submit
certificate to Regional
Administrator; insurer
requirements
identical to
264.151(e) wording
amount of insurance
policy
what the policy
must quarantee
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A.24
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.143(d)(7)
264.143(d)(8)
264.143(d){9)
264.143(d)(10)
264.1 43(d)(10)(i)
264.143(dK10)(ii)
264.143(e)(1)
264.143(e)(2)
264.143(e)(3)
264.1 43(e)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EOOl^"
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 50 of 159
DC5.9 - 12*11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 8
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
owner/operator may
request reimburse-
ments; conditions for;
procedures of Regional
Administrator if max-
imum closure cost is
greater than face
value of policy
policy must be in full
force until Regional
Administrator consents
to termination;
violations
assignment of policy
to successor
insurer cannot
terminate except for
failure to pay; re-
newal; procedures if
failure to Day
conditions that policy
will remain in full force
and effect in the event
that the listed
circumstances occur
owner/operator
responsibilities and
procedures when
current closure cost
estimate increases/de-
creases to an amount
greater/less than
face amount of policy
conditions under which
Regional Administrator
will allow termination
of policy
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A,24
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264. 143(e) (5)
264.143{e)(6)
264.143(e)(7)
264.143(e)(8)
264.1 43(e)(8)(i)
264,143(e)(8Xii)
264.143(e)(8)(ii!)
264.143(e)(8)(iv)
264.143(e)(8)(v)
264.143(e)(9)
264.143{e)(10)
264.143(e)(10Ki)
264.143(e)(10)fin
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
I
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 51 of 159
OC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
financial test
and corporate
guarantee for closure;
owner/operator must
satisfy 264.1 43(f)(1)(i)
or (ii) requirements to
pass financial test
what owner/operator
must have:
two of three specified
financial ratios
net working capital
and tangible net worth
relative to closure/
post-closure estimates
tangible net worth of
at least $10 million
90% of assets
in U.S.
what owner/operator
must have:
bond rating
tangible net worth at
six times sum of
closure/post-closure
cost estimates
tangible net worth
at least $10 million
90% of assets
in U.S.
definitions of "current
closure and post-
closure cost
estimates" and
"current plugging
and abandonment
cost estimates"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A.24
IV A
IV A.24
IV A
IV A
IV A.24
IV A
IV A.24
IV A,24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 43(0(1)
264.143(0(1 MO
264.1 43(0(1 )(I)(A)
264.143(fl(1)(!)(B)
264.143(0(1)(i)(C)
264.1 43
264.143(0(1)01)
264.1 43(0(1 )(li)(A)
264.1 43(0(1 )(ii)(B)
264.143(0(1)(II)(C)
264.1 43(0 (1)(!I)(D)
264.143(0(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
S
EQUIV-
ALENT
3TATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
•
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
I
Page 52 of 159
DC5.9 - 1211/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
what the owner/
operator must submit
to the Regional
Administrator to
demonstrate he
meets the financial
test
when 264.143(0(3)
items must be
submitted
updates at close of
each fiscal year
owner/operator
responsibilities if no
longer meets 264.143
(f)(1) requirements
what Regional Admin-
istrator may do if
suspects owner/
operator no longer
meets 264.143(0(1)
when Regional Admin-
istrator may disallow
test
when 264.143(f){3)
items no longer need
to be submitted
requirement may be
met by corporate
guarantee; conditions
which guarantor and
guarantee must meet
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 43(f)(3)
264,1 43(f)(3)(l)
264.1 43(0(3)0!)
264.143(f)(3)(iii)
264.143(0(3)(iii)(A)
264.1 43(fl(3)(IH)(B)
264.143(f)(4)
264.143(0(5)
264.143(0(6)
264.143(0(7)
264.143(0(8)
264.143(0(9)
i 264.143(0(9)0)
i 264.143(0(9)(ii)
264.143(0(10)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5
EQUIV-
ALENT
I
>TATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
I
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
i
Page 53 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
what the terms of the
corporate guarantee
must provide
use of multiple
financial mechanisms;
conditions which must
be met
use of financial
mechanism for
multiple facilities;
conditions which must
be met
release of owner/
operator from the
requirements of
264.143
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A.24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.143(fK10){i)
264.143(f)(10)(ii)
264.143(f)(1<»(ffi)
264.143(0.)
264.1 43(h)
264.143(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ECU VF
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
COST ESTIMATE FOR POST-CLOSURE CARE
detailed written
estimate, in current
dollars, of annual cost
of post-closure
monitoring and
maintenance
post-closure cost
estimate based on
hiring third party
to conduct care
calculation of
estimate
adjust for
inflation; specifications
on when this must be
done; inflation factor
first adjustment
subsequent
adjustments
revise post-closure
care estimate when
post-closure plan
changes
IV A,
24,45
IV A.24
IV A.24
IV A.24
IV A
IV A
•
IV A.24
264.1 44(a)
264.144(a)(1)
264.144(a)(2)
264.1 44(b)
264.1 44(b)(1)
264.144(b)(2)
264.144(0)
l
Page 54 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
what must be
kept at facility
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264,144(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EoTJW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR POST-CLOSURE CARE
deadline for obtaining
financial assurance;
options from which
owner may choose
post- closure
trust fund;
requirements which
trust and trustee
must meet; submit to
Regional Administrator
trust must have
identical wording to
that specified in
264.1 51 (a)(1);
formal certifica-
tion of acknowledg-
ment; Schedule A
annual payments;
procedures and
formulas for
determining
the value at which
fund must be main-
tained
first payment of post-
closure trust fund after
another mechanism
was used
after pay-in period,
what must be done if
fund value is less than
new estimate
written request to
Regional Administrator
for release of excess
in fund
',24
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
;
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.145
264.1 45{a){1)
264.145(a){2)
264.145(a)(3)
264.145(a)(3)(l)
264.145(a)(3Hii)
264.1 45(a)(4)
264.145(a)(5)
i
264.145(aK6)
i
264.1 45(a)(7)
Page 55 of 159
DCS.9 -
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
other financial pro-
cedure if substitute
assurance for all or
part of fund
within 60 days after
request for fund re-
lease, Regional Ad-
ministrator will instruct
trustee to do so
fund release during
post-closure
reimbursement for
post-closure care
expenditures
conditions under which
a Regional Administra-
tor will terminate a
trust
surety bond
guaranteeing payment
into a post-closure
fund; specific
conditions which
surety and company
issuing surety
must meet
surety bond wording
must be identical to
that specified In
264.151(b)
establish a stand-by
trust; trust must meet
264.145{a) require-
ments except:
originally signed
duplicate to Regional
Administrator
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A.24
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.145(aX8)
264.145(a)(9)
264.145(a)(10)
264.145(a)(11)
264.145(a){12)
264.145(a)(12)(i)
264.145(a)(12)(ii)
264.1 45(b)(1)
264.145{bK2)
264.1 45(b)(3)
264,1 45{b){3Ki)
ANALOQOUS
STATE CITATION
S
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
•
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
—
i
I
i
I
Page 56 of 159
OC5.9 - 12/11/91
' -l.;i ) ' •
*J> * t*
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
until standby trust
is funded, specific
requirements that are
not required
the bond must guaran-
tee that the owner/
operator will do the
following:
fund the standby trust
equal to penal sum
before begin final
closure
fund standby trust fund
equal to penal sum
within 15 days of
order to close
provide alternate finan-
cial assurance
when surety
becomes liable
what penal sum must
be equal to
adjustment to penal
sum due to post-
closure cost estimate
increase/decrease
conditions under which
surety may cancel
bond
conditions under which
owner or operator may
cancel bond
surety bond
guaranteeing per-
formance of
post-closure care
conditions surety bond
and surety company
must meet
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A.24
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.145(W(3)fll)
264.145(W(3)(!!)(A)
284.145{b)(3)fli)(B)
264.145(b)(3)(»)(C)
264.145(b)(3)(ii)(D)
264.1 45(b)(4)
264.145(b)(4Hi)
264.145(b)(4)(ii)
264.1 45(b)(4)(iii)
264.145{b){5)
264.145(b)(6)
264.145(b)(7)
264.145{bM8)
264.1 45(b){9)
264.145(c)
264.145(c)(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
1
s
EQUIV-
ALENT
i
TATE ANALOG
MORE
STRIN0ENT
-
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
i
Page 57 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
j/o
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
identical wording to
264.15KC)
establish standby trust
fund; meet 264,145(a)
requirements except:
originals and duplicate
of trust agreement to
Regional Administrator
unless standby trust
fund is funded
according to section
requirements, specific
procedures that are
not required
what the bond must
guarantee
when the surety
becomes liable; keyed
to final administrative
3008 determination
what penal sum must
be equal to
adjustments to penal
sum due to post-
closure cost estimate
increase/decrease
approval of decrease
in penal sum
conditions under which
surety may cancel
bond
conditions under which
owner or operator
may cancel bond
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A.24
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264,145(eH2)
264.1 45(c)(3)
264.1 45(cH3Hi)
264.1 45{cK3)(ii)
264.1 45(c){3H!i)(A)
264.145(cK3)(ii)(B5
264.145(c)(3KiWC)
264.145(c)(3Hii)(D)
264.1 45(c)(4)
264.145(c)(4Hi)
264.145(c)(4Kii)
264.145(c)(5)
264.1 45(cH6)
264.1 45(c)(7)
264.1 45(c)(8)
264.1 45(cH9)
264.1 45(c)(10)
264.145{cH10Mi)
264.145(c)(1QMii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 58 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
what the surety is not
liable for
post-closure
letter of credit
conditions the letter of
credit and its issuing
institution must meet
identical wording to
that specified in
264.1 51 (d)
establish standby trust
fund; meet 264.145(a)
conditions, except:
originally signed
duplicate of trust
agreement to
Regional Administrator
unless standby trust
fund is funded,
specific items not
required
letter of credit must be
accompanied by letter;
what letter must
contain
terms of letter of
credit
amount of letter of
credit
adjustments to amount
of credit due to
increase/decrease in
post-closure cost
estimate
conditions under which
amount of letter of
credit can be de-
creased
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A.24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.145(cX11)
264.145(d)
264.145(d)(1)
264.145(d)(2)
264,145(d)(3)
264.145(d)(3)(i)
264.145(dK3)(ii)
264.145(d)(3)(ii)(A)
264.145{d)(3Mii)(B)
264.145(d)(3MiiMC)
264.145(d){3)(ii)(D)
264.145{d){4)
264.1 45{d)(5)
264.145(d){6)
264.1 45(dH7)
264.1 45(d)(8)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EOUW^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
i
Page 59 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
after final 3008 admin-
istrative determination,
Regional Administrator
may draw on credit
when the Regional
Administrator can draw
on letter of credit
termination of
letter of credit
post-closure
insurance; conditions
the insurance and the
insurer must meet
wording identical to
wording specified in
264.151(e)
"face amount" policy
must be issued for
what policy must
guarantee
request for reimburse-
ment; procedures for
reimbursement
maintain policy in full
force until Regional
Administrator consents
to terminate; failure to
pay
assignment of policy to
successor
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A,24
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A.24
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.145(d)(9)
264.145(d){10)
264.1 45{d)(11)
264.1 45(d)(11 Hi)
264.1 45(d)(11)(ii)
264,1 45(e)(1)
264.145(eM2)
264.1 45(eM3)
264.145(eM4)
264.1 45(e){5)
264.1 45(e)(6)
264.145(e)(7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
E"CuW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
•
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•
Page 60 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
excepting failure to
pay, policy must pro-
vide that insurer may
not cancel, terminate
or fail to renew; con-
ditions under which
policy remains in full
force following date
of expiration
adjustments to face
amount due to
increase/decrease in
post-closure cost
estimates
annual increase of
face amount
conditions under which
insurance policy may
be terminated
financial test and
corporate guarantee
for post-closure
care; pass financial
test; criteria for
passinq test
specific criteria
have two of the three
specified ratios
net working capital and
tangible net worth at
six times sum of
current closure and
post-closure cost esti-
mates and plugging and
abandonment cost
estimates
tangible net worth
at least $10 million
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A.24
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.145(e)(8)
264.145(e)(8)(i)
264.145(e)(8Mii)
264.145(eH8)(iii)
264.1 45(e)(8)(iv)
264.145(e)(8)(v)
264.145(e)(9)
264.145(e){10)
264.145(6)01)
264.1 45(e)(11)(l)
264.145(e)(11)(ii)
264.145(f)(1)
264.145(f)(1)(i)
264.145(f)(1)(i)(A)
264.145(f)(1)(i)(B)
264.145(fM1)(iHC)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 61 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
•J I
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
90% of assets in U.S.
or six times sum of
current closure/post-
closure cost estimate
and current plugging
and abandonment
costs
owner or operator
must have:
a specified
bond rating
tangible net worth
six times sum of cur-
rent closure/post-
closure cost estimates
and plugging/abandon-
ment cost estimates
tangible net worth of
at least $10 million
90% of assets in U.S.
or six times sum of
current closure/post-
closure cost estimate
and current plugging
and abandonment
costs
definition of "current
closure and post-
closure cost estimates"
and "current plugging
and abandonment
cost estimates"
to demonstrate meets
264.1 45(f)(1) test,
items which must be
submitted to Regional
Administrator
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A, 24
IV A
IV A
IV A, 24
IV A
IV A.24
IV A.24
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 45(0(1 HMD)
264. 145(0(1 Mil)
264.145(0(1 )00(A)
264.145(0(1)00(8)
264.145(0(1)00(0)
264.1 45(0(1 )(H)(D)
264.145(0(2)
264.145(0(3)
264.145(0(3)0)
264. 145(0(3)00
264.145(0(3)010
264.1 45(0(3)OM)(A)
284.145(0(3)(iH)(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG is:
1S01V-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 62 of 159
DCS .9 - 12/11/81
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
when items must be
submitted
when updated
information must
be submitted
responsibilities
when 264.1 45(f)(1)
requirements are no
lonqer met
Regional Administra-
tor's actions when
suspects owner/
operator no longer
meets 264.1 45(f)(1)
when Regional Admin-
istrator may disallow
use of test
when Regional Admin-
istrator may approve
decrease in current
post-closure cost
estimates
specific conditions
under which
264.145(f)(3) items no
longer need to be
submitted
corporate guarantee
may meet requirement
264.145; conditions
Guarantee must meet
use of multiple
financial mechanisms
use of a financial
mechanism for
multiple facilities
release of the owner
or operator from the
requirements of
264.145
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A.24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 45(fH4)
264.145(0(5)
264,1 45(f)(6)
264.145(f)(7)
264.145(0(8)
264.145(0(9)
264.145(0(10)
264.1 45(0(1 0)(i)
264,145(0(10)01)
264.145(0(11)
264.145(0(11)0)
264.145(0(11)0!)
264.1 45(0 (11)(iii)
264.145(0.)
264.145(h)
264.145(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
£
EQUIV-
ALENT
i
STATE ANALOG
I^ORE
STRINGENT
.
-
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 63 of 159
DCS.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
USE OF A MECHANISM FOR FINANCIAL ASSURANCE OF BOTH CLOSURE AND POST-
CLOSURE CARE
financial assurance
requirements for both
closure and post-
closure can be met
by specific types of
mechanisms which
meet 264.143 and
264. 1 45 specifications ;
amount of funds which
must be available
IV A
264.146
LIABILITY REQUIREMENTS
coverage for sudden
accidental occur-
rences; ways liability
insurance may be
demonstrated
liability insurance
meetina the following:
attachment of Hazard-
ous Waste Facility
Liability Endorsement
or Certificate of
Liability Insurance;
required wording;
submittal of signed
duplicate original
minimum requirements
insurer must meet
meet financial test or
use corporate guar-
antee for liability
coverage as specified
in 264.147(a)
ways owner/operator
may demonstrate
required liability
coverage; minimum
coveraqe amount
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A,
t27
IV A,
t27
264.147(a)
264.147(a)(1)
264.147(a)(1)(i)
264.147(a)(1)(iO
264.147(a)(2)
264.1 47(a)(3)
-
Page 64 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
V coverage for
nonsudden accidental
occurrences; ways
coverage may be
demonstrated
demonstrate by having
liability insurance with
the following require-
ments:
attachment of Hazard-
ous Waste Facility
Liability Endorsement
or Certificate of
Liability Insurance;
required wording;
submittal of signed
duplicate original
minimum requirements
for insurer
V pass financial test or
use corporate guar-
antee for liability
coverage as specified
in 264.1 47 (f)&(g)
V other ways may
demonstrate liability
coverage; minimum
coveraqe amount
V deadlines for demon-
strating liability
coveraqe
requests for variance
from 264.147(a) or (b)
requirements; form of
variance requirements
adjustments to required
financial responsibility
levels by Regional Ad-
ministrator; criteria
which must be used
CHECk-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A.45
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A,
t27
IV A,
t27
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.147(b)
264.147(b)(1)
264.147(b)(1)(i)
264,147(b)(1){ii)
264.147{b)(2)
264.147(b)(3)
264.147(b){4)
264,147(b)(4Xi)
264.147(b)(4)(ii)
264.147(b)(4){lfl)
264.147(c)
264,147(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATi CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUl\T
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 65 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
when liability coverage
may be terminated
financial test for
liability coverage;
criteria of
265.1 47(f)(1)(l) or
(ii) must be met
what the owner or
operator must have
"amount of liability
coverage"
three items the owner
or operator must
submit
deadline for submittal
updated information
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A.24
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.147(6)
264.1 47(f)(1)
264.147(0(1 Hi)
284.1 47(0(1 Hi)(A)
264.1 47(0(1 XiXB)
264. 147(0(1 WHO
264.147(f)(1)(ii)
264.147(0(1 XHHA)
264.147(0(1X11X8)
264.147(0(1X11X0
264.147(0(1 XiiHD)
264.147(0(2)
264.147(0(3)
264.147(0(3Mft
264.147(0(3X11)
264.147(0(3X110
264.147(0(3XIHXA)
264.1 47(0(3XiiO(B)
264.147(0(4)
264.147(0(5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
«.
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
^
Page 66 of 159
DC5.9 - 12^11/91
-------
OSWE1 DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
evidence of
insurance if
264.147(f)(1) require-
ments not met
Regional Administrator
may disallow test;
cause for disallowance
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.147(fH6)
264.1 47(f) (7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
v.t
15 Guarantee for Liability Coverage
V corporate guarantee
for liability
coverage; guarantor
is parent corporation
payment by
guarantor if owner or
operator fails to satisfy
a judgment
V cancellation/use of
alternate coverage
V corporations incor-
porated in U.S.
V corporations incor-
porated outside U.S.
27
27
27
27,t43
27,t43
264.147(aH1)
264.147(g)(1Hi)
264,147(g)(1)(ii)
264.147(a)(2)(l)
264.147(a)(2)fii)
V until 10/16/82, use of
25 endorsement or
insurance without
certification of insurer
*,t27
264,147{h)
INCAPACITY OF OWNERS OR OPERATORS, GUARANTORS, OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
incapacity through
bankruptcy of owner
or operator or
guarantor
incapacity of financial
institution by bank-
ruptcy or authority
suspension
IV A
IV A
264,148(3)
264.148(b)
WORDING OF THE INSTRUMENTS
required wording for a
trust agreement
IV A
264.1 51 (a)(1)
Page 67 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
certification of
acknowledgement
required wording for a
financial guarantee
bond
required wording for a
performance bond
required wording for
an irrevocable standby
letter of credit
required wording for a
certificate of insurance
for closure or
post-closure care
required wording for
letter from chief
financial officer
(financial assurance)
required wording for
letter from chief
financial officer
(liability coveraqe)
required wording for
corporate guarantee
for closure or
post-closure care
required wording for
corporate guarantee
for liability coveraqe
required wording for
hazardous waste
facility liability
endorsement
required wording for
hazardous waste
facility certificate of
liability insurance
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A.24
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A,24
IV A,
24,t27
IV A.27
t27.t43
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 51 (a)(2)
264.15Kb)
264.151(0)
264.1 51 (d)
264.151(e)
264.1 51 (f)
264.1 51 (q)
264.1 51 (h)(1)
264.1 51 (h)(2)
264.151(1)
264.1 51 (i)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART I - USE AND MANAGEMENT OF CONTAINERS
APPLICABILITY
storage of hazardous
waste in containers
IV A
264.170
Page 68 of 159
DCS.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOQ IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
CONDITION OF CONTAINERS
requirements when
container is not in
qood condition
IV A
264.171
COMPATIBILITY OF WASTE WITH CONTAINERS
container must be
compatible with
hazardous waste
IV A
264.172
MANAGEMENT OF CONTAINERS
closed container
durinq storaqe
care in handling
IV A
IV A
264.173(a)
264.173(b)
V
INSPECTIONS
weekly inspections
IV A
264.174
CONTAINMENT
requirement for a
containment system
containment
system design and
operation requirements
containers without free
liquids don't require a
containment system;
exceptions
sloped storage area to
drain precipitation
elevated containers
IV A
IV A
IV A,14
IV A
IV A
264,175(a)
264.175(b)
264.1 75(b){1)
264,1 75fb)(2)
264.175(b){3)
264.175(bH4)
264.175(b)(5)
264.175(c)
264.175(c)(1)
264.1 75(c)(2)
i
Page 69 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
containment system
requirements for
storage of F02Q-
F023, F026, F027
reserved
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
14
14
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.175W)
264.1 75(d)(1)
264.1 7S(d)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORi
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
required distance
from property line
IV A
264.176
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
not to be placed in
same container
not to be placed in
unwashed, previously
used container
separation or pro-
tection requirements
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.177(a)
264.177{b)
264.177(c)
-
CLOSURE
decontamination or
removal at closure
IV A
264.178
SUBPART J - TANK SYSTEMS
APPLICABILITY
26 tank systems used for
storing or treating
hazardous wastes;
exceptions
27 no free liquids; inside
building with imperme-
able floor; EPA
Method 9095
27 tanks in secondary
containment systems
exempt
28
IV A,
T28,
t52
IV A,
t28,
f52
264.190
264,190(a)
264.1 90(b)
28 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING TANK SYSTEM'S INTEGRITY
written assessment
of tank system's
intearity
28
264.191(a)
Page 70 of 159
DC5.9- 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
adequate design;
sufficient structural
strength; compatibility
with waste(s)
minimum assessment
considerations
12 mos. deadline if
materials become
hazardous wastes
after 7/14/86
tank systems found to
be leaking or unfit for
use, compliance with
264.196
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
28
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.19Kb)
264.1 91 (b)(1)
264.191 (b)(2)
264.1 91 (b)(3)
264.1 91 (b)(4)
264.1 91 (b)(5)
264.1 91 (b)(5)(i)
264.1 91 (b)(5)(ii)
264.1 91 (c)
264.1 91 (d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
(S:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
^
28 DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF NEW TANK SYSTEMS OR COMPONENTS
Information to be
included in written
assessments for new
tank systems or
components
design standards
hazardous
characteristics
contact with soil or
water; required
determinations
28
28
28
28
264.192(a)
264.1 92(aH1)
264.192(a) (2)
264.1 92(a)(3)
Page 71 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
factors affecting poten-
tial for corrosion
type and degree of
external corrosion
protection needed
protection from
traffic for underground
components
design considerations
to ensure protection
from environment
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
28
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.192(a)(3)m
264,1 92(a)(3)(iHA)
264.1 92(aM3)fi)(B)
264.192(a)(3){i)(C)
264.1 92(a)(3)(i)(D)
264.1 92(a)(3)(l)(E)
264.192(a)(3)(i)(F)
264.192{a)(3MiHG)
264.192(a)(3MI)(H)
264.192(aH3)(ii)
264.1 92(a)(3)(il)(A)
264.1 92(a)(3)(ii)(B)
264.1 92(a)(3)(N)(C)
264.1 92(a)(4)
264.1 92(a)(5)
264.192(a)(5)(i)
264.1 92(a)(5)(ll)
264.1 92{a)(5)(ili)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"E3Ui?r
ALENT
MCWE
STRINQENT
;
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
Page 72 of 159
DCS.9 - 1» 11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
new tank installation
procedures; inspection
requirements
backfilling
requirements for new
underground tank
systems
tightness requirement
protection of ancillary
equipment
corrosion protection
requirements
written statements
and certification
statements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
28
28
28
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.192(b)
264.192{b)(1)
264.192(b)(2)
264.192(b){3)
264.1 92(b)(4)
264.192(b)(5)
264.192(b){6)
264.192(c)
264.192(d)
264.192(6)
264.192(f)
264,192(0.)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EOU1?-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
28 CONTAINMENT AND DETECTION OF RELEASES
schedule for providing
secondary contain-
ment for tank
systems
28
264.193(a)
264.1 93(a)(1)
264.193(a)(2)
264.193(a)(3)
264.1 93(a)(4)
264.193(a) (5)
Page 73 of 159
DCS.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
requirements for
secondary contain-
ment systems
minimum specifications
of secondary contain-
ment svstems
devices that satisfy
the secondary
containment require-
ments
additional require-
ments for secondary
containment systems
additional requirements
for external
liner systems
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
28
28
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264,193(0)
264.1 93(b)(1)
264.193(b)(2)
264,193{c)
264,193(c)(1)
264,193(c)(2)
264.1 93(c)(3)
264,193(e)(4)
264,193(d)
264.1 93(d)(1)
264.193(d)(2)
264.193(d)(3)
264.1 93(d)(4)
264.193(6)
264.193(6)0)
264.193(e)(1)fi)
264.1 93(e)(1)(ii)
264. 193(e)(1 Mill)
264.193(e)(1)(iv)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 74 of 159
DC5.9 - 1011/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5; Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
additional requirements
for vault systems
additional requirements
for double-walled tanks
secondary containment
requirements for
ancillary equipment;
exceptions
aboveqround piping
welded parts and
connections
sealless or magnetic
coupling pumps and
sealless valves
pressurized above-
ground piping systems
with automatic
shut-off devices
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
28
28
28
1 28,52
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.193(eK2)
264.193(e)(2)fl)
|
264.193(e)(2)(ii)
264.1 93(e)(2)(iii)
264.193(e)(2)(iv)
264.193(e)(2)(v)
284.193(e)(2)(v)(A)
264.193(e)(2)(v)(B)
264.193(e)(2)(vl)
264.193(eH3)
264.193(e)(3)(i)
264.193(e)(3)(ii)
264.193(e)(3)(iii)
I
264.193(f)
1
264.193(f)(1)
264.193(fH2)
264.193(0(3)
264.193(0(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5
EQUIV-
ALENT
TATE AWAloa
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
m-
Page 75 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
15 Variance From Section Requirements
general require-
ments for variance
considerations in
granting variance
based on demonstra-
tion of equivalent
ground-water and sur-
face water protection
factors to be
considered in granting
a variance
factors regarding the
potential adverse
effects on ground
water, surface water
and land quality
factors regarding the
potential adverse
effects of a release on
qround-water quality
28
28
28
28
28
264.193(q)
264.1 93(q)(1)
264.193(q)(1)(i)
264.193(q)(1)(ii)
264.193(q)(1)(iii)
264.1 93(q)(1)(iv)
264.193(q)(2)
264.193(q)(2)(i)
264.193(q)(2)(i)(A)
264.1 93(q)(2)(i)(B)
264.193(q)(2W(C)
264.193(q)(2)(i)(D)
264.193(Q)(2)(i)(E)
264.193(q)(2)(ii)
264.193(q)(2)(iO(A)
264.193(a)(2)(ii)(B)
264.193(a)(2)(ii)(C)
264.1 93(q)(2)(iiHD)
,
^
Page 76 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIRiMENT
factors regarding the
potential adverse
effects of a release on
surface water quality
factors regarding the
potential adverse
effects of a release
on the land
requirements if release
occurs from primary
tank system but no
migration beyond
zone of engineering
control
CHICK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264,193(a)(2)(iii)
264.1 93(a)(2)(iii)(A)
264.193{a)(2)(iii)(B)
264.193faK2)(iii)(C)
264.193(a)(2}(iii)(D)
264.1 93(a)(2MiiiKE)
264,193(a)(2)(iv)
264.193(a)(2Miv)(A)
264.193(a,)(2HivHB)
264.1 93{a){3)
264.193(a)(3)(i)
264.193(a)(3)(ii)
264.193(a)(3)(ii)(A)
264.193(aH3Kti)(B)
264.193(a)(3)(iii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATS ANALOG IS;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 77 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
requirements if release
occurs and migrates
beyond zone of
enqineerinq control
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.193(d)(4)
264.193{a)(4)(i)
264.193(a)(4)(ii)
264.193(a)(4)(iii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
15 Variance Procedures
procedures for
requesting a variance
28
264.193(h)
264.1 93(h)(1)
264.193(h)(1)(i)
264.1 93(h)(1)(ii)
264.1 93{h)(2)
264.193(h)(3)
264.193(h){4)
"
requirements for ail
tank systems until
such time as
secondary contain-
ment is provided
28
264.1930)
264.193(0(1)
264.193(i)(2)
264.1 930M3)
264.1 930M4)
264.1930K5)
28 GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
when hazardous waste
or treatment reagents
must not be placed in
tank systems
28
264.194(a)
Page 78 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5; Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
minimum controls and
practices to prevent
spills and overflows
264.196 requirements
if a leak or spill occurs
in the system
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
14,28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264,194(0)
264.194(b)(1)
264.194(b)(2)
264.194{b)(3)
264.194(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EoUIV^"
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
28 INSPECTIONS
schedule and pro-
cedure for inspecting
overfill controls
daily inspection
requirements
minimum inspection
frequency for
cathodic protection
systems
document in operating
record
28
28
28
28
264.195(a)
264.195(b)
264,195{b)(1)
264.195(b)(2)
264.1 95(b)(3)
264,195(e)
264.1 95(c)(1)
264.1 95(c)(2)
264.195(d)
.
,
28 RESPONSE TO LEAKS OR SPILLS AND DISPOSITION OF LEAKING OR UNFIT-FOR-USE TANK
SYSTEMS
immediate removal
from service of
leaking or unfit-for-
use tank or secondary
containment system
cessation of use; pre-
vent flow or addition
of wastes
28,52
28
264.196
264.196(a)
Page 79 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
schedule for
removal of waste
from tank system or
secondary contain-
ment system
containment of visible
releases to the
environment
required notifications
and reports following
any release to the
environment
provision of
secondary contain-
ment, repair, or
closure
certification of major
repairs
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
28
28
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.196(b)(1)
264.1 96(b)(2)
264.196(c)
264.1 96(c)(1)
264.1 96(c)(2)
264.1 96{d)(1)
264.1 96(d)(2)
264.1 96{d)(2Mi)
264,196(d){2)(ii)
264.1 96(d)(3)
264.196{d)(3)(i)
264.196(d)(3)(ii)
264.196(dH3Miit)
264.196(d)(3){iv)
264.196(d)(3)(v)
264.196(eH1)
264,196(e)(2)
264.196(e)(3)
264.196(eK4)
264.1 96(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
••
28 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
general closure
requirements
28
264.197(a)
Page 80 of 159
DC5.9 - 12^11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
specific requirements
when contaminated
soils cannot practically
be removed or
decontaminated;
closure as a landfill
closure plans and
financial responsibility
requirements for tank
systems without
secondary contain-
ment that fall under
264.1 93(b)-(f) and are
not exempt from
secondary containment
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.197fb)
264.197(c)
264.197(c)(1)
264.197(c) (2)
264.1 97(c)(3)
264.1 97(c)(4)
264.1 97(c)(5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
£
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
'
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES
no ignitable or reactive
waste in tank systems
unless:
waste is treated,
rendered or mixed
waste Is protected
system used solely
for emergencies
maintenance of pro-
tective distances
IV A,
28
IV A,
28
IV A,
28
IV A,
28
IV A,
28
264.198(a)
264.198(a)(1)
264.1 98fa)(1)(i)
264.1 98(a)(1)(ii)
264.198(a)(2)
264.198(a)(3)
264.198(b)
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
no placement of in-
compatible wastes in
tank system unless
compliance with
264.17(b)
IV A,
28
264.199(a)
Page 81 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
no placement in con-
taminated tank system
unless compliance with
26417(b)
removed
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A,
28
14,28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 99(b)
264.200
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ECU IV-
ALiNT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART K - SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
APPLICABILITY
surface impoundments
used to treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous
waste
IV A
264.220
V
DESIGN AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
liner design, construc-
tion and installation
requirements for
liner materials
foundation or base
requirements
area to be covered
considerations for
exempting from
264.221 (a)
two or more liners;
leachate collection
system
exemption from
264.221 (c); alternative
design and operating
practices
IV A,
17 H
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
17 H.77
t17H
264.221(3)
264.221 (a)(1)
264.221 (aH2)
264.221 (a){3)
264.221 (b)
264.221 (bM1)
264.221 (b)(2)
264.221 (bH3)
264.221 (b)(4)
264.221(c)
264.221 (d)
i
I
Page 82 of 159
DC5.9 - 12M1/81
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQ6NT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
15 Waiver From Double Liner Requirements
conditions under
which 264.221{c)
requirements may be
waived for a monofill
17 H
264.221(e)
264.221 (e)(1)
264.221 (e)(2)(l)(A)
264.221 (e)(2)(i)(B)
264.221 (e)(2)(i)(C)
264.221 (e)(2)(ti)
L
29 prevention of
overtopping and
malfunctions
29 structural integrity
of dikes
29 specifications
in the permit
removed
IV A,
17 H
IV A,
17 H
IV A,
17 H
IV A,
17 I
264.221 (f)
264.221 (a)
264.221 (h)
264.222
MONITORING AND INSPECTION
inspection of liners
and cover systems
during construction
and installation
inspection require-
ments durinq operation
inspect overtopping
control systems
sudden drops in level
of contents
30 erosion or
deterioration
in containment devices
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A,
17 i
264.226(3)
264.226(a)(1)
264.226(a)(2)
264.226(b)
264.226(b)(1 )
264.226(b)(2)
264.226(b)(3)
Page 83 of 159
DCS.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
certification of dike's
structural integrity
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.226{c)
264.226(c)(1)
264.226{c)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EBU1W
ALENT
MORE
STRINQiNT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
EMERGENCY REPAIRS; CONTINGENCY PLANS
conditions for removal
from service
immediate action on
removal from service
compliance procedure
for 264.227(b) in con-
tinqencv plan
conditions for
restoration of service
closure of inactive
surface impoundments
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.227(a)
264.227(a)(1)
264.227{a)(2)
264.227{b)
264.227(b)(1)
264.227(b)(2)
264.227(W(3)
264.227(b)(4)
264.227(b)(S)
264.227(b)(6)
264.227(c)
264,227(d)
264.227(d)(1)
264.227(d)(2)
264.227(d)(2)(l)
264,227(d)(2)(ii)
264.227(6)
I
-
-
Page 84 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
•iO
Ov'
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG 15:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
closure requirements
31 post-closure
requirements
plans needed
whenever liner
requirements are
not met
cost
estimate inclusions
removed
IV A
IV A,
17 I
IV A
IV A
IV A,
17 I
264.228(a)
264.228(a){1)
264.228(a)(2Hi)
264.228{a)(2Mii)
264.228(a)(2)(iii)
264.228(a)(2)(iilHA)
264.228(a)(2)(iii)(B)
264.228(a)(2Mtii)(C)
264.228(aM2HiiiKD)
264.228(a)(2)(iii)(E)
264.228(b)
264.228(b){1)
264.228(bK2)
264.228(b)(3)
264,228(c){1)
264.228(c)(1Hi)
264.228(c){1)(ii)
264.228(c)(2)
264.228(d)
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
conditions for
placement of ignitable
or reactive waste
*,78
264.229
Page 85 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities fcont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
waste treatment to
specific criteria prior to
placement
waste management to
prevent reaction or
ignition
emergency placement
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.229(a)
264.229(a)(1)
264.229(a)(2)
264.229(b)
264.229(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
prohibited co-disposal
of incompatible wastes
or materials unless
compliance with
264.170))
IV A
264.230
-
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES F020. F021. F022. F023. F026. AND F027
requirements for
F020-F023, F026 and
F027 regarding place-
ment in surface
impoundments;
special management
plan; factors to be
considered
additional requirements
as determined by the
Reqional Administrator
14
14
264.231(a)
264.231 (aHD
264.231 (a)(2)
264.231 (a)(3)
264.231 (a){4)
264.23Kb)
SUBPART L - WASTE PILES
APPLICABILITY
storage or treatment
facilities using waste
piles
closed piles with waste
in place subject to
Subpart N of 264
IV A
IV A
264.250(a)
264.250(b)
Page 86 of 159
DC5.9 -1 art 1/91
..oo*
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
waste piles under a
structure
piles inside or under a
structure; provisions
for exclusion from
regulation under
264.251 or Subpart F
of Part 264
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.250(e)
264.250(c){1)
264.250(c){2)
264.250{c)(3)
264.250(c)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL55 IS:
EQUIV- MORE
ALENTI STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
DESIGN AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
what a waste pile
must have
liner design standards
leachate collection
and removal system
standards
exemption from
264.51 (a)
exemption criteria
run-on control
system standards
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.251(3)
264.251 (a)<1)
264.251 (a)(1)fl)
264.251 (a)(1Mii)
264.25 1(a)(1)(iN)
264.251 (a)(2)
264.251 (a)(2)(i)
264.251 (a)(2)(i)(A)
264.251 (a)(2)(i)(B)
264.251 (a){2)(ii)
264.25Mb)
264.251 (b)(1)
264.251 (b){2)
264.251 (b)(3)
264.251 (b)(4)
264.251 (c)
.
Page 87 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
run-off management
system standards
collection and holding
facility standards
wind dispersal control
design and operating
requirements specified
in permit
regulations removed;
section reserved
regulations removed;
section reserved
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A,
17 I
IV A,
17 I
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.251fd)
264.251 (e)
264.251 (f)
264.251(a)
264.252
. 264.253
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SI Ale ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
MONITORING AND INSPECTION
inspections during
construction or install-
ation; inspections
immediately after con-
struction or Installation
weekly inspections
during operation and
Inspections after
storms to detect:
run-on and run-off
system problems
proper functioning of
wind dispersal controls
leachate in and proper
functioning of
leachate systems
reserved
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A,
17 1
IV A,
17 I
264.254(a)
264.254(aM1)
264.254(a)(2)
264.254(b)
264.254(b)(1)
264.254(b)(2)
264.254(b)(3)
264.225
32
32
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
conditions for
placement of ignitabie
or reactive wastes in
waste piles
*,78
264.256
Page 88 of 159
OC5.9 - 12^11/81
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
treatment requirements
waste management;
protection from ignition
or reaction
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.256(a)
264.256(a){1)
264.256(aH2)
264.256(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAlOS !§:
' EQlW
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
placement in same
pile prohibited unless
264.17(b) is complied
with
waste separation
or protection
base decontamination
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.257(a)
264.257(b)
264.257(c)
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
closure requirements
post-closure care if
not all contaminated
subsoils can be
practically removed
plans needed
whenever liner
requirements are
not met
cost estimates
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.258(a)
264.258(b)
264.258(c)(1)
264.258(c)(1)(i)
264.258(c)(1)(ii)
264.258(c)(2)
Page 89 of 159
DCS.9 - 12m/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEOiRAt RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
SoURT
ALENT
MORE
STRIN3ENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES F020, F021, F022. F023. F026. and F027
requirements for
F020-F023, F026
and F027 regarding
placement in surface
impoundments;
special management
plan; factors to be
considered
additional requirements
as determined by the
Reqional Administrator
14
14
264.259(a)
264.259(a)(1)
264.259(a)(2)
264.259(a){3)
264.259(a)(4)
264.259(b)
SUBPART M - LAND TREATMENT
APPLICABILITY
facilities that treat or
dispose of hazardous
waste in land treat-
ment units
IV A
264.270
TREATMENT PROGRAM
treatment program
elements of the
program specified by
Regional Administrator
in permit
hazardous constituents
specified in the permit
that must be
degraded, transformed
or immobilized
treatment zone dimen-
sions specified
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.271(a)
264.271 (a)(1)
264.271 faH2)
264.271 (b)
264.271 (c)
264.271 (c)(1)
264.271 (c)(2)
264.271 (a)(3)
Page 90 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EODW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TREATMENT DEMONSTRATION
treatment demonstra-
tion required for each
waste applied to
treatment zone
acceptable evidence to
make demonstration;
specified in permit
field/laboratory test
requirements
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.272(a)
264.272(b)
264.272{c)
264.272(c)(1)
264.272(c)(1)(i)
264.272(c)(1)fli)
264.272(c)(1)(lli)
264.272(c)(1)(iv)
264,272(cH1)(v)
264,272{c)(2)
264.272(c)(3)
264.272(c) (3) (I)
264,272(c)(3Hii)
264.272(c){3)(iii)
264.272{eH3)(iv)
264.272(cM3Hv)
!
DESIGN AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
Regional Administrator
will specify these re-
quirements in permit
*
264.273
Page 91 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
construction, design
and operation to max-
imize degradation,
transformation, and
immobilization of HW;
minimum requirements
specified in the permit
run-off control
run-on control
stormwater run-off
management system
collection and
holdinq facilities
wind dispersal control
inspections
reserved
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264,273(3)
264.273(a)(1)
264.273(a)(2)
264.273(a)(3)
264.273(a)(4)
264.273(b)
264.273(c)
264.273{d)
264.273(6)
264.273(f)
264.273(0.)
264.273(a)(1)
264.273(a)(2)
264.274-264.275
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRlNQiNT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
.
FOOD-CHAIN CROPS
conditions for crops in
or on treatment zone
demonstration of no
health risk
demonstration timing
*
IV A
IV A
264.276
264.276(a)(1)
264.276(a)(1 )(i)
264.276(a)(1)(ii)
264.276(aM2)
Page 92 of 159
DCS.9 - 1211/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
required evidence for
acceptable
demonstration
permit for conducting
demonstration activities
requirements if waste
contains cadmium
reserved
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264,276(a)(3)
264,276(a)(3)(i)
264.276(a)(3)(ii)
264.276(a)(4)
264.276(b)
264.276(b)(1)(i)
264.276(bK1)(ii)
264.276(b)(1)(iii)
264.276(b)(1)(iv)
264.276(bK2)(i)
264.276(b)(2Hin
264.276(b)(2){iii)
264.276(b)(2)(iv)
264.277
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
!
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
.
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
I'
|
I
UNSATURATED ZONE MONITORING
owner/operator
responsibilities
monitor soil and soil
pore liquid for specific
constituents
unsaturated zone
monitoring system
standards
*
IV A
IV A
264.278
264.278(3)
264.278(aH1)
264.278{a)(2)
264.278CW
264.278(b){1)
264.278(W(2)
Page 93 of 159
DCS.9 - 12H1/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
background value
needed for each
hazardous constituent
test placement,
frequency and timing;
how results must be
expressed
sampling and analysis
procedures; minimum
requirements
comparison with back-
ground values to
determine statistically
significant chanqe
actions if significant
increase occurs
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.278(c)
264.278(c)(1)
264.278(eK2)
264.278(c)(3)
264.278(0(4)
264.278(d)
264.278(6)
264.278(e)(1)
264.278(e)(2)
264.278(e)(3)
264.278(e)(4)
264.278(f)
264.278(f)(1)
264.278(f)(2)
264.278(f)(3)
264.278(f)(3)(i)
264.278(0 (3)(I!)
264.278(a)
264.278(a)(1)
264,278(a)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ToURT
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
j
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 94 of 159
DC5.9- 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
requirements for dem-
onstration that units
at facility not respon-
sible for increase
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.278(h)
264.278(W(1)
264.278(hH2)
264.278(h)(3)
264.278(h)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ESLW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
RECORDKEEPING
operating record to
include waste appli-
cation dates and rates
IV A
264.279
•-.
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
owner/operator
responsibilities during
closure care
closure certification
IV A
IV A
264.280(3)
264.280(a){1)
264.280(a)(2)
264.280(a)(3)
264.28Q(aH4)
264.280(aH5)
264.280(a)(6)
264.280(a)(7)
264.280(a)(8)
264.28CHW
;
Page 95 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
owner/operator
responsibilities during
post-closure care
exemption from
264.280(a)(8) & (c)
Subpart F exemption
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.280(c)
264.280{c)(1)
264.280(0(2)
264.280(0(3)
264.280(0(4)
264.280(0(5)
264.280(0(6)
264.280(0(7)
264.280(d)
264.280(d)(1)
264.280(d)(1)(i)
264.280(d)(1)(ii)
264.280(d)(2)
264.280(d)(3)
264.280(d)(3)(i)
264.280(d)(3)(ii)
264.280(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
iTATi ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
j
.
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
conditions for
applying ignltable or
reactive wastes to
treatment zone
*,78
264.281
Page 96 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
:. u:
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
immediate
incorporation of
waste into soil
protective manage-
ment so no reaction
or ignition
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.281 (a)
264.281 (a)(1)
264.281 (a)(2)
264.281 (b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
jgQUlV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
conditions for disposal
of incompatible wastes
or materials
IV A
264.282
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES F020. F021. F022. F023. F026 AND-F027
requirements for land
treatment of F020,
F021, F022, F023,
F026 and F027
additional requirements
determined by
Regional Administrator
14
14
264.283(3}
264.283{a){1)
264.283(a)(2)
264.283(aH3)
264.283(a)(4)
264,283(b)
SUBPART N - LANDFILLS
APPLICABILITY
apply to hazardous
waste disposal facilities
using landfills
IV A
264.300
DESIGN AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
landfill not covered by
265.301 (a) must have
liner system
M7 H
264.301 (a)
Page 97 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
liner standards
leachate collection
and removal system
standards
exemption; factors
Regional Administrator
will consider
standards for new
landfills; two or more
liners and leachate
collection system
alternative desiqn
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
IV A
IV A
17 H.77
t17 H
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.301 fa){1)
264.301 (a)(1)(l)
264.301 (a)(1)(li)
264.301 {a)(1)(iii)
264.301 (a)(2)
264.301 (aM2)(i)
264.301 (a)(2)fl)(A)
264.301 (a)(2KI)(B)
264.301 (a)(2)(ii)
264.30Kb)
264.301 (b)(1)
264.301 (b){2)
264.301 (b){3)
264.301 (b)(4)
264.301 (c)
264.301 (d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
Page 98 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWE1 DIP. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
33 monofills-criteria for
waiving double liner
requirements
34 run-on control system
34 run-off management
svstem
34 collection and
holding facilities
manaqement
34 wind
dispersal control
34 permit specification of
design and operating
practices
liner and leachate re-
quirements for landfills
in Alabama
removed; section
reserved
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A,
17 H
IV A,
17 H.74
IV A,
t17 H
IV A,
17 H
IV A,
17 H
IV A,
17 H
IV A,
17 H
IV A,
17 H
17 H
IV A,
17 I
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.301 (e)
264.301 (e){1)
264.301 (e)(2)(i)(A)
264.301 (e)(2)(i)(B)
264.301 (9H2HIHC)
264.301 (e)(2)(ii)
264.301 (f)
264.301(0)
264.301 (m
264.301(1)
264.301(1)
264.301 (M
264.302
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
• EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
MONITORING AND INSPECTION
inspection during and
immediately after
construction or
installation
inspections during
operation to
determine:
run-on and run-off
control problems
35 proper functioning of
wind dispersal control
svstem
IV A
IV A
IV A,
17 I
IV A,
17 I
264.303(3)
264.303(a)(1)
264.303(a)(2)
264.303(b)
264.303(b){1)
264.303(b)(2)
Page 99 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
presence of leachate
in and proper func-
tioning of leachate
collection and removal
systems
reserved
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A,
17 I
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.303(b)(3)
264.304-264.308
ANALOGOUS
STATE CrTATlON
STATE ANALOG IS:
ESUW-
ALiNT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
35
SURVEYING AND RECORDKEEPING
items which must be
in operating record
location and
dimensions of landfill
to be shown on maps
contents of each cell
and location of each
hazardous waste type
in each cell
*
IV A
IV A
264.309
264.309{a)
264.3Q9(b)
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
cover requirements
at final closure
post-closure
requirements
final cover
requirements
leachate system
requirements
ground-water
monitoring system
requirements
run-on and run-off
control requirements
protect and maintain
surveyed benchmarks
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A,
17 I
IV A,
17 I
IV A,
17 I
IV A,
17 I
264.310(a)
264.31 0(a){1)
264.31 0(a)(2)
264.31 0(aM3)
264,31 0(a)(4)
264.31 0(a)(5)
264.31 0(b)
264.31 0(bM1)
264.31 0(b)(2)
264.31 0(b)(3)
264.31 0(b){4)
264.31 0(b)(5)
36
Page 100 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5:1 Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
removed
reserved
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A,
17 1
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.31 0{c)
264.31 1
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG 15:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
placement prohibited
unless waste and
landfill meet Part 268
requirements and
and waste is no
longer ignitable or
reactive and 264.1 7(b)
is complied with
containerized wastes
IV A, 78
IV A
IV A.78
264.312(3)
264.31 2(a)(1)
264.31 2(a)(2)
264.31 2(b)
-
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
conditions for
disposal in landfill
IV A
264.313
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BULK AND CONTAINERIZED LIQUIDS
bulk liquid disposal
prior to May 8, 1 985
only if:
liner and leachate
system requirements
liquids must be
stabilized
37 May 8, 1985 free
liquids ban
paint filter test
37 conditions for place-
ment of containers
holding free liquids
in a landfill
IV A,
17 F
IV A
IV A
IV A,
17 F
16
IV A,
f17F
264.314(a)
264.31 4(a)(1)
264.31 4(a){2)
264,31 4(b)
264.31 4(c)
264.31 4(d)
264.31 4(d)(1)
264.31 4(d)(2)
264.31 4(d)(3)
264.31 4(d)(4)
Page 101 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/S1
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
nonhazardous liquids
ban effective Novem-
ber 8, 1985; what
must be demonstrated
to Regional
Administrator
for exemption
only reasonable avail-
able alternative
not a risk of
contaminating
underground source
of drinking water
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
17 F
t17 F
t17 F
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.314(6)
264.31 4{e)(1)
264.31 4(e)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ECU IV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTAINERS
requirements if
containers not
very small
at least 90% full
crushed, shredded or
reduced in volume
before burial
*
IV A
IV A
264.315
264.315(a)
264.31 5(b)
DISPOSAL OF SMALL CONTAINERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN OVERPACKED DRUMS (LAB
PACKS)
conditions for
placement of
overpacked drums
in landfills
inside container re-
quirements including
DOT requirements
overpacking-DOT
requirements; outer
container
absorbent material
incompatible wastes
reactive wastes
*
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.316
264.316(3)
264.31 6(b)
264.316(c)
264.31 6(d)
264.316(6)
Page 102 of 159
DCS.9 - 12/11/91
Jhs.
'
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
t, disposal in com-
38 pliance with Part 268;
fiber drums allowed
for incineration
of lab packs
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.31 6(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALoa IS;
"feQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES F020, F021. F022, F023, F026, and F027
requirements for
placement of F020,
FQ21, F022, F023,
F026 and F027 in
a landfill
additional requirements
that Regional Adminis-
trator may require
14
14
264.317(a)
264.31 7(a)(1)
264.31 7(a)(2)
264.31 7(a)(3)
264.31 7(a)(4)
264.31 7(b)
•-
SUBPART O - INCINERATORS
APPLICABILITY
applies to
incineration facilities
HW incinerators
boilers and industrial
furnaces
exemptions
IV A.13
13
13,19
IV A
264.340(a)
264.340(a)(1)
264.340(a)(2)
264.340(b)
264.340(b)(1)
264.340(b)(1)(i)
264.340(b)(1Mil)
264.340(b)(1)(iii)
264.340(b)(1)fiv)
264.340(b)(2)
Page 103 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
, i"' *-•
Lfj, «_•
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
exemption for insignifi-
cant concentrations
trial bums
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
*
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.340(0)
264.340(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE ANALYSIS
in trial bum plan
to provide required
information
waste analysis during
normal operation
IV A
IV A
264,341(a)
264.341(b)
PRINCIPAL ORGANIC HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS (POHCs)
must be treated to
264.343 performance
requirements
basis for selection
in permit
trial POHCs
designated in
trial burns
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.342(3)
264.342(b)(1)
264.342(b)(2)
-
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
standards to be met
for incinerators
D.R.E. for hazardous
waste
D.R.E. for dioxins
HCI emission control
paniculate
emission control
permit enforcement
*
IV A,14
14
IV A
IV A
*
264.343
264.343(a)(1)
264.343(a)(2)
264.343(b)
264.343(c)
264.343(d)
HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR PERMITS
exceptions to
burning only those
wastes and using
only those conditions
specified in permit
permit modifications
IV A
IV A
264.344(a)
264.344(a)(1)
264.344(a)(2)
264.344(b)
Page 104 of 159
DC5.9 - 12^11/91
It-.Urfi
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
permits for new
incinerators
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.344(c)
264.344(c)(1)
264.344(c)(2)
264.344(c)(3)
264.344(c)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SFAte ANALOG IS:
"EOOiv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
operating conditions
specified in the
permit; specified on a
case-by-case basis
operating requirements
specify composition of
waste feed;
conditions specified
start-up and shut-down
conditions
fugitive emission
control
automatic cut-off
of waste feed
when operations
must stop
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
IV A
264.345(a)
264.345(b)
264.345(b)(1)
264.345(b)(2)
264.345{b)(3)
264.345(b){4)
264,345(b)(5)
264.345(b)(6)
264.345(c)
264.345(d)
264.345(d)(1)
264.345(d)(2)
264.345(d)(3)
264.345(e)
264.345(f)
•
I
*
Page 105 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
reserved
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.346
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOP!
MONITORING AND INSPECTIONS
required monitoring
while incinerating
hazardous waste
daily inspections
of incinerator and
associated equipment
weekly inspections of
emergency waste feed
cutoff system and
associated alarms
monitoring and
inspection data in
264.73 operating log
reserved
IV A
IV A
JV A
IV A
264.347(a)
264.347(a)(1)
264.347(a)(2)
264.347(a)(3)
264.347(b)
264.347(c)
264.347(d)
264.348-264.350
-
CLOSURE
remove all hazardous
wastes and residues
IV A
264.351
SUBPART X - MISCELLANEOUS UNITS
APPLICABILITY
to whom requirements
apply
45
264.600
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
introductory paragraph
regarding human
health and the
environment
prevention of release
to around water
characteristics of waste
45
45
45
264.601
264.601 (a)
264,601 (a)(1)
Page 106 of 159
OC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
characteristics of unit
quality of existing
qround water
qround-water flow
pjound-water users
patterns of use
deposition or migration
of wastes
potential for
health risks
potential for damage
from exposure
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
prevention of release
to surface waters and |
soil 45
characteristics of waste
migration prevention
systems and structures
hydrologic
characteristics
precipitation patterns
qround-water flow
proximity to surface
waters
current and
potential uses
existing quality of
surface waters
and soils
patterns of land use
potential for health
risks
potential for damage
caused by exposure
prevention of releases
to the air
characteristics of waste
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.601(a)(2)
264.601 (a)(3)
264.601 (a)(4)
264.601 (a)(5)
264.601 (a)(6)
264.601 (a)(7)
264.601 (a)(8)
264.601 (a)(9)
264.601 (b)
264.601 (b)(1)
264601 (bM2)
264.601 (b)(3)
264.601 (b)(4)
264.601 (bH5)
264.601 (b)(6)
264,601 (b)(7)
264.601 (b)(8)
264.601 (W(9)
264.601 (b)(10)
264.60 1(b)(11)
264.601 (c)
264.601 (c)(1>
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
""EQUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 107 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
emission prevention
systems and structures
operating
characteristics
characteristics of
unit and area
existing quality of air
potential for
health risks
potential for damage
from exposure
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
45
45
45
45
45
45
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.601 (cM2>
264.601 (c)(3)
264.601 (c)(4)
264.601 (cM5)
264.601 (c>(6)
264.601 (c)(7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINSENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
MONITORING. ANALYSIS. INSPECTION. RESPONSE. REPORTING. AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
compliance
requirements
45
264.602
'
POST-CLOSURE CARE
post-closure
requirements
45
264.603
SUBPART AA - AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR PROCESS VENTS
APPLICABILITY
regulations in
this subpart apply
to owners and
operators of
facilities that
treat, store or
dispose of
hazardous waste
except as provided
in 264.1
79
264.1030(a)
Page 108 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
except for
264.1034(d)
and 264.1035(6),
Subpart AA
applies to process
vents associated
with operations
managing hazar-
dous wastes
with at least
10-ppmw organic
concentrations if
conducted in
specific units
units subject to
the permitting
requirements of
Part 270
hazardous waste
recycling units
located on
hazardous waste
management facili-
ties otherwise
subject to Part
270 permitting
requirements
incorporation of
264.1032 through
264.1036 require-
ments for permits
received under
Section 3005 of
RCRA prior to
December 21 ,
1990, when permit
is reissued under
124.15 or reviewed
under 270.50;
note included
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
|
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1030(0)
264.1 030(b)(1)
264.1030(b)(2)
264.1030(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
• EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRIN0ENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•
DEFINITIONS
introductory
paragraph
79
264.1031
Page 109 of 159
DCS 9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"air stripping
operation"
"bottoms
receiver"
"closed-vent
system"
"condenser*
"connector"
"continuous
recorder"
"control device"
"control device
shutdown"
"distillate receiver"
"distillation
operation"
"double block and
bleed system"
"equipment"
"flame zone"
"flow indicator"
"first attempt
at repair"
"fractionation
operation"
"hazardous waste
management unit
shutdown"
"hot well"
"in gas/vapor
service"
"in heavy liquid
service"
"in light liquid
service"
"In situ sampling
systems"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264,1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
.
STATE ANALOG IS:
ESUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
•
BROADIR
IN SCOPE
-
Page 110 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"in vacuum
service"
"malfunction"
"open-ended
valve or line"
"pressure
release"
"process heater"
"process vent"
"repaired"
"sensor"
"separator tank"
"solvent extraction
operation"
"startup"
"steam stripping
operation"
"surge control
tank"
"thin-film
evaporation
operation"
"vapor
incinerator"
"vented"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
264.1031
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUI\T
ALENT
|
MORE
STRINGENT
•
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
STANDARDS: PROCESS VENTS
owner or operator
of facility with
process vents
meeting certain
conditions
shall either:
reduce total
organic ©missions
below 1.4 kg/h
and 2.8 Mq/yr
79
79
264.1032(a)
264.1 032(a)(1)
Page 111 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
using control
device, reduce
total organic
emissions by 95
weiqht percent
264.1033 require-
ments must be
met if owner
or operator
installs closed-
vent system and
control device to
comply with
264,1032(a)
provisions
use of engineering
calculations or
performance tests
(conforming to
264.1034(c)
requirements) may
be used for
determinating
1) vent emissions
and emission
reductions or
2) total organic
compound concen-
trations achieved
by add-on control
devices
use of 264,1 034(c)
procedures to
resolve disagree-
ments between
owner or operator
and Regional
Administrator on
vent determinations
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1032(a)(2)
264.1032(b)
264.1032(c)
264.1032(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
si Alt ANALOG IS:
EQ0I7-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
"
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•-
Page 112 of 159
DC8.9 • 12M1/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: CLOSED-VENT SYSTEMS AND CONTROL DEVICES
compliance with
provisions of
264.1033 by
owners or
operators of
closed-vent
systems and
control devices
used to comply
with provisions
of Part 264
preparation of an
implementation
schedule by owner
or operator, of
existing facility,
who cannot install
a closed-vent
system and control
device to comply
with Subpart AA
provisions by
effective date;
units that begin
operation after
December 21 ,
1990, must comply
with the rules
immediatelv
specification of
efficiency stan-
dards for control
device involving
vapor recovery
unless
264.1 032{a)(1)
emission limits
can be attained
79
79
79
264.1033(aHD
264.1033(a) (2)
264.1033(b)
-
-
Page 113 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
organic emission
standards for
enclosed com-
bustion device;
for boiler or
process heater
used as control
device, vent stream
introduced into
flame zone
specifications for
the design and
operation of a
flare
determination of
compliance of
a flare with
the visible
emission provisions
of Subpart AA
using Reference
Method 22 in
40 CFR Part 60
calculation of
net heating value
of gas being
combusted in a
flare using
specified equation
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264,1033(e)
264.1 033(dH1)
264.1033(d)(2)
264.1 033(d)(3)
264.1 033(d)(4)(i)
264.1 Q33(dM4}(ii)
264.1 033(d)(4Miii)
264.1033WM5)
264.1 033(d)(6)
264.1033(e)(D
264.1033(eH2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
•
•
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 114 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
determination of
actual exit
velocity of a flare
using flow rate
as determined by
Reference Methods
2, 2A, 2C or 2D in
40 CFR Part 60
determination of
maximum allowed
velocity for a
flare complying
with
264,1 033(d)(4)(iii)
determination of
maximum allowed
velocity for an
air-assisted flare
monitoring and
inspection of
control device by
owner and
operator to ensure
compliance with
264.1033 by
implementing
specified
requirements:
installation, cali-
bration, main-
tenance, and
operation of a
flow indicator;
where sensor
shall be
installed
specifications for
installation, cali-
bration, main-
tenance, and
operation of a
device to contin-
uously monitor
control device
operation:
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264, 1033(6) (3)
264.1033(e)(4)
264.1033(e)(5)
264.1033(f)
264.1 033(f)(1)
264,1033(0(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL66 IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 115 of 159
DC5.9- 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
temperature
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder for a
thermal vapor
incinerator
temperature
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder for
a catalytic vapor
incinerator
heat sensing
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder
for a flare
temperature
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder for a
boiler or process
heater having a
design heat input
capacity less
than 44 MW
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder for a
boiler or process
heater having a
design heat input
capacity greater
than or equal to
44 MW
for a condenser,
either:
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 033(f)(2)0)
264.1033
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder to
measure concen-
tration level of the
organic compounds
in the exhaust
vent stream
from the condenser
temperature
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder;
specifications
for a carbon
adsorption system,
either:
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder to
measure concen-
tration level
of organic com-
pounds in exhaust
vent stream from
carbon bed
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder to
measure a para-
meter that
indicates the
carbon bed is
regenerated on a
regular pre-
determined time
cycle
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1033(f)(2)(vi)(A)
264.1033(f)(2)(vi)(B)
264.1033{f)(2}(vii)
264.1 033(W2Hvii)(A)
]
79
264.1 033(f)(2)(vii)(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
I STATE ANALOS IS:
HouTV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
s
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 117 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REOUIREMENT
daily Inspection
of readings from
monitoring device
required by
264.1 033(f)(1) and
264.1033(f)(2);
implement cor-
rective measures
If necessary
replacement of
existing carbon
in control device
by owner or oper-
ator using a fixed-
bed carbon
adsorber that
meets the
264,1035(b)(4)
requirement
replacement of
carbon on a
regular basis by
owner or operator
using a carbon
canister
monitor organic
compounds dally
or at interval no
greater than 20
percent of
time required to
consume total
carbon working
capacity
established at
264.1 035(b)(4)
(iii)(G), which-
ever is longer;
replace existing
carbon when
carbon break-
throuqh occurs
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 033(f)(3)
264.1033(a)
264.1033(h)
264.1033(h)(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINOENT
.
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 118 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
replacement of
existing carbon
at intervals less
than design carbon
replacement inter-
val established as
a requirement of
264.1035(b) (4)
(H1MG)
alternative oper-
ational or process
parameter may be
monitored if
specific demonstra-
tion can be made
documentation
requirements for
owner or operator
seeking to comply
with Part 264
provisions by
using a control
device other than
a thermal vapor
incinerator, cata-
lytic vapor
incinerator, flare,
boiler, process
heater condenser,
or carbon
adsorption system
design and opera-
tional requirements
for closed-vent
systems based on
264.1034(b)
methods
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 033(h){2)
264.1033{i)
264.1033(1)
264.1 033{k)(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
.."
-
Page 119 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring of
closed-vent
systems during
initial leak
detection monitor-
ing, conducted by
the date that the
facility becomes
subject to 264,1033
provisions,
annually, and as
requested by
Regional Admini-
strator
control of detect-
able emissions no
later than 15
calendar days after
emission is
detected
first attempt at
repair no later
than 5 calendar
days after emission
is detected
closed vent
systems and con-
trol devices used
to comply with
provisions of Sub-
part AA shall be
operated at all
times when
emissions may be
vented to them
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.103300(2)
264.1033(k)(3)
264.1 033fkM4)
264.1033(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
»
TEST METHODS AND PROCEDURES
compliance with
264.1034 test
methods and
procedures by
owner or operator
subject to pro-
visions of
Subpart AA
79
264.1034(a)
Page 120 of 159
DC5.9 -
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
when testing a
closed-vent system
for compliance
with 264.1033(k)
requirements,
comply with
following test
requirements:
monitoring in
compliance with
Reference Method
21 in 40 CFR
Part 60
detection instru-
ment shall meet
the performance
criteria of Refer-
ence Method 21
calibration of
instrument by
procedures speci-
fied in Reference
Method 21
calibration gases
shall be:
zero air
mixture of methane
or n-hexane and
air at specified
concentration
background level
determined as set
forth in Reference
Method 21
instrument probe
traverse require-
ments as described
in Reference
Method 21
arithmetic differ-
ence compared
with 500 ppm for
compliance
determination
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1034(b)
264.1 034(b)(1>
264,1034(b)(2)
264.1034(b)(3)
264,1034(bM4)
264,1034{b)(4)(i)
264.1 034(bK4){ii)
264.1034(b)(5)
264,1034(b){6)
264.1 034(b)(7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
""EQUITY
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
•
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 121 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/81
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
performance test
requirements to
determine com-
pliance with
264.1032{a)
and 264.1033(c)
reference methods
and calculation
procedures to use
when determining
total organic
compound
concentrations and
mass flow rates
Method 2 in
40 CFR Part 60
for velocity and
volumetric flow
rate
Method 18 in
40 CFR Part 60
for organic content
performance tests
in three separate
runs; conditions
for conducting
runs; averaging
results on a time-
weighted basis
equation for
determining
total organic
mass flow rates
equation for
determining annual
total organic
emission rate
determination of
total organic
emissions from all
process vents using
264,1034(cX1)(iv)
equation and
264.1034(c)(1)(v)
equation
CHECK-
LIST
RiFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 034(c)
264.1034(c)(1)
264.1034{eH1)m
264.1 034(c)(1)(ii)
264.1 034(c)(1)fiii)
264.1Q34(c)(1Miv)
264.1034(c)(1)(v)
264.1 034(c)(1)(vi)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE £NALOQ jg.
EQUIT^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
j
I
Page 122 of 159
DC8.B - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR, NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
recording of pro-
cess information
necessary to
determine perfor-
mance test
conditions; certain
operational periods
not applicable
performance testing
facilities provided
by owner or
operator
sampling ports
adequate for
264.1034(c)(1)
test methods
safe sampling
platform(s)
safe access
to sampling
platform(s)
utilities for
sampling and
testing equipment
use of time-
weighted average
of three runs in
making compliance
determinations;
Regional Admini-
strator approval
needed for average
based on two runs
if a sample is
accidentally lost
or certain
conditions occur
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1034(c)(2)
264,1 034(c)(3)
264.1034(c)(3)(i)
264.1 034(c)(3)fii)
264.1034(c)(3Hiii)
264.1034(cM3Miv)
264.1034(c){4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ESuWT
ALE NT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 123 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
to demonstrate a
process vent is
not subject to
Subpart AA
requirements, use
one of two
methods to deter-
mine an annual
average total
organic concen-
tration of less
than 10 ppmw
direct measure-
ment using the
following
procedures;
minimum of four
grab samples
under specified
process conditions
for waste generated
onsite, collect grab
samples before
exposure to the
atmosphere; for
waste generated
offsite, collect
grab samples at
the inlet to the
first waste
management unit
that receives the
waste under
specific conditions
sample analysis
using Method 9060
or 8240 of
SW-846
calculation of
time-weighted,
annual average
total organic
concentration of
waste
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1034(d)
264.1 034(d)(1)
264.1 034(d)(1)(i)
264.1 034(d)(1)(ii)
264.1034(d)Cn(i!i)
264.1 034(d)(1Hiv)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
"-
Page 124 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (eont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
using knowledge
of the waste to
determine its total
organic concen-
tration is less than
10 ppmw; documen-
tation of the
waste determination
is required;
examples of
acceptable
documentation
guidelines for the
determination that
hazardous wastes
are managed with
time-weighted,
annual average
total organic con-
centrations less
than 10 ppmw
Method 8240
procedures
used to resolve
dispute in case
of disagreement
between owner or
operator and
Regional Admini-
strator regarding
the determination
made in
264.1034(e)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1034(d)(2)
264.1034(6)
264.1 034(e)(1)
264.1034(6) (2)
264.1034(e)(3)
264.1034(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL5S IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
compliance with
recordkeeping
requirements
recordkeeping
requirements for
more than one
hazardous waste
management unit
in one record-
keepinq system
79
79
264.1 035{a)(1)
264.1035(a) (2)
Page 125 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/81
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information that
must be recorded
in the facility
operating record
for 264.1033(a)(2)-
complying facili-
ties.an implemen-
tation schedule
that Includes
specified dates and
rationale; inclusion
in operating record
by effective date
the facility
becomes subject to
Subpart AA
provisions
up-to-date
documentation of
264.1032
standards
information and
data Identifying
all affected
process vents and
specific infor-
mation for
each vent
Information and
data supporting
determinations of
vent emissions and
emission reduc-
tions; new
determination
required if any
action taken
increases total
emissions
a performance test
plan for owners or
operators using
test data
for determination
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1035{b)
264.1 035(b)(1)
264.1035(b) (2)
264.1 Q35(b)(2)(i)
264.1035(b)(2)(ii)
264.1 035(b)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
- ^nti ANALOG t§:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 126 of 159
DC5.9 - 12m/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
a description of
the determination
that a planned test
will be conducted
when unit is
operating at the
highest load or
capacity level
detailed engineer-
ing description of
closed-vent system
and control device
detailed description
of sampling and
monitoring
procedures
documentation of
compliance with
264.1033
information refer-
ences and
sources
records including
the dates of each
compliance test
required
bv 264.1033(k)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 035(b)(3)(i)
264.1 035(b)(3)(it)
264.1 035(b)(3)(H)(A)
264,1 035(bK3Kii)(B)
264.1 035(b)(3)(H)(C)
264.1035(bH3Hii)(D)
264.1035(b)(3}(«)(E)
264.1 035(b)(3)(iii)
264.1035(b) (4)
264.1 035(bH4)(i)
264,1 035 (b){4Min
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
"louiy^"
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 127 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
if engineering
calculations are
used, a design
analysis and other
documents that
present basic
control device
design informa-
tion; design
analysis addresses
vent stream
characteristics and
control device
operation
parameters
design analysis
requirements for a
thermal vapor
incinerator
design analysis
requirements for a
catalytic vapor
incinerator
design analysis
requirements for a
boiler or process
heater
design analysis
requirements for a
flare
design analysis
requirements for a
condenser
design analysis
requirements for
carbon adsorption
system that
regenerates the
carbon bed
directly onsite
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 035{b)(4Hiii)
264.1035(b)(4KiiiHA>
264.1035(bH4)(iii)(B)
264.1 035(bM4Mii?MC)
264,1 035(b)(4Hiii)(D)
264.1035(b)(4)(iii)(E)
264.1035(bM4)(iiiMF)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ECUIV-
ALiNT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 128 of 159
DC5.9 -
j.. \ *
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
design analysis
requirements for a
carbon adsorption
system that does
not regenerate the
carbon bed
directly onsite
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner or
operator regarding
operating
parameters
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner or
operator regarding
controf equipment
meeting design
specifications
all test results
when performance
tests are used to
demonstrate
compliance
information to be
recorded and kept
up-to-date in the
facility operating
record for each
closed-vent system
and control device
subject to the Part
264 regulations
description and
date of each
modification
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1035(b){4Kiii)(G)
264.1035(bM4)(iv)
264.1 035(b)(4Hv)
264.1035(bK4Kvi)
264.1035(c)
264.1 035(cH1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 129 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-• ij"
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
identification of
operating para-
meter, description
of monitoring
device and location
diagram for
compliance with
264.1033{f)(1) and
(«(2)
information
required by
264.1033(fHk)
date, time and
duration of each
period that occurs
while control
device is operating
when any
monitored para-
meter exceeds the
value established
in the design
analysis
when combustion
temperature is
below 760°C for a
thermal vapor
incinerator
when temperature
of vent stream is
more than 28°C
below average
temperature or
when temperature
difference across
catalyst bed is less
than 80 percent of
the design average
temperature
difference for a
catalytic vapor
incinerator
boiler or process
heater
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
•79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1035{c)(2)
264.1035(0(3}
264.1035(c)(4)
264.1035(c)(4)(i)
264.1 035(c)(4)(ii)
264.1 035(c)(4)(iii)
264.1 035(c)(4)(iiiKA)
264.1035(c)(4)(iiiMB)
264.1035(c)(4)(iv)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG is:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
•
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•
Page 130 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
flame zone
temperature is
more than 28°C
below design
average
temperature
position
chanqes
period when the
pilot flame is not
ignited for a
flare
period when
organic compounds
are more than 20
percent greater
than the design
level for a
condenser
condenser that
complies with
264.1 033(f)(2)
(vi)(B)
temperature of
exhaust vent stream
is more than 6°C
above design
average temper-
ature
temperature of
exiting coolant
fluid is more than
6°C above design
average temper-
ature
period when
organic compounds
are more than 20
percent greater
than the design
level for a
carbon adsorption
system
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 035(c){4HivHA)
264.1035(c)(4)(lv)(B)
264.1035(c)(4)(v)
264.1035(c)(4)(vi)
264.1035fc)(4)(vii)
264.1035(cM4)(viiKA)
264.1035(e){4)(vii)(B)
264.1035(c){4)(viii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 131 of 159
DC5.9 - 12^1/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5; Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
period when vent
stream flow
exceeds pre-
determined
regeneration time
for a carbon
adsorption system
explanation for
each period under
264.1035(c)(4) of
the cause for
parameters being
exceeded and
measures
implemented
date when existing
carbon is replaced
log to record
specific dates
date of each
control device
startup and
shutdown
records required
by paragraphs
264.1 035(e)(3)-
(c)(8) need be
kept only 3 years
specification of
recordkeeping
requirements for
certain control
devices by
Regional
Administrator
logging of infor-
mation used to
determine if
process vent is
subject to 264.1032
and 264.1032WH2)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 035(c)(4)flx)
264.1035(c)(5)
264.1 035(cM6)
264.1035{c)(7)
264.1035(c)(7Hi)
264.1 035(c)(7)fii)
264.1Q35(c)(8)
264.1035(d)
264.1035(e)
264.1035(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
TTATrATlA'aSSTS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 132 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EOLtlV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
semiannual report
submitted by date
specified by
Regional Adminis-
trator; information
the report must
contain:
EPA ID number,
name and address
of facility
dates when design
specifications are
exceeded, duration
and cause, and
corrective
measures taken
exception to
reporting require-
ments specified in
264.1036(a)
79
79
79
79
264.1036(3)
264.1036(a)(1)
264.1036(3) (2)
264.1036(b)
•
SUBPART BB - AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS
APPLICABILITY
owners and opera-
tors of facilities
that treat, store
or dispose of
hazardous wastes
except as provided
in 264.1
79
264.1050(a)
Page 133 of 159
DC5.9 -
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
except as provided
in 264,1 064(k),
applicability of
Subpart BB to
equipment that
contains or
contacts hazardous
wastes with
organic concen-
trations of at
least 10 percent by
weight that are
managed in units
or facilities subject
to Part 270 permit-
ting requirements
for permits
received under
Section 3005
of RCRA prior to
December 21 ,
1 990,requiremertts
of 264.1052-
264.1065 must be
incorporated when
permit is reissued
under 124.15
or reviewed under
270.50
equipment subject
to Subpart BB,
Part 264 shall
be marked
equipment in
vacuum service
excluded from
requirements of
264.1052 to
264.1060 if
identified as
required in
264.1064(a)(5)
— CRECR:
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 050CW
264,1 050(bK1)
264.1 050(b)(2)
264.1050(c)
264.1050(d)
264.1050(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQOTT
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 134 of 159
1X35.9 - 12MV91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
DEFINITIONS
all terms have
meaning given them
in 264.1031, the
Act, and Parts
260-266
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1051
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATi ANALOG IS:
Eouiv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: PUMPS IN LIGHT LIQUID SERVICE
monthly monitoring
to detect leaks
as specified by
264.1 063(b)
methods except as
provided in
264.1052(d), (e)
and (f)
visual inspection
each calendar
week
conditions
indicating a
leak is detected
time frame for
leak repair, except
as provided in
264.1059
first attempt
at leak repair
not to exceed
5 calendar
days after
leak detection
pump equipped
with dual
mechanical seal
system that
includes a barrier
fluid system is
exempt from
264.1052(a) if
specific require-
ments are met:
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
264.1Q52(aM1)
264.1052(a)(2)
264.1052(b)(1)
264.1 Q52(b){2)
264.1052{c)(1)
264.1 052(cK2)
264.1 052(d)
Page 135 of 159
OC5.9 - 1ZM1/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
operational and
equipment
requirements for a
dual mechanical
seal system
organic concentra-
tion limitation
for barrier
fluid system
sensor requirement
weekly visual
check of pump
daily check of
barrier fluid
system sensor
or monthly check
of audible alarm
determination of
criterion to indicate
failure of systems
leak detection
criteria
repair of leak
not to exceed
15 calendar days,
except as provided
in 264.1059
first attempt at
leak repair not
to exceed 5
calendar days
after leak detection
conditions under
which pump desig-
nated for no
detectable emis-
sions is exempt
from 264.1052(a),
(c) and (d)
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 052(d)(1)
264.1052(dH1Hi)
264.1 052(d)(1)(ii)
264.1 052{d)(1Hiii)
264.1052(d)(2)
264.1 052(d)(3)
264.1052(d)(4)
264.1 052(d)(5)(i)
264.1052(d)(5)(ii)
264.1 052(d)(6)(i)
264.1052(d)(6)(ii)
264.1052(d)(6Hiii)
264.1052(e)
264.1 052(e)(1)
264.1052(e) (2)
264.1052(e)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
'
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
Page 136 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
pump equipped
with closed-vent
system and control
device in com-
pliance with
264.1060 is
exempt from
264.1 052(a)-(e)
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264,1052{f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATlON
STAIE ANALOG IS:
EQlM-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: COMPRESSORS
seal system
requirement for
compressor, except
as provided in
264.1 053(h)
and (i)
specifications
for compressor
seal system
organic concen-
tration
limitation for
barrier fluid
sensor
requirement
daily check of
barrier fluid
system sensor
or monthly check
of audible alarm;
daily check if
compressor located
within boundary
of unmanned site
determination of
criterion to
indicate failure
of systems
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
264.1053(a)
264.1053CW
264.1053(b)(1)
264.1053(b)(2)
264.1 053(b)(3)
264.1053(c)
264.1 053{d)
264.1053{e){1)
264. 1053(e) (2)
•
-
Page 137 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
JOO
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
leak detection
criteria
repair of leak not
to exceed 15
calendar days,
except as
provided in
264,1059
first attempt at
leak repair not
to exceed 5
calendar days after
leak detection
compressor
equipped with
closed-vent
system and control
device in com-
pliance with
264.1060 is
exempt from
264.1053(a) and
(b) requirements,
except as provided
in 264,1053(1)
conditions under
which compressor
designated for no
detectable emis-
sions is exempt
from 264.1053(a)
through (h)
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1053(f)
264.1 053(a)(D
264.1053(a)(2)
264.1 053(h)
264,1053(1)
264.1053(i)(1)
264.1053(i)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CtTATION
in A it ANALOG IS:
feouiv'-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: PRESSURE RELIEF DEVICES IN GAS/VAPOR SERVICE
except during
pressure releases,
no detectable
emission standards
for the operation
of pressure relief
device in gas/
vapor service, as
measured by
264.1 063(c) method
79
264.1054(a)
Page 138 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
time requirement
and criteria for
return of pressure
relief device to a
condition of no
detectable
emissions,except
as provided in
264.1059
monitoring of
pressure relief
device within 5
calendar days after
pressure relief to
confirm no
detectable
emissions, as
measured by
264.1063(c) method
pressure relief
device equipped
with closed-vent
system and control
device in com-
pliance with
264.1060 is
exempt from
264,1054(3}
and (b)
CHICK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1054{b)(1)
264.1 054(b)(2)
264.1054(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
STANDARDS: SAMPLING CONNECTING SYSTEMS
sampling con-
necting system
equipped with
closed purge
or closed-vent
system
return, collect and
recycle purged
waste with no
detectable
emissions; control
device in compli-
ance with 264.1060
79
79
79
79
79
264.1055fa)
264.1055(b)
264.1055(bH1)
264.1055(b)(2)
264.1055(b)(3)
Page 139 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
in situ sampling
systems exempt
from 264.1055(a)
and (b)
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1055(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
KSUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQiNT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: OPEN-ENDED VALVES OR LINES
each open-ended
valve or line
shall be equipped
with a cap,
blind flange,
plug, or a second
valve
requirement to
seal open end at
all times except
during specified
operations
operational
requirements for
open-ended valve
or line equipped
with a second
valve
requirements for
bleed valve
or line when a
double block and
bleed system is
used; compliance
with 264.1056(a)
79
79
79
79
264.1 056(aH1)
264.1 056(a)(2)
264.1 056(b)
264.1056(c)
Page 140 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA i
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
""Sou iv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: VALVES IN GAS/VAPOR SERVICE OR IN LIGHT LIQUID SERVICE
monthly monitoring
of each valve in
gas/vapor or light
liquid service
using 264.1063(b)
methods;
compliance with
264.1057{b)-(e),
except as provided
in 264.1 057(1),
(g) and (h),
264.1061 and
264.1062
instrument reading
of 10,000 ppm or
greater indicates
leak
monitoring
requirements if
leak not detected
for two
months
monthly monitoring
requirement if
leak detected
repair of leak
not to exceed 1 5
calendar days,
except as provided
in 264.1059
first attempt
at leak repair
not to exceed
5 calendar
days after
leak detection
79
79
79
79
79
79
264.1057(a)
264.1057CW
264.1057(c)(1)
264.1057(c)(2)
264.1057(dH1)
264.1057{d)(2)
•
Page 141 of 159
DC5.9 - 12^1/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
best practices to
include in first
attempt at repair
valve designated
for no detectable
emissions under
264.1064{g)(2)
is exempt
from 264.1057(a)
requirements
if specified
conditions are met
conditions under
which an unsafe-
to-monitor valve
as described in
264.1064(h)(1) is
exempt from
264.1057(8)
requirements
conditions under
which a difflcult-
to-monitor valve
as described in
264.1064(h)(2) is
exempt from
264.1057(a)
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1057(6)
264.1 057(e)(1)
264.1 057(e)(2)
264.1 057(e)(3)
264.1 057(e>(4)
'264.1057ff)
264.1057(0(1)
264,1057(0(2)
264.1 057(0(3)
264.1057(0)
264.1057(a)(1)
264.1057(a)(2)
264.1057(h)
264.1 057(h)(1)
264.1 057(h)(2)
264.1057(h)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
•
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 142 of 159
DC5.9 - 12H1/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK- '
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG 15:
Ebuiv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: PUMPS AND VALVES IN HEAVY LIQUID SERVICE, PRESSURE
RELIEF DEVICES IN LIGHT LIQUID OR HEAVY LIQUID SERVICE, AND FLANGES
AND OTHER CONNECTORS
monitoring of
specified pumps
and valves,
pressure relief
devices, flanges
and other
connectors within
5 days using
264.1063(b)
methods in case
of potential
leaks
reading of 10,000
ppm or greater
indicates leak
repair of leak
not to exceed 1 5
calendar days,
except as
provided in
264.1059
first attempt
at leak repair
not to exceed
5 calendar
days after
leak detection
first attempt at
repair includes
best practices
described
under 264.1 057 (e)
79
79
79
79
79
264.1058(a)
264.1 058(b)
264.1058(c)(1)
264.1058(c)(2)
264.1058(d)
STANDARDS: DELAY OF REPAIR
requirements for
the delay of
repair of equip-
ment for which
leaks have been
detected
79
264.1059(a)
Page 143 of 159
DC5.9 - 12H1/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
type of equipment
for which delay
of repair
allowed
conditions
under which
delay of repair of
valves allowed
conditions
under which
delay of repair of
pumps allowed
conditions for
delay of repair
beyond a
hazardous waste
management unit
shutdown
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 059(b)
264.1059(c)
264,1 059(c)(1)
264.1059(e)(2)
264.1059(d)
264.1 059(dM1)
264.1 059(d)(2)
264.1059(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
»
STANDARDS; CLOSED-VENT SYSTEMS AND CONTROL DEVICES
owners or
operators of
closed-vent
systems and
control devices
shall comply
with 264.1033
provisions
79
264.1060
ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FOR VALVES IN GAS/VAPOR SERVICE OR IN LIGHT LIQUID
SERVICE: PERCENTAGE OF VALVES ALLOWED TO LEAK
alternative stan-
dard allowing no
greater than 2
percent of
valves to leak
for an owner or
operator subject
to 264.1057
requirements
79
264.1061(a)
Page 144 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
notification,
performance test,
and repair require-
ments if an owner
or operator decides
to comply with
alternative standard
monitoring
standards, leak
detection criterion
and determination
of leak percentage
when conducting
performance tests
written notification
to Regional
Administrator of
intent to follow
264.1057(a)-(e)
work practice
standard if owner
or operator
decides to no
longer comply
with 264.1061
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.106Kb)
284.1061
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
compliance with
264.1057
requirements,
except as described
in 264.1062(b)(2)
and (b){3)
conditions under
which an owner
or operator
may begin to skip
one of the
quarterly leak
detection periods
for valves
subject to 264.1057
requirements
conditions under
which an owner
or operator may
begin to skip three
of the quarterly
leak detection
periods for valves
subject to 264.1057
requirements
compliance with
264.1057 monthly
monitoring require-
ments if percentage
of valves leaking
exceeds 2 percent;
may elect to use
264.1062 require-
ments again
after meeting
264.1 057{c)(1)
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1062{b)(1)
264.1 062(bH2)
264.1 062(b)(3)
264.1 062{b){4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EQUIV
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 146 of 159
DC8.9 - 1211/91
Ctr
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SI Alt ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TEST METHODS AND PROCEDURES
compliance with
test methods and
procedure require-
ments by owner
or operator subject
to provisions
of Subpart BB
leak detection
monitoring as
required in
264.1052-264.1062
shall comply with
specified
reauirements:
monitoring in
compliance with
Reference Method
21 in 40 CFR
Part 60
detection instru-
ment shall meet
the performance
criteria of
Reference
Method 21
calibration of
instrument by
procedures
specified in
Reference
Method 21
calibration gases
shall be:
zero air
mixture of
methane or
n-hexane and
air at specified
concentration
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
264.1063(a)
264.1063(b)
264.1 063{b)(1)
264,1063(b)(2)
264.1063(b) (3)
264.1063(b){4)
264.1063(b)(4)(i)
264.1 063(b)(4)(ii)
Page 147 of 159
DCS ,9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
instrument probe
traverse
requirements as
described in
Reference
Method 21
test compliance
requirements for
equipment with no
detectable emis-
sions as required
in 264.1052(6),
264.10530),
264.1054 and
264.1057(f)
in accordance with
264.13(b),
determination by
owner or operator
of whether
equipment contains
or contacts a
hazardous waste
with organic
concentration
equal to or greater
than 10% by
weight using the
following:
methods described
in ASTM Methods
D 2267-88,
E 169-87,
E 168-88
and E 260-85
Method 9060 or
8240 of SW-846
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1063(b)(5)
264.1063(c)
264.1 063(c)(1)
264.1063(c)(2)
264.1063(cK3)
264.1063(c)(4)
264.1 063(d)
264.1063(d)(1)
264.1 063(d)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STAfE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
\
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 148 of 159
OC5.9 - 12M1/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
application of the
knowledge of the
nature of the
hazardous waste
stream or the
process by which
it was produced;
documentation
required; examples
of documentation
determination as
specified in
264,1063(d) can be
revised only after
following
264.1 063(d)(1)
or (d)(2)
procedures
use of
264.1063(d}(1)
or (d)(2) to resolve
determination
disputes between
owner or operator
and Regional
Administrator
samples used
for determination
representative
of highest expected
total organic
content hazardous
waste
to determine if
pumps or valves
are in light
liquid service,
vapor pressures of
constituents may
be obtained from
standard reference
texts or may be
determined by
ASTM D-2879-86
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 063{d)(3)
264.1063(6)
264.1063(f)
264.1063(0)
264,1063(h)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGiNT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
• -
Page 149 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
performance tests
for control device
shall compfy with
264.1 034(c)(1)
through (c)(4)
procedures
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1063(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ECU IV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
compliance with
recordkeeping
requirements
recordkeeping
requirements for
more than one
hazardous waste
management unit
in one
recordkeeping
system
specific informa-
tion that owners
and operators
must record in the
facility
operatinq record
for facilities that
comply with the
provisions of
264.1 033{a)(2), an
implementation
schedule as
specified in
264.1033(aH2)
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
264,1064(a)(1)
264.1Q64(aH2)
264.1064(b)
264.1 064(b)(1)
264.1064(b)(1)(i)
264,1064(bM1Mii)
264.1064(b)(1)(iii)
264,1064(b)(1)(tv)
264.1 064(b)(1Hv)
264.1064(bH1Hvi)
264.1 064(b)(2)
-
-
Page 150 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMiNT
performance test
plan as specified
in 264.1 035(b)(3)
if test data
are used for
control device
demonstration
documentation of
compliance with
264.1060,
including
documentation or
results specified
in 264.1 035(b)(4)
information
requirements
when each leak
is detected as
specified in
264.1052,
264.1053, 264.1057
and 264.1058
inspection log
information
requirements when
each leak is
detected as speci-
fied in 264.1052,
264.1053, 264.1057
and 264.1058
CHECK-
US?
RiFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1064(b)(3)
264.1064{b)(4)
264.1064(c)
264.1 064(eH1)
264.1 064(cH2)
264.1 064(c)(3)
264.1064fd)
264.1064(d)(1)
264.1 064(d)(2)
264.1064(d)(3)
264.1064(d)(4)
264.1064(d)(5)
264.1064(dH6)
264.1 064{d)(7)
264.1064(d){8)
264.1 064(d)(9)
264.1064(d)(10)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL53 IS:
6oU!7-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 151 of 159
DCS.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
for each closed-
vent system and
control device
subject to
264.1060, design
documentation and
monitoring,
operating and
inspection informa-
tion recorded in
facility operating
record as specified
in 264.1035(c)
for a control
device other than
thermal vapor
incinerator,
catalytic vapor
incinerator, flare,
boiler, process
heater, condenser,
or carbon adsorp-
tion system,
Regional Admini-
strator will
specify appropriate
recordkeeping
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1064(6)
264.1064(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
^
Page 152 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information
requirements for
equipment subject
to the requirements
of 264.1052
through 264.1060
to be recorded in
a log and kept in
the facility
operatinq record
information
requirements for
valves subject to
the requirements
of 264.1 057(g)
and (h)
information
requirements for
valves complying
with 264.1062
additional
information
requirements
criteria required in
264.1 052(d)(5)(ii)
and 264.1 053(e)(2)
and an explanation
of the design
criteria
any changes to the
criteria and the
reasons for the
chanqes
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1064(q)
264.1064(p)(1)
264.1064(g)(2)(i)
264.1 064
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information
requirements
to be recorded in a
log for determining
exemptions as
provided in the
applicability
section of Subpart
BB and other
specific Subparts
records of equip-
ment leak and
operating
information need
be kept for only
three years
the owner or
operator of facility
subject to Subpart
BB and to
regulations at
40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart VV, or
40 CFR Part 61 ,
Subpart V, may
elect to determine
compliance by
documentation
either pursuant to
264.1064 or
provisions of
40 CFR Part 60 or
Part 61 , to the
extent that the
documentation
duplicates the
documentation
required under
Subpart BB
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 064(k)
264.1064(10(1)
264.1064{k)(2)
264.1 064(kH3)
264.1064(1)
264,1064(m)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
-
,
'
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•
Page 154 of 159
DCS ,9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
olAlb ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
a semiannual
report submitted
by owners
or operators to
Regional
Administrator by
specified dates
specific
information
the semiannual
report must
contain
a report to
Regional
Administrator
not required if,
during the semi-
annual reporting
period, leaks from
valves, pumps, and
compressors are
repaired per
264.1 057 (d),
264.1 052(c) and
(d)(6) and
264.1053(g)
requirements and
the control device
does not exceed or
operate outside
264.1064(6)
specifications for
more than 24
hours
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
264.1065(3")
264.1065(a)(1)
264.1 065(a)(2)
264.1065(a)(2)(i)
264.1065(a)(2)(in
264.1065(aH2)(iii)
264.1 065(a)(3)
264.1065(aH4)
264.1Q65(b)
-
Page 155 of 159
DCS.9 - 12/11/91
.it's
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
felAlt ANALOG IS:
ETSUI^1
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX I TO PART 264
RECORDKEEPING INSTRUCTIONS
instructions for
keeping portions of
the operating record
*
Appendix 1
APPENDIX IV TO PART 264
COCHRAN
instructions
calculation
t-test
'S APPROXIMATION TO THE BEHRENS-FISHER STUDENTS' T-TEST
for
of the
*
Appendix IV
-
APPENDIX V TO PART 264
EXAMPLES OF POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE WASTE
list of wastes and
potential conse-
quences of mixing
*
Appendix V
APPENDIX VI TO PART 264
POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS IN WHICH COMPLIANCE WITH §264.18(a) MUST
BE DEMONSTRATED
political jurisdictions
bv state and city
*
Appendix VI
APPENDIX IX TO PART 264
GROUND-WATER MONITORING LIST
list of substances,
suggested test
methods, and prac-
tical quanitation
limits
40
Appendix IX
Page 156 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
V Designates paragraphs/subparagraphs affected by Revision Checklist 51 (September 1, 1988; 53
FR 33938) which was withheld by EPA. See the note at the beginning of this checklist for an
explanation.
1 Revision Checklist 54 removed the comment following 264.54(e).
2 This requirement was moved from 264.75(h) to 264.75(j) by Revision Checklist 30.
3 Checklist IV A shows this text as 264.77(c), but July 1,1983 CFR shows It as 264.77(b).
This paragraph was totally revised by Revision Checklist 17 I.
5 In Checklist IV A, this text was included in 264.90(b)(2).
6 Revision Checklist 55 moved text from 264.97(g)(3) to 264.97(a)(1)(i).
7 Revision Checklist 55 moved this text from 264.98(g) to 264.98(f).
8 Original 264.98(g) text from Checklist IV A was moved to 264.98(f) by Revision Checklist 55. The
present 264.98(g) is a revised version of 264.98(h) as found in Checklist IV A. Revision Checklist
55 made this change. Subparagraph 264.98(g)(6) was added by this checklist as well.
10
11
12
13
14
15
There is a typographical error in the Federal code for this subparagraph: "concentration or any"
should be "concentration of any."
In Checklist IV A this paragraph was designated 264.98(j); Revision Checklist 55 moved it to
264.98(h). The old 264.98(h) was a multipart paragraph originating with Checklist IV A. This
paragraph was amended by Revision Checklist 40 and was removed and replaced by 264.98(j) in
Revision Checklist 55.
Revision Checklist 55 deleted the old 264.99(h) from Checklist IV A and redesignated 264.99(1) as
264.99(h).
Revision Checklist 55 moved the old 264.990) of Checklist IV A to 264.99(1).
Revision Checklist 55 moved the old 264.99(k) of Checklist IV A to 264.990).
These paragraphs were originally 264.100(e)(1) and 264.100(e)(2), but Revision Checklist 44 B
redesignated them as 264.100(e)(3) and 264.100(e)(4).
Citations within the double lines are optional, but if a State chooses to modify its program to
adopt requirements equivalent to these provisions, it must adopt such requirements as a unit
rather than by individual provision. In other words, all or none of these provisions must be
included in a State's code. Subsequent changes to these provisions may or may not be optional
for States that have chosen to adopt the optional unit of provisions. An optional sign appears in
Page 157 of 159
DC5.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RGRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
BORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
front of the subsequent revision checklist number(s) if such subsequent changes are less stringent
than or reduce the scope of the unit's requirements.
Revision Checklist 64 redesignated a portion of 264.112(d)(2), introduced into the code by
Revision Checklist 24, as 264.112(d)(2)(i).
Text from 264.118(a)(1)-(3) In Checklist IV A was moved to 264.118(b)(1)-(3) by Revision Checklist
24.
Part of the current text in this paragraph was introduced by Revision Checklist 24 while the
remainder reflects the content of portions of 264.118(b)(3) in the base program.
Most of 264.118(d), including all subparagraphs, is code introduced by Revision Checklist 24. The
introductory paragraph of 264.118(d), however, corresponds roughly to 264.118(c) in Checklist IV
A.
Revision Checklist 24 extensively revised 264.119 as per Checklist IV A, including a new section
title. The original code contained no subparagraphs.
Text from 264.120(a) in Checklist IV A was moved to 264.119(b)(1) and (b)(1)(i)-{iii) by Revision
Checklist 24.
Text from 264.120(b) In Checklist IV A was moved to 264.119(c) by Revision Checklist 24.
The current text of 264.120 was introduced by Revision Checklist 24 whereas the original text of
264.120, as per Checklist IV A, was moved to 264.119(b) and (c) by Revision Checklist 24.
In Checklist IV A, this text was included in 264.142(a).
Although not included in Checklist IV A, the text of the current 264.147(h) was included in the
base program as 264.147(g). This paragraph was moved by Revision Checklist 27.
In the base program, the content of this 264.190 introductory paragraph was located at
264.190(a).
Revision Checklist 28 completely revised this base program (Checklist IV A) paragraph.
Revision Checklist 28 completely reorganized and revised the regulations pertaining to tank
systems which originally appeared In Checklist IV A at 264.191 through 264.197. Also, Revision
Checklist 28 deletes 264.200, a section previously originated by Revision Checklist 14.
Paragraphs 264.221 (f), (g), and (h) were redesignated as such by Revision Checklist 17 H.
These paragraphs were originally designated as 264.221 (c), (d), and (e), respectively, by Checklist
IV A.
Page 158 of 159
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C5: Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUlV^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
qn
Revision Checklist 17 I affected this subparagraph by removing the original 264.226(b)(3) and
31 Revision Checklist 17 I affected this paragraph by removing the original 264.228(b)(2) and
redesignating 264.228(b)(3) and (b)(4) as (b)(2) and (b)(3), respectively.
32 The old 264.254(b)(2) was removed by Revision Checklist 17 I. 264.254(b)(3) and (4) were also
redesignated as 264.254(b)(2) and (3) by this checklist.
33
This variance was introduced by Revision Checklist 17 H. If a State chooses to adopt this
optional provision at 264.301 (e), It must adopt all of the requirements of 264.301 (e)(1)-(4).
34 These paragraphs were originally 264.301 (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) on Checklist IV A. Revision
35 The old 264.303(b)(2) from Checklist IV B was removed by Revision Checklist 17 I. 264.303(b)(3)
and (4) were then redesignated by this checklist as 264.303(b)(2) and (3).
36 Revision Checklist 17 I removed the old 264.310(b)(2) of Checklist IV A and redesignated
264.310(b)(3), (4), (5), and (6) as 264.310(b)(2), (3), (4) and (5).
Revision Checklist 17 F redesignated the old 264.314(b)
added a new 264.314(b). The redesignation is optional.
37 Revision Checklist 17 F redesignated the old 264.314(b) of Checklist IV A as 264.314(d) and
38
^° This code is part of the optional requirements for the alternate treatment standards for lab packs
under the Third Third Scheduled Waste Rule. If adopted, all of the requirements (i.e., 264.316(f),
265.316(f), 268.7(a)(7), 268.7(a)(8), 268.42(c), 268.42(c)(1)-(4), and Appendices IV and V to Part
268) related to these alternate treatment standards must be adopted.
Page 159 of 159 _ 005.9-12/11/91
-------
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6
Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
40 CFR Part 265 as of June 30, 1990
Note: Several sections of Part 265, Subpart H, were revised by the September 1, 1988 final rule (53
FR 33938, i.e., reserved Revision Checklist 51) entitled "Standards Applicable to Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities; Liability Coverage."
Pursuant to the settlement agreement resulting from litigation surrounding this rule, EPA will be
amending this rule in the future. States should not incorporate changes made by the September 1,
1988 rule until the amendments are promulgated, even though the changes were incorporated in the
1989 and the 1990 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) when they were published by the Office of
the Federal Register. Paragraphs that were changed, removed, or renumbered by the September 1,
1988 rule are marked with a "V" in this consolidated checklist. Because the September 1988 rule is
the only rule since July 1, 1988 to affect these specific paragraphs, States may use the text of the
July 1, 1988 CFR as guidance in modifying such paragraphs or in assessing their equivalency with
Federal code. In addition to the changes to existing paragraphs, the September 1, 1988 rule inserted
the following new paragraphs: 265.141 (h), 265.147(a)(4)-(7), 265.147(b)(5)-(7), and 265.147(h)-.(j).
These paragraphs will not be added to Consolidated Checklist C5 until the amendments to the-rule
are published. The following paragraphs were revised by Revision Checklist 51: 265.147(a),.
265.147(a)(2)&(3), 265.147(b), 265.147(b)(2)-(4), 265.147(g)&(g)(1) and 265.147(g)(2)(i)&(ii). Revision
Checklist 51 removed and reserved 265.147(g)(1)(ii) and redesignated the old 264.147(h) as
264.147(k).
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-I MORE 1 BR6ADER
ALENTI STRINGENT! IN SCOPE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE, SCOPE, AN
establish minimum
national standards
applies to all owners
and operators of
TSDFs, with
exceptions, who have
met interim status
requirements of RCRA
3005(e) or 270.10 or
until fulfill appli-
cable 265 closure/
post closure
requirements
exceptions
ocean disposal
D APPLICA
MO
IV B,
3,10
IV B
IV B
BILITY
265.1 (a)
265. Kb)
265. 1(c)
265.1 (c)(1)
Page 1 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11^91
l> /XT
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
reserved
POTWs
1 covered by a program
of an authorized State
1 unless State's program
omits underground
infection
1 unless State's authori-
zation not up to date
for HSWA
requirements
waste excluded
by 261.5
recyclable materials
described in
261 .6(a) (2) and (3)
in accordance with
262,34
waste accumulated at
site of generation
in accordance with
262,34
farmers complying
with 262.70
totally enclosed
treatment facility
elementary neutrali-
zation unit or
wastewater treatment
unit
treatment or contain-
ment activities In
response to an
emergency, except
as provided by
265.1(c)(11)(ii)
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B,
44 C
IV B
IV B
*
*
IV B
IV B.13
IV B
IV B.48
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1(c)(2)
265.1 CcM3)
265.1(c)(4)
265.1(0(4)0)
265.1 (O(4)(li)
265.1 (c){5)
265.1(cH6)
265.1(0(7)
265.1(c)(8)
265.1 (c)(9)
265.1(0(10)
265,1 (cKIDfl)
265.1 (0(1 DOHA)
265.1 (0(1 1Hi)(B)
265.1(0(11X0(0
265.1 (0(1 1)(ii)
265.1 (O(11)(iii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALoQ IS:
EQUIV-
ALiNT
MORI
STRIN3ENT
•
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 2 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (eont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
transporters storing
in containers
meetinq 262.30
combination of waste
and absorbent
material
hazardous wastes not
to be managed at
facilities regulated
under 265
applicable to owners
or operators of
facilities which treat,
store or dispose of
wastes referred to in
268; 268 standards
are considered
material requirements
of 265 standards
reserved
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
14
34,78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1(c)(12)
265.1 (c)(1 3)
265. 1(d)
265.1(d)(1)
265.1(dM1MO
265.1 (d)(1)(H)
265.1 (d)(1 Kill)
265.1(d)(1)(iv)
265.1 (d)M)(v)
265.1(6)
265.2-265.3
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
IMMINENT HAZARD ACTION
enforcement actions
under RCRA 7003
*
265.4
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
APPLICABILITY
subpart applies to
all hazardous waste
facilities except as
provided in 265.1
*
265.10
Page 3 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ESDIW
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
EPA identification
number required
IV B
265.1 1
REQUIRED NOTICES
hazardous waste from
foreign source
requirements before
ownership transfer
IV B
IV B
265.12(a)
265.1 2(b)
GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
analysis required
prior to handling any
hazardous waste or
265,113(d) non-
hazardous waste
inclusion of
existing data
when analysis must
be repeated
inspect each
offsite shipment
develop and follow
written waste
analysis plan:
parameters which will
be analyzed
test methods
sampling method
frequency of reviewing
or repeating analysis
analyses from
generators
IV B.34
t64
IV BJ8
IV B
IV B,t64
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B,t64
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
265.13(a){1)
265,13(aH2>
265.13(a)(3)
265.13(a){3)(i)
265.1 3(a)(3)(ii)
265.1 3(a)(4)
265.13(b)
265.13(b){1)
265.13{bM2)
265.1 3(b){3)
265.13(bH3)(i)
265.1 3(b)(3)fli)
265.1 3(b)(4)
265.13(b)(5)
"
Page 4 of 132
DC6.9 - 12^11/91
-------
OSWER DIR, NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
meeting of additional
waste analysis
requirements
surface impoundments
exempted from land
disposal restrictions
under 268.4(a);
procedures and
schedules for:
sampling impound-
ment contents
analysis procedures
annual removal of
residues:
wastes that do not
meet 268, Subpart D,
treatment standards
where no treatment
standards established
analysis plan for
off-site facilities:
procedures for
identifying each waste
moved at facility
sampling method
used to obtain a
representative sample
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B.16
28,34,79
34
34
34
34,39,
50
50
50
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.13tt>)(6)
265.13(bK7)
265.13(b)(7)(i)
265.13(b)(7)(ii)
265.13(b)(7)(ffi)
265,1 3(b)(7)flii)(A)
265.13(b)(7)(iiI)(B)
265.1 3(b){7)(iH){B)
(1)
265.1 3(b)(7)0H)(B)
(2)
265.13{c)
265.13(c)(1)
265,13(c)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOS !5;
~TOU"!7-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SECURITY
prevent unknowing
entry and minimize
unauthorized entry
unless 265.14(a)(1)
& 12) are true
unless exempt under
265.14(a)(1) & (2),
a facility must have:
24-hour surveillance
IV B
*
IV B
265.14(a)
285.14(a)(1)
265.14(a)(2)
265.14(b)
265.14(b)(1)
Page 5 of 132
DCS.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
barrier around active
portion and control
of entry
siqn
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.14(bM2Mi)
265.1 4(b)(2Xif)
265.14{c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EoTJRT
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
GENERAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
inspect for
malfunctions,
deterioration, operator
errors, and discharges
develop and follow
written schedule
keep schedule at
facility
identify items that
are to be looked for
frequency of
inspection
remedy of problems
inspection uncovers
reeordkeeping
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B,
28,79
IV B
IV B
265.15(3)
265.15(b){1)
265.1 5(b)(2)
265.1 5(b){3)
265.15{b)(4)
265.15(c)
265.1 5(d)
-
•
PERSONNEL TRAINING
personnel complete
training to ensure
compliance with 265
director of
training program
must be designed
to ensure
effective response
to emergencies
IV B
IV B
IV B
265.1 6(a)(1)
265.16(a)(2)
265.16(aK3)
265.1 6(a)(3Hi)
265.16(a)(3Kii)
265.1 6(a)(3)(iii)
265.16(a)(3)(iv)
265.16(a)(3)(v)
265.16(a)(3)(vf)
Page 6 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
timinq of instruction
annual review of
initial training
required at 265.1 6(a)
recordkeepinq
retention of
traininq records
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.16(b)
265.16(c)
265.16(d)
265.16WH1)
265.16(d)(2)
265.16(d)(3)
265.16(d)(4)
265.16(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EduiV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE. REACTIVE. OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
precautions to prevent
waste ignition or
reaction
precautions to
prevent specified
reactions
IV B
IV B
265.17(a)
26§,17(b)
265.17(b)(1)
265.17(b){2)
265,17(bM3)
265.17(b){4)
265.17(bH5)
LOCATION STANDARDS
prohibition of waste
placement in salt
domes, salt bed
formations,
underground mines,
and caves
17 E
265.18
Page 7 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/at
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE I BROADER
STRINGENT | IN SCOPE
SUBPART C - PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION
APPLICABILITY
all HW facilities,
except as 265.1
provides
*
265.30
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF FACILITY
requirements to
minimize threats to
health and
environment
IV B
265.31
REQUIRED EQUIPMENT
what all facilities must
be equipped with:
internal communica-
tions or alarm
telephone or
equivalent
fire extinguisher,
fire control equipment,
spill control equip-
ment, and decon-
tamination equipment
water of adequate
volume and pressure
*
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
265.32
265.32(3)
265.32(b)
265.32(c)
265.32(d)
•
TESTING AND MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT
maintenance and
testina requirements
IV B
265.33
ACCESS TO COMMUNICATIONS OR ALARM SYSTEM
immediate access by
personnel handling
hazardous waste
immediate access
when only one
employee is on
premises; what equip-
ment must be
immediately available
IV B
IV B
265.34(a)
265.34(b)
Page 8 of 132
DC6.9 - 12H1/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
• ET3UW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
REQUIRED AISLE SPACE
aisle space required
to allow unobstructed
movement
reserved
IV B
265.35
265.36
ARRANGEMENTS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES
specific arrangements
which must be made
document in operating
record any refusals to
enter into arrangement
IV B
IV B
265.37(a)
265.37fe)(1)
265.37(a)(2)
265.37(a)(3)
265.37(a)(4)
265.37(b)
•
-
SUBPART D - CONTINGENCY PLAN AND EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
APPLICABILITY
applies to ail HW
facilities, except as
265.1 provides
*
265.50
PURPOSE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTINGENCY PLAN
contingency plan
required; purpose
when to implement
plan
*
•
265.51 (a)
265.51 (b)
CONTENT OF CONTINGENCY PLAN
describes actions to
take in compliance
with 265.51 and
265.56
relationship to
SPCC or other plans
IV B
IV B
265.52(a)
265.52(b)
Page 9 of 132
DC6.9 -
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
arrangements with
local police, fire
department, etc.
list names and
addresses of
emergency
coordinator(s); keep
up to date; listed in
order to assume
responsibility as
alternates
list of emergency
equipment at facility
evacuation plan
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.52(C)
265.52(d)
265.52fe)
285.52(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRIN0ENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•-
COPIES OF CONTINGENCY PLAN
disposition of copies
of plan and all
revisions:
maintained at
facility
submitted to
local police,
fire department,
hospitals, etc.
*r
IV B
IV B
265.53
265.53{a)
265.53(b)
AMENDMENT OF CONTINGENCY PLAN
when plan must
be reviewed and, If
necessary, amended:
applicable regula-
tions are revised
plan fails in an
emerqency
facility chanqe
list of emergency
coordinators changes
2 list of equipment
changes
*
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B,
t54
265.54
265.54{a>
265.54(b)
265.54{c)
265.54(d)
265.54(e)
EMERGENCY COORDINATOR
duties
IV B
265.55
Page 10 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CCTATION
STATE ANALOG 18:
EOUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
procedures for
imminent or actual
emergency
release, fire,
explosion
hazard assessment
report of emergency
coordinator's findinqs
notify local
authorities
report to on-scene
coordinator or Nation-
al Response Center;
what the report
must include
measures during
emergency
procedures if facility
stops operation
treatment, storage, or ,
disposal of material
resulting from
emergency
procedures after
emergency
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
265.56(3)
265.56(a)(1)
265.56(a)(2)
265.56(b)
265.56(c)
265,56(d)
265.56(d){1)
265.56(d)(2)
265.56(dM25(i)
265.56(dM2)(li)
265.56{d)(2)(iii)
265.56(d)(2Hiv)
265.56(d)(2)(v)
265.56{d)(2)(vi)
265.56{e)
265.56(f)
265.56(a)
265.56(h)
265.56{h)(1)
265.56(h)(2)
-
Page 11 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
notifications prior to
resumina operations
operating record
information; written
report to Regional
Administrator
what the report to
Regional
Administrator
must include
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.56(1)
265.56H)
265.56(0(1)
265.56{iH2)
265.56(i)(3)
265.56(i)(4)
265.56(i)(5)
265.56(iH6)
265.56(0(7}
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
• -
SUBPART E - MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING
APPLICABILITY
subpart applies to
both on- and off-site
facilities; exceptions
IV B
265.70
USE OF MANIFEST SYSTEM
duties of owner
or operator when
receiving waste
accompanied by
manifest
IV B
265.71 (a)
265.71 (a)(1)
265.71 (a)(2)
265.71 (a)(3)
265.71 (a)(4)
265.71 (a)(5)
Page 12 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
duties of owner
or operator when
receiving waste
accompanied by
shippinq paper
facility that
initiates shipment
must comply with 262
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
*
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.71 (b)
265.71 (bHD
265.71 (b)(2)
265.71 (bM3)
265.71 (b)(4)
265.71 (b)(5)
265.71(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
MANIFEST DISCREPANCIES
definition of
manifest discrepancies
actions on
discovering a
discrepancy
IV B
IV B
265,72(a)
265.72(a)(1)
265.72(a){2)
265.72{b)
OPERATING RECORD
written operating
record at facility
information which
must be recorded:
description and
quantity of waste;
dates of treatment,
storaqe, and disposal
location of waste
and quantity at each
location
records and results of
waste analyses
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B,
16,28,
34,79
265.73(a)
265.73{b)
265.73{b){1)
265.73{b)(2)
265.73(b)(3)
Page 13 of 132
DC6.9 • 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
reports of incidents
which require
implementing
contingency Dlan
records and results
of inspections
groundwater monitor-
ing, testing, or
analytical data
closure and post-
closure cost estimates
quantity records for
each shipment
off-site treatment
facility requirements
on-site treatment
facility requirements
off-site land disposal
facility requirements
on-site land disposal
facility requirements
off-site storage
facilities requirements
on-site storage
facility requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B,28,
79
IV B
34,50
34,50
34,50
34.50
34,50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.73(b)(4)
265.73(b)(5)
265.73(b)(6)
265.73(b)(7)
265.73(b)(8)
265.73(b)(9)
265.73(b)(10)
265.73(b)(11)
265.73(b)(12)
265.73(b)(13)
265.73(b)(14)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CrTATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
••
AVAILABILITY. RETENTION. AND DISPOSITION OF RECORDS
all records available
for inspection
retention period
extension under
unresolved enforce-
ment action
copy of records to
Regional Administrator
and local authority
at closure
IV B
IV B
IV B
265.74(a)
265.74(b)
265.74(c)
BIENNIAL REPORT
when to submit, what
form, and what must
be reported:
EPA identification
number
*,t1
IV B
265.75
265.75(a)
Page 14 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO, 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
calendar year
covered by report
EPA Identification
numbers, of
generators; name and
address for foreign
qenerators
description and
quantity of
wastes received
methods of handlinq
monitoring data,
where required
closure cost estimate;
post-closure cost
estimate
volume and toxlcity
reduction efforts
volume and toxicity
reduction achieved
3 signed
certification
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
30
30
IV B,30
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.75(b)
265.75(c)
265.75W)
265.75(6)
265.75(f)
265.75(q)
265.75(h)
265.750)
265.75{i)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
§TAT1 ANALOG 15:
EQUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
'
UNMANIFESTED WASTE REPORT
when an unmanifested
report is required;
form which must be
used; information it
must include
EPA identification
number
date waste received
generator and
transporter EPA
identification numbers;
address and name
description and
quantity of
unmanifested waste
handlinq method
signed
certification
M
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
265.76
265.76(a)
265.76{b)
265.76(c)
265.76(d)
265.76(e)
265.76{f)
Page 15 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
explanation of why
un manifested
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.76(0)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
ADDITIONAL REPORTS
what else must be
reported to Regional
Administrator
releases,
fires, explosions
ground-water contami-
nation and monitor-
ing data
facility closure
as otherwise required
by Subparts AA
and BB
*,t1
IV B
IV B
IV B
79
265.77
265.77(a)
265.77(b)
265.77(c)
265,77(d)
" ""
SUBPART F - GROUND-WATER MONITORING
APPLICABILITY
facilities that must
implement a ground-
water monitoring
proaram
meet requirements
of 265.91 and comply
with 265.92 through
265.94; duration of
ground-water
monitorinq program
IV B
IV B '
265.90(a)
265.90(b)
Page 16 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (eont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
demonstration required
to waive
requirements
requirements to
implement an
alternate ground-water
monitorinq proqram
waiver of surface
impoundment ground-
water monitoring
requirements
CHECK- ""
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.90(c)
265.90(c){1)
285.90(c)(1)fl)
265.90(c){1)(ii)
265.90(cH2)
265.90(c)(2){i)
265.90(c)(2)(ii)
265.90(d)
265.90(d)(1)
265.90(d)(2)
265.90(d)(3)
265.90{d){4)
265,90(d){5)
265,90(e)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
~~H3Ul\r
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•
GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEM
monitoring system
capabilities
IV B
265.91 (a)
265.91 (a)(1)
265.91 (a)(1)(i)
265.91 (a)(1}(ii)
265.91 (a)(2)
Page 17 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
separate sampling
systems not required
if waste management
area properly
monitored; definition of
waste management
area
wells must be
cased
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.9Kb)
265.91 (b)(1>
265,91 (b)(2)
265.91 (c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
obtain and analyze
samples from ground-
water monitoring
system; must have a
sampling and analysis
plan and keep it at
the facility
procedures to be
described in plan
IV B
IV B
265.92(a)
265.92(a)(1)
265,92(a)(2)
265.92(a)f3)
265.92(a)(4)
-
Page 18 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
parameters to
be measured
establish initial
background concen-
tration for 265.92(b)
parameters quarterly
for one year
establishing
265.95(b)<3)
indicator parameters
frequency of
sampling
ground-water
surface elevation
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.92(b)
265.92(bK1)
265.92(bK2)
265.92{bM2)(i)
265.92(b)(2)(ii)
265.92{b)(2)(iii)
265.92(bH2Hiv)
265.92(b)(2)(v)
265.92(b)(2)(vi)
265.92(bK3)
265.92(bM3Hi)
265.92(b){3)(ii)
265.92{b)(3)(iii)
265.92(b)(3)(iv)
265.92{c)(1)
265.92(c)(2)
265.92(d)
265.92(d)(1)
265.92(d)(2V
265.92(e)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQU1V,
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 19 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE I BROADER
STRINGENT | IN SCOPE
PREPARATION. EVALUATION, AND RESPONSE
outline of ground*
water quality
assessment program;
what program must
be capable of
determininq
compare parameters
significant increase
in comparisons for
uparadient wells
significant increase
in comparisons for
downqradient wells
written notice to
Regional Administrator
if downgradient well
increase is siqnificant
submit a ground-water
quality assessment
plan to Regional
Administrator;
plan contents
implement plan and
determine extent
of problem
timing and report of
ground-water quality
assessment
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
265.93(a)
265.93(a)(1)
265.93(a)(2)
265.93(aK3)
265.93(b)
265.93(c){1)
265.93{c){2)
265.93{d)(1)
265.93(d)(2)
265.93(d)(3)
265.93(d)(3)(i)
265.93(d)(3)(fl)
265.93(dM3Hiii)
265.93(d)(3Hiv)
265.93(d)(4)
265.93(d)(4)(i)
265.93(d)(4)(ii)
265.93(d)(5)
''
Page 20 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
indicator evaluation
program if waste has
not entered
qround-water
action if waste or
constituent has
entered qround-water
assessment completion
evaluation of data on
ground- water surface
elevations
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265,93(d){6)
265.93(d)(7)
265.93(d)(7){i)
265.93(d)(7)(ii)
265.93(6)
265.93(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATc ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
requirements if
ground-water is
not monitored
keep records
submit reports
requirements If
ground-water
is monitored
keep records
submit reports
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B,t1
IV B
IV B
IV Bff1
265.94(a)
265.94(a)(1)
265.94(aH2)
265,94(a)(2)(J)
265.94(aH2)(H)
265.94(a)(2)(ili)
265.94(b)
265.94(b){1)
265.94(b)(2)
SUBPART G - CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE
APPLICABILITY
except as 265,1
provides otherwise:
*
265.110
Page 21 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
265.111 through
265.1 1 5 apply to
all owners and
operators of all
hazardous waste
manaqement facilities
265.116 through
265.120 apply to all
owners and operators
of:
all hazardous waste
disposal facilities
waste piles and
surface impoundments
from which wastes are
removed at closure
tank systems required
under 265.197 to meet
landfill requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B,24
IV B.24
IV B.24
24,28,
52
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.110(3)
265.1 10(b)
265.1 10(b)(1)
265.1 10(b)(2)
265.1 10(bH3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
Sl/Ut ANALOG IS*.
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
CLOSURE PERFORMANCE STANDARD
manner of closino
minimizes further
maintenance
controls, minimizes,
or eliminates
post-closure escape
complies with require-
ments of Subpart G
plus specific sections
of 265
*,24
IV B.24
IV B.24
24
265.111
265.111(3)
265.11Kb)
265.1 life)
5 CLOSURE PLAN: AMENDMENT OF PLAN
written closure plan;
furnish upon request
IV B,t24
265.112(a)
Page 22 of 132
DC6.9- 13/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
6 content of
closure plan
7 requirements for
amendments of
closure plan
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B.24
IV B.24
24
IV B.24
t24
IV B.24
24
IV B.24
24.t54
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.11 2(b)
265,112(b)(1)
285.112(bH2)
265.1 12(b)(3)
265.112(b){4)
265.1 12(b)(5)
265.1 12{b){6)
265.112(b)(7)
265.112(c)
265.1 12(cH1)
265.1 12(c)(1)m
265.1 12(c)(1)«n
265.1 12(c)(1){iin
265.11 2fcH2)
265.1 12(c)(3)
265.112(c)W
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
si ATT: ANALOG is:
ECSUW^
ALENT
MCflE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 23 of 132
DC6.9
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CtTATION
SI Alt ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
8 NOTIFICATION OF PARTIAL CLOSURE AND FINAL CLOSURE
when notification must
occur; public
comment and hearing;
IV B,t24
IV B,f24
T64
t64
IV B.t24
265.1 12(d)(1)
26S.112(d)(2)
265.11 2(d)(2UD
265.1 12(d)(2)(ii)
265.1 12(d)(3)
265.1 12(d)(3Mi)
265.1 12
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities fcont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
complete partial or
final closure within
180 days of receipt
of final volume
modification and
demonstration
requirements for
extending closure
period
how 265.1 13(a)(1) &
(b)(1) demonstrations
must be made
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B,
24,t64
IV B.24
IV B,24,
t64
IV B,
24
t64
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.113tt>)
265.1 13(b)(1)(n
265.11 3(b)(1)fli)(A)
265.1 13(bM1KiiHB)
265.11 3fb)(1)fln(C)
265.1 13fb)(2)
265.1 13(c)
265.1 13(cK1)
265.11 3
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SlAlt: ANALOG IS:
EDuW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t,9 NONHAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIPT CONDITIONS
receive nonhazardous
wastes after the final
receipt of hazardous
wastes at specified
units
64
265.113(d)
Page 25 of 132
DC8.9 - 1011/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
submitta! of amended
Part B application or
Part B application
and required
demonstrations
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
64
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.113WM1)
265.113fd)(1)(l)
265,11 3(d)(1 HiO
265.113(d)(1Hiin
265.1 13(dM1Miv)
265.1 13(dX1Mv)
265.1 13(d)(2>
265.1 13(dH3)
265.1 13(dK4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CrfATION
SrATe ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t.9 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
special requirements
for surface Impound-
ments not in
compliance with liner
and teachate collection
system requirements
plans which must be
submitted with the
Part B application
remove ail hazardous
wastes
remove within 90
davs; extension
actions to be taken
if a release is
detected
64
64
64
64
64
265.113(6)
265.1 13(eK1)
265.1 13feK1)fn
265.1 13(eM1Xi!)
265.1 13(eK2)
265.11 3(e)(3)
265.1 13(e)(4)
265.1 13(eM4Ki>
265.1 13(eM4Hm
265.113(eH4Hi«)
Page 26 of 132
DC6.9
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
semi-annual reports
conditions under
which Regional
Administrator may
require closure
actions to be taken
if owner or operator
falls to implement
corrective measures
or if substantial
progress pursuant to
264.11 3(e)(6) has
not been made
CHECI^-
LIST
REFERENCE
64
64
64
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.11 3(eH5)
265.113(e)(6)
265.113(e)(7)
265.113(eM7)fl)
265.1 13(eH7Mti)
265,113(eM7)(lii)
265.1 13(e)(7)(iv)
265.1 13(e)(7Mv>
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATc ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT _,
BROADiR
IN SCOPE
DISPOSAL OR DECONTAMINATION OF EQUIPMENT, STRUCTURES AND SOILS
disposal and decon-
tamination require-
ments during closure;
262 generator
requirements
IV B,
24,52
265.114
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSURE
certification require-
ments at closure;
required signatures;
documentation upon
request
SURVEY PLAT
survey plat
requirements
IV B.24
24
265.115
265.116
POST-CLOSURE CARE AND USE OF PROPERTY
continue care
for 30 years
monitoring and
reporting requirements
IV B.24
IV B.24
265,1 17(aH1)
265.1 17(a){1 Hi)
Page 27 of 132
DCS.8 -
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
maintenance and
monitoring for waste
containment systems
reduction or extension
of time period for
post-closure care by
Reqional Administrator
conditions for
continuation of
security requirements
of 265.14
limits on post-closure
use of property;
exceptions
post-closure activities
in accordance with
plan as specified in
265.118
CHECk-
UST
REFERENCE
IV 8,24
IV B.24
IV B.24
IV B.24
IV B.24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 17(aM1 Mil)
265.117(aH2)
265.117(a)f2)(i)
265.1 17(aM2)(il)
265,1 17(b)
265.117(b)(1)
265.1 17(b)(2)
265.117(c)
265.1 17(cM1)
265.1 17fc)(2)
265.117(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
StAlc ANALOG is:
T3U!V^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
POST-CLOSURE PLAN: AMENDMENT OF PLAN
10 written post-closure
plan; submission
deadline for surface
impoundments
closing as landfills
11 availability of plan to
Regional Administrator
or representative;
retention during post-
closure
IV B.24
IV B.24
265.118(8)
265.1 18(b)
Page 28 of 132
DC6.9- 1 #11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
10,12 items that must be
included in
post-closure plan
11,13 obtaining authoriza-
tion to change plan
11 conditions requiring
chanqe to plan
1 1 schedule for
amendinq plan
when modified plan
must be submitted to
Regional Admini-
strator; requirements
for surface impound-
ments or waste piles
closing as landfills
schedule for amend-
ing plan at Regional
Administrator's
request
11,12 schedule for sub-
mitting plan to
Regional Administrator
13,14 Regional Admini-
strator's schedule
for review and
decision on plan
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B.24
IV B.24
IV B.24
IV B.24
IV B,
24.t54
IV B,
24.t54
IV B.24
IV B.24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.118(c)
265.1 18(c)(1)
265.118(c)(2)
265.118(c)(2Hi)
265.1 18(c)(2)(ii)
265.118(c)(3)
265.118(d)
265.11 8(d)(1)
265.1 18(d)(1)(i)
265.118(d)(1)(ii)
265.118(d)(2)
265.1 18(d)(3)
265.118(dW4)
265.118(6)
265.118(eH1)
265.1 18(e)(2)
265.1 18(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SHAlt ANALOG IS:
ESUI7-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 29 of 132
DC6.9- 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPAS
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
14 circumstances for
modifying post-
closure plan and
length of post-
closure care period
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B.24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.118(0)
265.11 8(a)(1)
265.118(a)(1)(i)
265.118(a)(1 HIM A)
265.1 18(a)(1)(l)(B)
265.1 18(a)(1)(!l)
265.118(a)(1)(IH)
265.1 18(a)(2)
265.1 18(a)(2)(i)
265.1 18(a)(2)(il)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EoTJjy-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQiNT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
POST-CLOSURE NOTICES
15 record of type,
location and quantity
of HW
requirement to enter
note on deed; survey
plat; submit
certification
modification to
remove hazardous
wastes; criteria of
265.117(c); removal
of notation; addition
of notation
IV B.24
24
24
265.119(3)
265.1 19(b)
265.1 19(b)(1)
265.119(b)(1)(i)
265.1 190>)(1)(ii)
265.1 19(b)(1Mii!)
265.1 19(b)(2)
265.119(0)
265.1 19(c)(1)
265.1 19(c)(2)
Page 30 of 132
DC8.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EOUKT
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETION OF POST-CLOSURE CARE
16 description of
certification procedure
IV B.24
265.120
SUBPART H - FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABILITY
265.142, 265.143,
265.147-265.150
requirements;
exceptions
265.144 and 265.145
requirements apply to:
State and Federal
government
exemptions
IV B.24
IV B.28
IV B
265.140(3)
265.140CW
265.1 40(c)
••
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS AS USED IN THIS SUBPART
"closure plan"
"current closure
cost estimate"
"current post-closure
cost estimate"
"parent corporation"
"post-closure plan"
terms used in
financial tests
"assets"
"current assets"
"current liabilities"
"current plugging and
abandonment cost
estimate"
"independently
audited"
"liabilities"
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
24
IV B
IV B
265.141(a)
265.141{b)
265.141(c)
265.1 41 (d)
265.141(e)
265.1 41 (fHintro)
265.1 41 (ft
265.141(1)
265.1 41 (f)
265.1 41 (f)
265.1 41 (f)
265.1 41 (f)
Page 31 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"net working capital"
"net worth"
"tangible net
worth"
"bodily injury" and
"property damaqe"
"accidental
occurrence"
"legal defense
costs"
"nonsudden accidental
occurrence"
"sudden accidental
occurrence"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 41 (f)
265.1 41 (f)
265.1 41 (f)
265.141(a)
265.141(0)
265.141(a)
265. 141 (a)
265.141(a)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
• EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
- -
COST ESTIMATE FOR CLOSURE
owner or operator
must have written
cost estimate
17 equal to cost of
final closure
based on costs of
hiring third party
no incorporation
of salvage value
no incorporation
of zero cost
adjust closure cost
estimate for inflation
first adjustment
subsequent
adjustments
revised closure cost
estimate
cost estimates to be
kept at facility
IV B,24
24
24
24,t64
24,t64
IV B.24
IV B
IV B
IV B.24
IV B
265.142(3)
265.142(a)(1)
265,142(a)(2)
265.142(a)(3)
265.142{a)(4)
265.142(b)
265.142(b)(1)
265.142(b)(2)
265.1 42(c)
265.1 42(d)
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR CLOSURE
options to establish
financial assurance
*
265.143
Page 32 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
closure trust fund
requirements; trustee
must have authority
wording identical to
265.1 51 (a)(1);
Schedule A update
annual payments;
"pay-in period"
first payment for new
facility
subsequent payments
for facility
accelerated payments
payments if previous
use of alternate
mechanisms
compare new estimate
to trust fund
release of excess
amount
substitution of
other financial
assurance
timing of release
of funds
reimbursement for
closure activities
termination of trust
if alternate financial
assurance or release
from 265.143
requirements
surety bond
guaranteeing payment
into a closure trust
fund; requirements;
obtain from an accep-
table surety company
wording identical
to 264.151(b)
establish standby
trust fund
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B.24
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.143fa){1)
265.1 43(a)(2)
265.143(a)(3)
265.1 43(a)(3)(i)
265.1 43(a)(3MH)
265.1 43(aK4)
265.143(a)(5)
265.143(a)(6)
265.143(a)(7)
265.143(a)(8)
265.143(a)(9)
265.143(a)(10)
265.143(a){11)
265.143(aH11)(i)
265.1 43(a)(11)(ii)
265.143(b)(1)
265.143(b)(2)
265.1 43(b)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
Page 33 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
trust agreement
submitted with
surety bond
until standby trust
fund is funded, fol-
lowing not required:
payments Into
trust fund
Schedule A update
annual valuations
notices of
nonpayment
surety bond
guarantees:
funding of standby
trust fund
fund equal to penal
sum within 15 days of
administrative
or judicial order
alternate financial
assurance following
notice of
cancellation
when surety
becomes liable
penal sum equal to
current closure cost
estimate
penal sum increase or
decrease
surety may cancel
bond after 120 days
owner or operator
may cancel bond
if written consent
closure letter of credit;
letter must be
submitted to
Regional Administra-
tor; conditions of
letter and who can
issue it
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B.24
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 43(b)(3Mi)
265.143(b)(3)(ii)
265.1 43(b)(3)(li)(A)
265.1 43(bM3)(il)(B)
265.1 43(bH3Hii){C)
265.1 43(b)(3)fli)(D)
265.143(b)(4)
265.143(b)(4)fi)
265.1 43(b)(4)(ii)
265.143(b)(4)(iii)
265,143(bM5)
265.143(bH6)
265.143(b)m
265.143(b)(8)
265.143(b}(9)
265.1 43(c)(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•* *
Page 34 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
identical to
wording in 264.151(d)
establish standby trust
fund; meets require-
ments of 265.1 43(a)
except:
originally signed
duplicate to Regional
Administrator with
letter of credit
unless standby trust
fund is funded, the
following are not
required;
payments into
trust fund
Schedule A update
annual valuations
notices of nonpayment
letter of credit
accompanied by letter
from owner/operator;
information it must
contain
terms of letter
of credit
issued in amount
equal to current
closure cost estimate
except as provided in
265.143W
if current closure cost
estimate increases to
an amount greater
than penal sum, then
must increase penal
sum within 60 days;
actions when closure
cost decreases
CHECK- ~
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265,1 43(c){2)
265.143(c)(3)
265.143(c)(3)(i)
265.1 43(c)(3)fil)
265.1 43(c)(3HiiMA)
265.1 43(c)(3)(ii)(B)
265.143(e)(3Mii)(C)
265,143{c)(3)(ii)(D)
265,143(c)(4)
26S.143(cK5)
26S.143(c)(6)
265.143(c>(7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
- .
'
Page 35 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
~&- JL.JL!/
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (eont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
after final RCRA 3008
determination,
Regional Administrator
may draw on letter of
credit
if no alternate finan-
cial assurance,
Regional Administrator
can draw on letter of
credit; procedures for
doing so
conditions under which
the Regional Admin-
istrator will return the
letter of credit for
termination
closure insurance
must conform to
265.143(d) require-
ments; submit
certificate to Regional
Administrator; Insurer
requirements
identical to
264.151(e) wording
amount of insurance
policy
what policy
must guarantee
owner/operator may
request reimburse-
ments; conditions for
request; procedures of
Regional Administrator
if maximum closure
cost is greater than
face value of policy
policy must be in full
force until Regional
Administrator consents
to termination;
violations
assignment of policy
to successor
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B.24
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B.24
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 43(c)(8)
265.143(c)(9)
265.143(c)(10)
265.143(c)(10)(i)
265.143(c)(10Mii)
265.143(dHD
265.143(d)(2)
265.143(d)(3)
265.143{d)(4)
265.143(d)(5)
265.1 43(d){6)
265.143(d)(7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 36 of 132
DC6.9 - 1211/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
insurer cannot
terminate except for
failure to pay; re-
newal; procedures if
failure to pay
conditions that policy
will remain in full force
and effect in event
that listed
circumstances occur
owner/operator
responsibilities and
procedures when
current closure cost
estimate increases/de-
creases to an amount
greater/less than
face amount of policy
conditions under which
Regional Administrator
will allow termination
of policy
financial test
and corporate
guarantee for closure;
owner/operator must
satisfy 265.1 43{e)(1)(l)
or (ii) requirements to
pass financial test
what owner/operator
must have:
two of three specified
financial ratios
net working capital
and tangible net worth
relative to closure/
post-closure estimates
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B.24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.143(dH8)
265.1 43{d)(8)(i)
265.143(d)(8)(li)
265.143(d)(8)(iit)
265.143(d)(8)(iv)
265.143(dK8)(v)
265.143{d)(9)
265.143(d)(10)
265.143(d)(10)(i)
265.143{d)(10)(ii)
265.143(e){1)
265.143(eM1)(0
265.143(e)(1Hi)(A)
265.1 43(e)(1)(i)(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
feouiv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
iROADER
IN SCOPE
-.
Page 37 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-*. JL Jl .<-
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
tangible net worth of
at least $10 million
90% of assets
in U.S.
what owner/operator
must have:
bond ratina
tangible net worth at
six times sum of
closure/post-closure
cost estimates
tangible net worth
at least $10 million
90% of assets
in U.S.
definitions of "current
closure and post-
closure cost
estimates" and
"current plugging
and abandonment
cost estimates"
what owner/operator
must submit
to Regional
Administrator to
demonstrate he
meets financial
test
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B.24
IV B
IV B
IV B.24
IV B
IV B,24
IV 8,24
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 43(e)(1Ki)(C)
265.143(eM1)fi)(D)
265.1 43(eM1)(ii)
265.1 43(e)(1)(iiHA)
265.1 43(e)(1)(ii)(B)
265.1 43feM1Hii)(C)
285.1 43(e)(1)(l!)(D)
265.1 43{e)(2)
265.1 43(eH3)
265,143(eM3Hi)
265.143{e)(3)(ll)
265.1 43(e)(3Hiii)
265.1 43(eM3)(m)(A)
265.143(e)(3HiHMB)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
- i
Page 38 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
extension of test
deadline if owner or
operator is under-
going an audit; what
submitted letter must
do
updates at close of
each fiscal year
owner/operator
responsibilities if no
longer meets 265.143
{e){1) requirements
what Regional Admin-
istrator may do if
believes owner/
operator no longer
meets 265.1 43{eH1)
when Regional Admin-
istrator may disallow
test
when 265.1 43(e)(3)
items no longer need
to be submitted
requirement may be
met by corporate
guarantee; conditions
which guarantor and
quarantee must meet
what terms of
corporate guarantee
must provide
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 43(e)(4)
265.1 43(e)(4Hi)
265.1 43(e)(4)(ii)
265.1 43(e)(4)(iii)
265.1 43(eH4)(iv)
265.143(e)(4)(v)
265.143(e)(4){vi)
265.1 43{e)(5)
265.143(e)(6)
265.1 43(e)(7)
265.143(e){8)
265,1 43(eK9)
265.143(e)(9Mi)
265.1 43{e)(9)(ii)
265.143{e)(10)
265.1 43(eM10Hi)
265.143(e)(10)(ii)
265.143(e)(10Hiii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STA?§ ANALOG IS:
ECOW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
- -
Page 39 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
use of multiple
financial mechanisms;
conditions which must
be met
use of financial
mechanism for
multiple facilities;
conditions which must
be met
release of owner/
operator from
requirements of
265.143
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B.24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 43(f)
265.143(q)
265.143(h)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATi ANALOG IS:
fCUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRIN0ENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
COST ESTIMATE FOR POST-CLOSURE CARE
detailed written
estimate, in current
dollars, of annual cost
of post-closure
monitoring and
maintenance
post-closure cost
estimate based on
hiring third party to
conduct care
calculation of
estimate
adjust for
inflation; specifications
on when this must be
done; inflation factor
first adjustment
subsequent
adjustments
revise post-closure
care estimate when
post-closure plan
chanqes
what must be
kept at facility
IV B.24
IV B.24
IV B.24
IV B.24
IV B
IV B
IV B,24
IV B
265.144(3)
265.144(a)(1)
265.1 44{a)(2)
265.144(b)
265.144(b)(1)
265.144(bH2)
265.144(c)
265.144(d)
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR POST-CLOSURE CARE
deadline for obtaining
financial assurance
*,24
265.145
Page 40 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
post-closure
trust fund;
requirements which
trust and trustee
must meet; submit to
Reqional Administrator
wording identical to
that specified in
264.1 51 (a)(1);
formal certifica-
tion of acknowledg-
ment; Schedule A
annual payments;
procedures and
formulas for
determining
value at which
fund must be main-
tained
first payment of post-
closure trust fund after
another mechanism
was used
after pay-in period,
what must be done if
fund value is less than
new estimate
written request to
Regional Administrator
for release of excess
in fund
other financial pro-
cedure if substitute
assurance for all or
part of fund
within 60 days after
request for fund re-
lease, Regional Ad-
ministrator will instruct
trustee to do so
fund release during
post-closure
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.145(a)(1)
265.1 45(a){2)
265.145{a){3)
265.145(a)(3)m
265.145(a)(3)(l!)
265.1 45{a)(4)
265.145(a)(5)
265.145(a)(6)
265.145(a)(7)
265.145(a)(8)
265.145(a)(9)
265.145(a)(10)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
' '
Page 41 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
B -.
• A--I..V
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (confd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
reimbursement for
post-closure care
expenditures
conditions under which
Regional Administra-
tor will terminate
trust
surety bond
guaranteeing payment
Into a post-closure
fund; specific
conditions which
surety and company
issuing surety must
meet
wording identical to
that specified in
264.15Kb)
establish a standby
trust; trust must meet
265.145(a) require-
ments except:
originally signed dupli-
cate to Regional
Administrator
until standby trust
is funded, specific
requirements that are
not required
bond must guarantee
that owner/operator
will do the
following:
fund standby trust
equal to penal sum
before begin final
closure
CHECK-
LIST
REFiRENCE
IV B.24
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.145(a)(11)
265.145{a){12)
265.145(a)(12Hi)
265,145(aH12)(ii)
265.1 45(b)(1)
265.1 45(b)(2)
265.145{b)(3)
265.1 45(b){3)(i)
265.145(b)(3)(ii)
265.1 45(b)(3)(ii)(A)
265.1 45(b)(3)fli)(B)
265,1 45(b)(3Mii)(C)
265.145(b)(3KH)(D)
265.145fb)(4)
265.1 45(b)(4)(i)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
- EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
- 1
Page 42 of 132
DCS 9 - 12/11/91
"« * ...
_*.. t
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REOUIREMENT
fund standby trust fund
equal to penal sum
within 15 days of
order to close
provide alternate finan-
cial assurance
when surety
becomes liable
what penal sum must
be equal to
adjustment to penal
sum due to post-
closure cost estimate
i ncrease/decrease
conditions under which
surety may cancel
bond
conditions under which
owner or operator may
cancel bond
post-closure
letter of credit;
conditions the letter of
credit and its issuing
institution must meet
identical wording to
that specified in
264.1 51 (d)
establish standby trust
fund; meet 265.145(a)
conditions, except:
originally signed
duplicate of trust
agreement to
Reaional Administrator
unless standby trust
fund is funded,
specific items not
required
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B.24
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.145(b)(4)(»)
265.145(b)(4)(iii)
265.145(b)(5)
265.1 45(b)(6)
265.145(b)(7)
265.145(b)(8)
265.1 45(b)(9)
265.145(c)(1)
265.145{c)(2)
265.145(c)(3)
265.1 45(c)(3HI)
265.145(0) (3) (II)
265.1 45(c)(3)(H)(A)
265.1 45(c)(3)(iiHB)
265.145(c)(3)(ii)(C)
265.1 45(c){3)(ii)(D)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOa IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
- •
i
Page 43 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA g
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
letter of credit must be
accompanied by letter;
what letter must
contain
terms of letter of
credit
amount of letter of
credit
adjustments to amount
of credit due to
increase/decrease in
post-closure cost
estimate
conditions under which
amount of tetter of
credit can be de-
creased
after final 3008 admin-
istrative determination,
Regional Administrator
may draw on credit
when the Regional
Administrator can draw
on letter of credit
termination of
letter of credit
post-closure
insurance; conditions
insurance and
insurer must meet
wording identical to
that specified in
264.151{e)
"face amount" policy
must be issued for
what policy must
quarantee
request for reimburse-
ment; procedures for
reimbursement
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B,24
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B.24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 45(cK4)
265.145(c)(5)
265.145(0) (6)
265.1 45(c)(7)
265.1 45(cH8)
265.145(c)(9)
265.1 45(c)(10)
265.145(c)(11)
265.145(c)(11)(i)
265.1 45(c)(11 MID
265,145(d)(1)
265.1 45(d)(2)
265.1 45(d)(3)
265.145WM4)
265.145(d)(5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOS IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
- i
Page 44 of 132
OC6.S - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
maintain policy in full
force until Regional
Administrator consents
to terminate; failure to
pay
assignment of policy to
successor
excepting failure to
pay, policy must pro-
vide that insurer may
not cancel, terminate
or fail to renew; con-
ditions under which
policy remains in full
force following date
of expiration
adjustments to face
amount due to
increase/decrease in
post-closure cost
estimates
annual increase of
face amount
conditions under which
insurance policy may
be terminated
financial test and
corporate guarantee
for post-closure care;
pass financial
test; criteria for passing
test
specific criteria
have two of three
specified ratios
CHKK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.145(d)(6)
265.1 45(d)(7)
265.1 45(d)(8)
265.1 45(d)(8)(i)
265.1 45(d)(8)(!i)
265.145(d)(8)(ili)
265.1 45(d)(8)flv)
265.145(d)(8)(v)
265.145(d)(9)
265.1 45(d){10)
265.1 45(d)(11)
265.1 45(d){1 1)fl)
265.1 45(d)(11)(l!)
265.1 45(e)(1)
265.145(e)(1)(i)
265.145(e)(1W)(A)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPi
*
Page 45 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
net working capital and
tangible net worth at
six times sum of
current closure and
post-closure cost esti-
mates and plugging and
abandonment cost
estimates
tangible net worth
at least $10 million
90% of assets in U.S.
or six times sum of
current closure/post-
closure cost estimates
and current plugging
and abandonment
costs
owner or operator
must have:
a specified
bond ratinq
tangible net worth
six times sum of cur-
rent closure/post-
closure cost estimates
and plugging/abandon-
ment cost estimates
tangible net worth of
at least $10 million
90% of assets in U.S.
or six times sum of
current closure post-
closure cost estimates
and current plugging
and abandonment
costs
definition of "current
closure and post-
closure cost estimates"
and "current plugging
and abandonment
cost estimates"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV 8,24
IV B
IV B.24
IV B
IV B
IV B.24
IV B
IV B.24
IV 8,24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.145(e)(1)(i)(B)
265.1 45{eH1)(iMC)
265.145(eHD(i)(D)
265.1 45(e){1 Mil)
265.1 45fe)(1)(ii)(A)
265.145(e)(1MiiMB)
265.145(e)(1){ii)(C)
265,145(e)(1)(ii)(D)
265.145(e)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
. i
Page 46 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
to demonstrate meets
265.145(e)(1) test,
items which must be
submitted to Regional
Administrator
extension of test
deadline if owner/
operator is undergoing
an audit; letter to
Administration and
what it must contain
when updated
information must
be submitted
responsibilities
when 265.145(6)0)
requirements are no
lonqer met
Regional Administra-
tor's actions when
believes owner/
operator no longer
meets 265.1 45(e)(1)
when Regional Admin-
istrator may disallow
use of test
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.145(e){3)
265.1 45{e){3)(!)
265.145(e)(3Hii)
265,145(e)(3)(iii)
265.1 45(e)(3)flii)(A)
265.145(e)(3HHWB)
265.145(e)(4)
265.145(6)(4)(i)
265.1 45{eM4)(ii)
265.145(e)(4)fiii)
265.1 45(eM4Hiv)
265.145(e)(4)(v)
265.1 45(e)(4Hvi)
265.145(e)(5)
265.1 45(e){6)
265,145(e){7)
265.145(e)(8)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
u 1
Page 47 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
when Regional Admin-
istrator may approve
decrease in current
post-closure cost
estimates
specific conditions
under which
265.145(e)(3) items no
longer need to be
submitted
corporate guarantee
may meet require-
ments of 265.1 45;
conditions guarantee
must meet
use of multiple
financial mechanisms
use of a financial
mechanism for
multiple facilities
release of owner
or operator from
requirements of
265.145
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B.24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.145(e)(9)
265.145(e)(10)
265.1 45(e)(1 OH!)
265.1 45(e)(10)(ii)
265.145(e)(11)
265.1 45(e)(11)(i)
265.1 45(eM1 1MB)
265.1 45fe)(11)(HI)
265.145(0
265.145(0)
265,145(h)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
•
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•-
USE OF A MECHANISM FOR FINANCIAL ASSURANCE OF BOTH CLOSURE AND POST-
CLOSURE CARE
financial assurance
requirements for both
closure and post-
closure can be met
by specific types of
mechanisms which
meet 265.143 and
265.145 specifications;
amount of funds which
must be available
IV B
265.146
Page 48 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EOUIV^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
LIABILITY REQUIREMENTS
V coverage for sudden
accidental occur-
rences; ways liability
insurance may be
demonstrated
18 liability insurance
meetinq the followinq:
18 attachment of Hazard-
ous Waste Facility
Uability Endorsement
or Certificate of
Liability Insurance;
required wording;
submittal of signed
duplicate oriqinal
18 minimum requirements
insurer must meet
V meet financial test or
use corporate guar-
antee for liability
coverage as specified
in 265.1 47 (gj_
V ways owner/operator
may demonstrate
required liability
coverage; minimum
coverage amount
V coverage for
nonsudden accidental
occurrences; ways
coverage may be
demonstrated
18 demonstrate by having
liability insurance with
the following require-
ments:
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B,
t27
IV B,
t27
IV B
IV B
265.147(8)
265.1 47(a)(1)
265,147(aH1)(i)
265.1 47(aM1HH)
26§.147(a}{2)
265.1 47(aK3)
265.1 47(b)
265.147(b)(1)
•
Page 49 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
8 attachment of Hazard-
ous Waste Facility
Liability Endorsement
or Certificate of
Liability Insurance;
required wording;
submlttal of signed
duplicate oriqinal
8 minimum requirements
for insurer
V pass financial test or
use corporate guar-
antee for liability
coverage as specified
in 265.1 47(1) and (a)
V ways owner/operator
may demonstrate
required liability
coverage; minimum
coveraqe amount
V deadlines for demon-
strating liability
coveraae
circumstances requir-
ing letter to Regional
Administrator
requests for variance
from 265,147{a) or (b)
requirements; form of
variance requirements
adjustments to required
financial responsibility
levels by Regional Ad-
ministrator; criteria
which must be used
when liability coverage
mav be terminated
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B,
t27
IV B,
t27
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B.24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
285.1 47(b)(1)fl)
265.147(b)(1)(ii)
265.147{b)(2)
265.1 47{b)(3)
265.1 47{b)(4)
265.147(b)(4Mi)
265.147(b)(4)(ii)
265.147(bM4Miii)
265.147{b)(5)
265.147(c)
265.1 47(d)
265.147(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
»
Page 50 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
financial test for
liability coverage;
criteria of 265.147(f)(1)
(i) or (ii) must be met
what owner or
operator must have
"amount of liability
coveraqe"
three items owner
or operator must
submit
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.147(f)(1)
265.147(f)(1)(i)
265.147(f)(1)(i)(A)
265.147(f)(1)(i)(B)
265.1 47(f)(1 )(I)(C)
265.1 47(0(1 )(ii)
265.147(0(1)(H)(A)
265.1 47(0(1 HHHB)
265.147(0(D(ii)(C)
265.1 47(0(1 )(H)(D)
265.147(0(2)
265.147(0(3)
265.147(0(3)(D
265.1 47(0(3)(H)
265.1 47(0(3)(iii)
265.1 47(0(3)(HI)(A)
265.1 47(0 (3)(»I)(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
»
Page 51 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
extension of test
deadline if owner or
operator is undergoing
an audit; what sub-
mitted letter must do
updated information
evidence of
insurance if
265.147(f)(1) require-
ments not met
Regional Administrator
may disallow test;
cause for disallowance
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 47(fM4)
265.1 47(f)(4)(i)
265.1 47(f)(4)(ii)
265.1 47(W4Hiii)
265.1 47(f)(4)(iv)
265.1 47(f)(4)(v)
265.1 47(f)(4)(vi)
265.147(f)(5)
265.147(1) (6)
265.147(fH7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
- •
t,v,
9 Guarantee for Liability Coverage
V corporate guarantee
for liability
coverage; guarantor
is parent corporation
payment by
guarantor if owner or
operator fails to satisfy
a judgment
V cancellation/use of
alternate coverage
V corporations incor-
porated in U.S.
V corporations incor-
porated outside U.S.
27
27
27
27,t43
43
265.147(aH1)
265.147(a)(1Ki)
265.147(a)(1)(ii)
265.1 47(a)(2)(i)
265.147(a)(2)(ii)
19 until 10/16/82, use of
V endorsement or
insurance without
certification of insurer
*.t27
265.147(h)
Page 52 of 132
DC6.9 -
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOU Is:
KRW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
INCAPACITY OF OWNERS OR OPERATORS. GUARANTORS, OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
incapacity through
bankruptcy of owner
or operator or
guarantor
incapacity of financial
institution by bank-
ruptcy or authority
suspension
IV B
IV B
265.148(3)
265.148(b)
SUBPART I - USE AND MANAGEMENT OF CONTAINERS
APPLICABILITY
storage of hazardous
waste in containers
IV B
265,170
CONDITION OF CONTAINERS
requirements when
container is not in
pood condition
IV B
265.171
COMPATIBILITY OF WASTE WITH CONTAINERS
container must be
compatible with
hazardous waste
IV B
265.172
Page 53 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
MANAGEMENT OF CONTAINERS
closed container
durinq storaae
care in handlinq
IV B
IV B
265.173(3)
265.173(b)
INSPECTIONS
weekly inspections
reserved
IV B
265.174
265.175
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
required distance
from property line
IV B
265.176
.
*»
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
not to be placed in
same container
not to be placed in
unwashed, previously
used container
separation or pro-
tection requirements
IV B
IV B
IV B
265.177(a)
265.177(b)
265.1 77(c)
SUBPART J - TANK SYSTEMS
20 APPLICABILITY
tank systems used for
storing or treating
hazardous wastes;
exceptions
no free liquids; inside
building with imperme-
able floor; EPA
Method 9095
tanks in secondary
containment systems
exempt
IV B,28
f28,
t52
f28,
t52
265.190
265.190(3)
265.190(b)
Page 54 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
• EQUIV.
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
21 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING TANK SYSTEM'S INTEGRITY
written assessment
of tank system's
integrity
adequate design;
sufficient structural
strength; compatibility
with waste (s)
minimum assessment
considerations
12 mos. deadline if
materials become
hazardous wastes
after 7/14/86
tank systems found to
be leaking or unfit for
use, compliance with
265.196
28
28
28
28
28
265.191(a)
265.191(b)
265.1 91 (b)(1)
265.1 91 (b)(2)
265.1 91 (b)(3)
265.1 91 (b)(4)
265.1 91 (b)(5)
265.1 91 (b)(5)(i)
265.1 91 (b)(5)(ii)
265.1 91 (c)
265.1 91 (d)
21 DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF NEW TANK SYSTEMS OR COMPONENTS
information to be
included in written
assessments for new
tank systems or
components
desiqn standards
hazardous
characteristics
contact with soil or
water; required
determinations
28
28
28
28
265.192fa)
265.1 92(a)(1)
265.192(a)(2)
265.192(a)(3)
Page 55 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
Xo?.
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
factors affecting poten-
tial for corrosion
type and degree of
external corrosion
protection needed
protection from
traffic for underground
components
design considerations
to ensure protection
from environment
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
28
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.192(a)(3)(i)
265.192(a)(3Hi)(A)
265.1 92(a)(3Mi)(B)
265.1 92(a)(3)(i)(C)
265.192(aH3)(i)(D)
265.1 92(a)(3)(i)(E)
265.192(a)(3WHF)
265.1 92(a)(3)(i)(G)
265.192(a)(3)(i)(H)
265.192(a)(3)(ii)
265.192(a)(3)(ii)(A)
265.1 92(a)(3)(ii)(B)
265.1 92(a)(3)(ii)(C)
265.192(a)(4)
265.192(a)(5)
265.1 92(a)(5)(i)
265.1 92(a)(5)(ii)
265.1 92(a)(5)(iii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL6S 15:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 56 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
new tank installation
procedures; inspection
requirements
backfilling
requirements for new
underground tank
systems
tiqhtness requirement
protection of ancillary
equipment
corrosion protection
requirements
written statements
and certification
statements
" •CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
28
28
28
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.192(0)
265.192(b)(1)
265.192{b)(2)
265,192(b)(3)
265.1 92(b)(4)
265.192(b)(5)
265.1 92(b)(6)
265.192(c)
265.192(d)
265.192(e)
265.1 92(f)
265.192(a)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOS IS:
EoTJlV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
21 CONTAINMENT AND DETECTION OF RELEASES
schedule for providing
secondary contain-
ment for tank
systems
28
265.193(a)
265.1 93(a)(1)
265.193(a)(2)
265,193(a)(3)
265.193(a)(4)
265.193(a)(5)
Page 57 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
requirements for
secondary contain-
ment systems
minimum specifications
of secondary contain-
ment systems
devices that satisfy
secondary
containment require-
ments
additional requirements
for secondary contain-
ment systems
additional requirements
for external
liner systems
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
28
28
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.193(b)
265.193(b)(1)
265.193(b)(2)
265.193(c)
265.193(c)(1)
265.1 93(c)(2)
265.193fc){3)
265.1 93(c)(4)
265.193(d)
265.1 93(dH1)
265.193(d)(2)
265.193WM3)
265.193(d)(4)
265.193(6)
265.1 93(e)(1)
265,193(e)(1)(i)
265.1 93(e)(1)(li)
265.193(e)(1)(iii)
265.193(e)(1)(lv)
ANALOC3OUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EtiUiv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 58 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
additional requirements
for vault systems
additional requirements
for double-walled tanks
secondary containment
requirements for
ancillary equipment;
exceptions
aboveqround piping
welded parts and
connections
sealless or magnetic
coupling pumps and
sealless valves
pressurized above-
ground piping systems
with automatic
shut-off devices
—CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
28
28
28
28,52
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.193(e){2)
265.193(e)(2)(I)
265.193(e)(2)(H)
265.193(eH2)(iii)
265.1 93(e)(2)(iv)
265.193(e)(2)(v)
265.193(e)(2)(v)(A)
265.1 93(e)(2)(v)(B)
265,1 93(e)(2Hvi)
265,193(e)(3)
265,193(eK3Ki)
265.1 93(e)(3)(il)
265.193(e)(3)(iii)
265.193(f)
265.193ff)(1)
265.193(0(2)
265.193(0(3)
265.193(0(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAIOT3 IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•
Page 59 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EOUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t,9 Variance From 265.193 Requirements
general require-
ments for variance
considerations in
granting variance
based on demonstra-
tion of equivalent
ground-water and sur-
face water protection
factors to be
considered in granting
a variance
factors regarding
potential adverse
effects on ground-
water, surface water
and land quality
factors regarding
potential adverse
effects of a release on
qround-water quality
28
28
28
28
28
265.193(q)
265.193(crt(1)
265.193(a)(1)(i)
265.193(q)(1)(ii)
265. 193(a)(1 Mill)
265.193(a)(1)(iv)
265.193(a){2)
265.193(q)(2){i)
265.1 93(qK2)M(A)
265.1 93{a)(2)(iKB>
265.193(aM2MiHC)
265.1 93(a)(2)fl)(D>
265.1 93(q)(2XiME)
265.193(q)(2)(ii)
265.1 93(aH2MWA)
265.193(aH2HIi)(B)
265.193(g)(2)(ii)(C)
265.193{q)(2Kii)(D)
*
Page 60 of 132
DC6.9 • 12/11/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
factors regarding
potential adverse
effects of a release on
surface water quality
factors regarding
potential adverse
effects of a release
on the land surround-
ing the tank system
for tanks granted a
variance, require-
ments if release
occurs from primary
tank system but no
migration beyond
zone of engineering
control
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
28
28,t52
FEDERAL flCRA CITATION
265.193(aM2)(iii)
265.193(aM2)(iH)(A)
265.1 93(a)(2)(H1)(B)
265.193(aH2)OliMC)
265.193(a)(2)(iii)(D)
265.193(a)(2)(H!)(E)
265.193(g)(2)(lv)
265.193(a)(2)(iv)(A)
265.193(a)(2)(iv)(B)
265.193(a)(3)
265.193(a«3)fl)
265.193(aM3Hil)
265.193(g)(3)(ll)(A)
265.193(a)(3)(ii)(B)
265.193(a)(3)(iin
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATi ANALOG IS:
ECUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 61 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6; Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
for tanks granted a
variance, require-
ments If release
occurs and migrates
beyond zone of
enqineerinq control
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 93(0)(4)
265.193(a)(4)(i)
265.1 93(a)(4)(ii)
265.193(a)(4)(iii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CtTATION
5TAIE ANALOG is:
"fOUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t,9 Secondary Containment Variance Procedures
«
procedures for
requestinq a variance
28
265.193(h)
265.1 93(hM1)
265.1 93(h)(1)(i)
265.193fh)(1)(ii)
265.193(h)(2)
265.193(h)(3)
265.193(h)(4)
265.193(h)(5)
-
requirements for all
tank systems until
such time as
secondary contain-
ment is provided
28
265.193(0
265.193(0(1)
265.193(0(2)
265.193(0(3)
265.193(0(4)
21 GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
when hazardous waste
or treatment reagents
must not be placed in
tank systems
28
265.194(a)
Page 62 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
minimum controls and
practices to prevent
spills and overflows
265.196 requirements
if a leak or spill occurs
in the system
CHECK-
LIST
RiFERENCE
28
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.194(b)
265.1 94(b)(1)
265.194(b){2)
265.194(b){3)
265,194(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL08 IS:
EGUIV.
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
INSPECTIONS
daily inspection
requirements
minimum inspection
frequency for
cathodic protection
systems
document in operating
record
28
28
28
265.195(a)
265,195(a){1)
265.195(a)(2)
265.195(a)(3)
265.1 95(a)(4)
265.1 95(b)
265.195{b){1)
265.195(b)(2)
265.195(c)
•-
RESPONSE TO LEAKS OR SPILLS AND DISPOSITION OF LEAKING OR UNFIT-FOR-USE TANK
SYSTEMS
immediate removal
from service of
leaking or unfit-for-
use tank or secondary
containment system
cessation of use; pre-
vent flow or addition
of wastes
28,52
28
265.196
265.196(a)
Page 63 of 132
DCS.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
schedule for
removal of waste
from tank system or
secondary contain-
ment system
containment of visible
releases to the envir-
onment
required notifications
and reports following
any release to the
environment
provision of
secondary contain-
ment, repair, or
closure
certification of major
repairs
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
28
28
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.196(b)(1)
265,1 96{b){2)
265.196(c)
265,196(c)(1)
265,196(c)(2)
265.1 96(dM1)
265.196(d)(2)
265,196(d)(2Mi)
265.1 96(dK2)(ii)
265.196{d)(3)
265.1 96(dU3)OT
265.196(d)(3)(H)
265.196(d)(3)(lin
265.1 96(d)(3Hiv)
265.196(dM3)M
265.196(e)(1)
265.196(eH2)
265.1 96(e)(3)
265.1 96(e)(4)
265.1 96(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ECSUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
21 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
general closure
requirements
28
265.197fa)
Page 64 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA §
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
specific requirements
when contaminated
soils cannot practically
be removed or
decontaminated;
closure as a landfill
closure plans and
financial responsibility
requirements for tank
systems without
secondary contain-
ment that fall under
265.1 93(b)-(f) and are
not exempt from
secondary containment
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.197(b)
265.197(c)
265.197(c){1)
265.197(c)(2)
265.197(c) (3)
265.197(c)(4)
265.197(c){5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG iS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES
no ignitable or reactive
waste in tank systems
unless:
waste is treated,
rendered or mixed
waste is protected
system used solely
for emerqeneies
maintenance of pro-
tective distances
IV B,
28
IV B,
28
IV B,
28
IV B,
28
IV B,
28
265.198(3)
265.198(a)(1)
265.198(a)(1)(i)
265.198(a)(1)(ii)
265.198(a){2)
265.1 98(a)(3)
265.198(b)
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
no placement of in-
compatible wastes in
tank system unless
compliance with
265.17{b)
IV B,
28
265.199(a)
Page 65 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
no placement in con-
taminated tank system
unless compliance with
265.17(b)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B,
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 99(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL6S IS:
EQU1V-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE ANALYSIS AND TRIAL TESTS
requirements when
waste or process is
new
waste analysis and
treatment or
storage tests
obtain written,
documented informa-
tion on similar waste/
operating conditions
28
28
28
265.200
265.200(a)
265.200(b)
• -
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERATORS OF BETWEEN 100 AND 1,000 KG/MO THAT
ACCUMULATE HAZARDOUS WASTE IN TANKS
general applicability
requirements
general operating
requirements
inspection
requirements
discharqe controls
monitorinq data
level of waste
in tank
tank construction
materials
discharge confine-
ment structures
closure requirements
28
28
28
28
28
28,52
28
28
28
265.201 (a)
265,20Kb)
265.201 (b)(1)
265.201 (b){2)
265.201 (b){3)
265.201 (b)(4)
265.201 (c)
265.201 (cKD
265.201 (c)(2)
265.201 (c){3)
265.201 (c)(4)
265.201
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
special requirements
for ignitable or
reactive wastes
special requirements
for incompatible
wastes
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
28
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265,201(6)
265.201(6)11}
265.201 (e)(1)(i)
265.201 (e)(1)(ii)
265.201 (e)(1)fll!)
265.201 (e)(2)
265.201 (f)
265.201(0(1)
265.201(0(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
S30TV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
i
SUBPART K - SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
APPLICABILITY
surface impoundments
used to treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous
waste
*
265.220
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
install two or
more liners and
leachate collection
in accordance
with 264.221(c)
notify Regional
Administrator; Part
B application
exception to
265.221 (a) based on
alternative design
and operating
practices
17 H
17 H
t17 H
265.221 (a)
265.221 (b)
265.221 (c)
Page 67 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-I MORfe
ALENTl STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t,9 Waiver From Double Liner Requirements
conditions for
waiving 265.221(a)
17 H
17 H.74
17 H
265.221 (d)
265.221 (d)(1)
265.221 (d)(2)(i)(A)
265.221 (d)(2)(i)(B)
265.221 (d)(2)(i)(C)
265.221 (d)(2)(ii)
first permit must
honor liner system
installed pursuant to
265.221(a), except
if leakinq
t17 H
265.221 (e)
GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
60 cm of freeboard
required
condition for variance
from 60 cm of
freeboard
IV B,
t15
t15
265.222(a)
265.222(b)
CONTAINMENT SYSTEM
protective cover
required for earthen
dikes
reserved
IV B
265.223
265.224
Page 68 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EOUW^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE ANALYSIS AND TRIAL TESTS
waste analyses in
addition to 265.13
and the circumstances
requiring them
IV B
265,225(a)
265.225(a)(1)
265.225(aH2)
265.225(a)(2)(n
265.225(a)(2)(ii)
INSPECTIONS
daily and weekly
inspection
requirements
reserved
IV B
265.226(a)
265.226(a){1)
265.226(a)(2)
265.227
.
Page 69 of 132
DC6.9 • 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
closure requirements
post-closure
requirements
removed
IV B.36
IV B.36
IV B,36
265.228(3)
265.228(a)(1)
262.228(a)(2)
265,228(a)(2)(i)
265.228(a)(2)(ii)
265.228(a)(2Kiii)
2B5.228(a)(2)(iii)(A)
265.228{aH2HiiWB)
265.228(a)(2)(IH)(C)
265.228(aM2)(iii)(D)
265.228(a)(2)(iiiHE)
265.228fb)
265.228(b)(1)
265.228(b)(2)
265,228(b){3)
265.228(c)
i.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
conditions for place-
ment in a surface
impoundment
M-15,
78
265.229
Page 70 of 132
DC6.9 - 12H1/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
waste treatment to
specific criteria prior
to placement
waste management to
prevent reaction or
ignition
emergency placement
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B,
t15
IV B,
t15
IV B,
t15
PEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.229(a)
265.229(a)(1)
265.229(a)(2)
265.229(b}(1)
265.229{bM2)
265.229(b){3)
265.229(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL66 IS:
EQUI^
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
prohibited co-disposal
of incompatible wastes
or materials unless
compliance with
265.17(b)
IV B
265.230
SUBPART L - WASTE PILES
APPLICABILITY
storage or treatment
facilities using waste
piles; alternative
management under
265, Subpart N
IV B
265.250
PROTECTION FROM WIND
wind dispersal
control
IV B
265.251
WASTE ANALYSIS
additional analyses
IV B
265.252
CONTAINMENT
to control leachate
or run-off
IV B
265.253
Page 71 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (eont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
place pile on
impermeable base
with run-on and
run-off management
protect pile from
precipitation and
liquids
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCi
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.253(a)(1)
265.253(a)(2)
265.253(a)(3)
265,253(a)(4)
265.253(b)(1)
265.253(b)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
new, replacement,
and expansion units
subject to 264.251
reserved
17 H
265.254
265.225
*>
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
conditions for
placement of
Ignitable or reactive
waste in waste piles
IV B, 78
IV B
265.256(a)
265.256(a)(1)
265.256(aH2)
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
placement in same
pile prohibited unless
265.17(b) is complied
with
waste separation
or protection
base decontamination
IV B
IV B
IV B
265.257{a)
265.257{b)
265.257{c)
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
closure requirements
post-closure care if
not all contaminated
subsoils can be
practically removed
IV B
IV B
265.258(a)
265.258(b)
Page 72 of 132
DC6.9 - 12-11/91
. 1.4'
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
E5UIV-
ALiNT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART M - LAND TREATMENT
APPLICABILITY
facilities that treat or
dispose of hazardous
waste in land treat-
ment units
reserved
*
265.270
265.271
GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
conditions for
land treatment
run-on control
run-off control
maintenance of
collection capacity
wind dispersal
control
IV B,
t15
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
265.272(3)
265,272(b)
265.272{c)
265.272(d)
265.272(6)
'„
WASTE ANALYSIS
additional analyses
Toxicity Characteristic
listed wastes
heavy metals
reserved
#
IV B.74
IV B
IV B
265.273
265.273(a)
265.273(b)
265.273(c)
265.274-265.275
FOOD CHAIN CROPS
notification if grow
food chain crops
prohibition against
food chain crops,
unless demonstration
for 265.273(b) waste
constituents
IV B
IV B
265.276(3)
265.276(b)(1)
265.276(b)(1)(i)
265.276(b)(1)(ii)
Page 73 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
demonstration
information must be
kept at facility; what
it must be based on;
what it must include
additional require-
ments for land treat-
ment facility receiving
waste with cadmium
requirements if crops
are in human
food chain
requirements If crops
will be used as
animal feed
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.276(b)(2)
265.276(b)(2)(i) .
265.276(b)(2Hii)
265.276{c)
265.276(c)(1)(i)
265.276(c)(1)(ii)
265.276(c)(1)(iin
265.276(0(1 )(iii)(A)
265.276(c)(1)(iii)(B)
265.276(c)(2Hi)
265.276(c)(2)(ii)
265.276(c)(2)(iii)
265.276(c)(2)(iv)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EOOIT^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•* *
reserved
265.277
UNSATURATED ZONE (ZONE OF AERATION) MONITORING
written unsaturated
zone monitoring plan
required and imple-
mented; what plan
must be designed
to do
what plan must
include
IV B
IV B
265.278(3)
265.278(aH1)
265.278(a)(2)
265.278(b)
265.278(b)(1)
265.278(b)(2)
Page 74 of 132
DC6.9 - 12^11/01
o i
.-*...-*..<••»
-------
OSWER DIR. NO, 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
demonstration required
to comply with
265.278(a)(1)
retention of plan;
rationale
soil and soil-pore
water analysis
RECORDKEEPING
operating record to
include waste appli-
cation dates and rates
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.278(c)
265.278(0) (1)
265.278(c)(2)
265.278(c)(2)(i)
265.278(c)(2)(li)
265.278(c){3)
265.278(d) .
265.278(6)
265.279
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EoTJlV-
. ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
-
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE
objectives which must
be addressed in
closure and post-
closure plans
IV B
265,280(a)
265.280(a)(1)
265.280(a){2)
265.280(a)(3)
265.280(a){4)
Page 75 of 132
DC6.9 - 1ZM1/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6; Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
factors needed to
meet the closure and
post-closure care
objectives of
265.280(a)
methods to address
closure/post-closure
plan objectives
closure requirements
in addition to Sub-
part G requirements
certification that
facility has been
closed in accordance
with specifications of
approved plan
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE ;
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.280(b)
265.280(b){1)
265.280(bM2)
265.280(b)(3)
265.280(b)(4)
265.280(b)(5)
265.280(b)(6)
265.280(b)(7)
265.280{c)
265.280(c)(1)
265.280(c){2)
265.280(c)(2Mi)
265.280(eM2)(ii)
265.280(c)(3)
265.280(d)
265.280(d){1)
265.28Q(d)(2)
265.280(d)(3)
265.280(d)(4)
265.280(e)
ANALCX3OUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
Page 76 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
."ji, jL«3 j
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
requirements in
addition to
265.117 requirements
CHECK- ""
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.280(f)
265.280(0(1)
265.280(0(2)
265.280(0(3)
265.280(0(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATS ANALOG
S3U1V-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
conditions for applying
ignitable or reactive
wastes to treatment
zone
immediate
incorporation of
waste into soil
protective manage-
ment so no reaction
or ignition
*,78
IV B
IV B
265.281
265.281(3)
265.281 (a)(1)
265.281 (a)(2)
265.28Kb)
- -
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
conditions for disposal
of incompatible wastes
or materials
IV B
265.282
SUBPART N - LANDFILLS
APPLICABILITY
apply to hazardous
waste disposal facilities
usinq landfills
IV B
265.300
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
install two or "^
more liners
notify Regional
Administrator
17 H
17 H
265.301(3)
265.301 (b)
Page 77 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
alternative design
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
t17 H
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.301(0)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
E13LW
ALENT
MORE
STRINOENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
|,9 Waiver From Double Liner Requirements
waiver for monofills
17 H
265.301 (d)
265.301 (d)<1)
265.301 (d)(2)(i){A)
265.301 (d)(2)(i)(B)
265.301 (d)(2)(i)(C)
265.301 (d)(2)(it)
• *>
liner systems installed
pursuant to 265.301 (a)
will be honored,
unless leaking
t17 H
265.301(e)
GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
run-on control
run-off control
collection and
holdinq facilities
wind dispersal
control
reserved
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
265.302(a)
265.302(b)
265.302(c)
265.302(d)
265.303-265.308
SURVEYING AND RECORDKEEPING
Items which must be
in operatina record
location and
dimensions of landfill
to be shown on maps
contents of each cell
and location of each
hazardous waste type
in each cell
*
IV B
IV B
265.309
265.309(3)
265.3Q9(b)
Page 78 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
cover requirements
at final closure
post-closure
requirements
final cover
requirements
ground-water
monitoring system
requirements
run-on and run-off
control requirements
protect and maintain
surveyed benchmarks
22 removed
reserved
IV B.15
IV B.15
IV B.15
IV B.15
IV B.15
IV B.15
IV 8,15
265.31 0(a)
265.31 0(a){1)
265.31 0(a) (2)
265.31 0(a)(3)
265.31 0(a)(4)
265.31 0(a)(5)
265.31 0(b)
265.31 0(b){1)
265.31 0(b)(2)
265.31 0(bH3)
265.31 Qfb)(4)
265.310(c)
265.31 0{d)
265.31 1
-
-
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
placement prohibited
unless waste and
landfill meet Part 268
requirements and
waste is no longer
ignitable or reactive
and 265.1 7(b) is
complied with
containerized wastes
IV B.78
IV B
IV B,78
265.31 2(a)
265.31 2(a)(1)
265.31 2(a)(2)
265.31 2(b)
Page 79 of 132
DCS .9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
conditions for
disposal in landfill
IV B
265.313
23 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BULK AND CONTAINERIZED LIQUIDS
bulk liquid disposal
prior to May 8, 1 985
only if:
liner and leachate
system requirements
liquids must be
stabilized
May 8, 1985 free
liquids ban
conditions for place-
ment of containers
holding free liquids
in a landfill
paint filter test
compliance date
nonhazardous liquids
ban effective Novem-
ber 8, 1985; what
must be demonstrated
to Regional
Administrator
for exemption
only reasonable avail-
able alternative
not a risk of
contaminating
underground source
of drinkinq water
IV B,
17 F
IV B
IV B
IV B,
17 F
IV B,
t17 F
16,
f17 F,
25
IV B,
t17 F
17 F
t17 F
t17 F
265.31 4{a)
265.31 4(a)(1)
265.31 4(a)(2)
265.31 4(b)
265.31 4(c)
265.31 4(c)(1)
265.31 4(c)(2)
265.31 4(c)(3)
265.31 4(c)(4)
265.31 4(d)
265.314(e)
265.31 4(f)
265.31 4(f)(1)
265.31 4(f) (2)
i
*
Page 80 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ET3UW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
24 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTAINERS
requirements if
containers not
very small
at least 90% full
crushed, shredded or
reduced in volume
before burial
15
IV B.15
IV B.15
265.315
265.315(a)
265.31 5(b)
DISPOSAL OF SMALL CONTAINERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN OVERPACKED DRUMS (LAB
PACKS)
conditions for
placement of
overpacked drums
In landfills
inside container re-
quirements including
DOT requirements
overpacking--DOT
requirements; outer
container
absorbent material
incompatible wastes
reactive wastes
f,25 disposal in com-
pliance with Part 268;
fiber drums allowed
for incineration
of lab packs
*
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
IV B
78
265.316
265.316(a)
265.31 6(b)
265.31 6(c)
265.31 6(d)
265.316(6)
265,31 6(f)
•
-
SUBPART O - INCINERATORS
APPLICABILITY
applies to
incineration facilities
HW incinerators
boilers and industrial
furnaces
IV B.13
13
13,19
265.340(3)
265.340(a)(1)
265.340(a)(2)
Page 81 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
exemptions
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.340(b)
265,340(b)(1)
265.340(bH2)
265.340(b)(3)
265.340(b)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"KfUW^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE ANALYSIS
analyze wastes not
previously burned
factors which at a
minimum must be
analyzed
reserved
*
IV B
265.341
265.341 (a)
265.34Kb)
265.341(0)
265.342-265.344
-
GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
during start-up and
shut-down, limit waste
feed to steady state
reserved
IV B
265.345
265.346
MONITORING AND INSPECTIONS
monitoring and
inspection
requirement
15-minute monitoring
of combustion and
emission control
instruments;
appropriate corrections
daily inspection of
incinerator and
associated equipment
reserved
*
IV B
IV B
265.347
265.347(8)
265,347(b)
265.348-265.350
Page 82 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/81
-------
DIE. NO. 9541,00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CLOSURE
remove all hazardous
wastes and residues
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.351
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL05 IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOP1
INTERIM STATUS INCINERATORS BURNING PARTICULAR HAZARDOUS WASTES
certification to
burn dioxins
certification standards
and procedures
14
14
265.352(a)
265.352(b)
265.352(b)(1)
265,352(b)(2)
265.352(b)(3)
SUBPART P - THERMAL TREATMENT
OTHER THERMAL TREATMENT
treatment in other
than enclosed devices
using controlled
flame combustion
reserved
IV B,13
265.370
265.371-265.372
GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
waste feed limited to
steady state conditions
of operation, unless
process is non-
continuous
reserved
IV B
265.373
265.374
WASTE ANALYSIS
analyze wastes not n
previously burned to
establish steady state
or other appropriate
ooeratinq conditions
*
265.375
Page 83 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
factors which at a
minimum must be
analyzed
reserved
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.375(a)
265.375(b)
265.375(0)
265.376
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ECU IV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
MONITORING AND INSPECTIONS
items requiring
monitoring and
inspections
reserved
IV B
265.377(a)
265.377(a)(1)
265.377(a)(2)
265.377{a)(3)
265.378-265.380
'
.
CLOSURE
remove all hazardous
waste and residues
IV B
265.381
OPEN BURNING; WASTE EXPLOSIVES
prohibition on open
burning of hazardous
wastes except for
open burning and
detonation of waste
explosives; definitions
IV B
265.382
INTERIM STATUS THERMAL TREATMENT DEVICES BURNING PARTICULAR HAZARDOUS
WASTE
certification to
bum dioxins
certification standards
and procedures
14
14
265.383(a)
265.383(b)
265.383(b){1)
265.383(b)(2)
265.383(b)(3)
Page 84 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART Q - CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
APPLICABILITY
applies to owners/
operators of facilities
which treat by
chemical, physical or
biological methods in
other than tanks,
surface impoundments
and land treatment
facilities, except as
265.1 provides
otherwise
IV B
265.400
*
GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
comply with 265.17{b)
placement of
wastes
cut-off for
continuous feed
IV B
IV B
IV B
265.401 (a)
265.40Kb)
265.401(c)
WASTE ANALYSIS AND TRIAL TESTS
requirements in
addition to 265.13
IV B
265.402(a)
265.402{a)(1)
265.402(a){2)
265.402(a){2)0)
265.402(a)(2)(ii)
Page 85 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
INSPECTIONS
items to be inspected
and frequency of
inspection
IV B
265.403(a)
265.403(a)(1)
265.403(3)(2)
265.403(3)(3)
265.403(3)(4)
CLOSURE
remove all hazardous
wastes and residues
IV B
265.404
-
-
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IQNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
ignitable or reactive
waste must not be
placed in treatment
process or equipment
unless certain
conditions are met
IV B
265.405(a)
265.405(a)(1)
265.405(3)(2)
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
no treatment of
incompatible wastes
unless 265.17(b)
compliance
no hazardous waste
placed in unwashed
treatment equipment
unless 265.17{b)
compliance
IV B
IV B
265.406(a)
265.406(b)
s
SUBPART R - UNDERGROUND INJECTION
APPLICABILITY
except as 265.1
provides otherwise:
owner/operator
exclusion
*
IV B
265.430
265.430(8)
Page 86 of 132
DC6.9 - 1211/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Class ! and
Class IV wells
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
IV B
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.43Q(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART AA - AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR PROCESS VENTS
APPLICABILITY
regulations in
this subpart apply
to owners and
operators of
facilities that
treat, store or
dispose of
hazardous waste
except as provided
in 265.1
except for
265.1034(d)
and 265,1035(d),
Subpart AA
applies to
process vents
associated with
operations manag-
ing hazardous
wastes with at
least 10-ppmw
organic concen-
trations if
conducted in
specific units
units subject to
the permitting
requirements of
Part 270
79
79
79
265.1030(a)
265.1030(b)
265.1030(bH1)
'
Page 87 of 132
DC6.9 - 12*11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
hazardous waste
recycling units
located on
hazardous waste
management facili-
ties otherwise sub-
ject to Part 270
permitting
requirements
DEFINITIONS
all terms have
meaning given
them in 264.1031,
the Act, and
Parts 260-266
CHECk-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 030(b){2)
265.1031
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
slAlE ANALOG is:
CoDIV^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
- •
STANDARDS: PROCESS VENTS
owner or operator
of facility with
process vents
meeting certain
conditions
shall either:
reduce total
organic emissions
below 1.4
kg/h and
2.8 Ma/vr
using control
device, reduce
total organic
emissions by 95
weiqht percent
265.1033 require-
ments must be
met if owner or
operator installs
closed-vent
system and control
device to comply
with 265.1032(a)
provisions
79
79
79
79
265.1Q32(a)
265.1 032(a)(1)
265.1 032{aM2)
265.1032{b)
:
Page 88 of 132
DC6.9 - 1»11/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
use of engineering
calculations or
performance tests
conforming to
265.1034(c)
requirements may
be used for
determination of
vent emissions and
emission reductions
or total organic
compound concen-
trations achieved
by add-on control
devices
use of 265.1034(c)
procedures to
resolve dis-
agreements between
owner or operator
and Regional
Administrator on
vent determinations
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1032(c)
265.1032(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
iROADER
IN SCOPE
• -
STANDARDS: CLOSED-VENT SYSTEMS AND CONTROL DEVICES
compliance with
provisions of
265.1033 by
owners or oper-
ators of closed-
vent systems and
control devices
used to comply
with provisions
of Part 265
79
265.1033(a)(1)
Page 89 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
preparation of an
implementation
schedule by owner
or operator, of
existing facility,
who cannot install
a closed-vent
system and control
device to comply
with Subpart AA
provisions by
effective date;
units that begin
operation after
December 21 ,
1990, must comply
with the
rules immediately
specification of
efficiency stan-
dards for control
device involving
vapor recovery
unless
265.1032(a)(1)
emission limits
can be attained
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
,
265.1033(a)(2)
265.1033(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
- -
Page 90 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-X
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
organic emission
standards for
enclosed combus-
tion device; for
boiler or process
heater used as
control device,
vent stream
introduced into
flame zone
specifications for
the design and
operation of a
flare
determination of
compliance of
a flare with
the visible
emission provisions
of Subpart AA
using Reference
Method 22 in
40 CFR Part 60
calculation of
net heating value
of gas being
combusted in a
flare using
specified equation
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1033(c)
265.1033{d)(1)
265.1033(d)(2)
265.1Q33(d)(3)
265.1 033(d)(4Hi)
265,1033(d)(4)(ii)
265.1033(dM4)(iin
265.1033WK5)
265.1033(d)(6)
265.1 033(e){1)
265. 1033(e) (2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
*
EQUIV-
ALENT
TATE ANA166 IS:
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
- *
Page 91 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
determination of
actual exit
velocity of a flare
using flow rate
as determined by
Reference Methods
2, 2A, 2C or 2D
in 40 CFR Part 60
determination of
maximum allowed
velocity for a
flare complying
with
265.1 033(d)(4)(iii)
determination of
maximum allowed
velocity for an
air-assisted flare
monitoring and
inspection of
control device by
owner and oper-
ator to ensure
compliance
with 265.1033 by
implementing
specified
requirements:
installation, cali-
bration, main-
tenance, and
operation of a
flow indicator;
where sensor
shall be
installed
specifications for
installation, cali-
bration, mainte-
nance, and oper-
ation of a device
to continuously
monitor control
device operation:
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1033(eH3)
265.1033(e)(4)
265.1 033(e)(5)
265.1033(f)
265.1033(f)(1)
265.1033(0(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ESUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 92 of 132
i.JLt»'
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
temperature
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder for a
thermal vapor
incinerator
temperature
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder for
a catalytic vapor
incinerator
heat sensing
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder
for a flare
temperature
monitoring device
with a
continuous recorder
for a boiler or
process heater
having a design
heat input capacity
less than 44 MW
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder for a
boiler or process
heater having a
design heat input
capacity greater
than or equal to
44 MW
for a condenser,
either:
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1033(0(2)0)
265. 1033(0(2)(ll)
265.1033(0(2)010
265.1 033(0(2)(iv)
265.1 033(0(2)(v)
265.1 033(0(2)(vi)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 93 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
'A. -JL Ci
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder to
measure concen-
tration level of the
organic compounds
in the exhaust
vent stream
from the condenser
temperature
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder;
specifications
for a carbon
adsorption system,
either:
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder to
measure concen-
tration level of
organic compounds
in exhaust
vent stream from
carbon bed
monitoring device
with a continuous
recorder to
measure a para-
meter that
indicates the
carbon bed is
regenerated on a
regular predeter-
mined time cycle
dally inspection
of readings from
monitoring device
required by
265.1 033(f)(1) and
265.1 033(f)(2);
implement cor-
rective measures if
necessary
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1033(f)(2)(viKA)
265.1 033(0(2Mvl)(B)
265.1 033(f)(2)(vil)
265.1 033(f)(2)(vii)(A)
265.1 033(fM2MviiHB)
265.1033(0(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 94 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
replacement of
existing carbon
in control device
by owner or oper-
ator using a fixed-
bed carbon
adsorber that
meets the
265.1035(b)(4)
requirement
replacement of
carbon on a
regular basis by
owner or operator
using a carbon
canister
monitor organic
compounds daily
or at interval no
greater than 20
percent of time
required to
consume total
carbon working
capacity
established at
265.1035(b) (4)
(iii){G), which-
ever is longer;
replace existing
carbon when
carbon break-
throuqh occurs
replacement of
existing carbon
at intervals less
than design carbon
replacement inter-
val established as
a requirement of
265.1 035(b)(4)
(iii)(G)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265,1033(0)
265.1033(h)
265.1033(h){1)
265.1 033(h)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOQ
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
S:
feROADER
IN SCOPE
'
Page 95 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
documentation
requirements for
owner or operator
seeking to comply
with Part 265
provisions by using
a control device
other than a
thermal vapor
incinerator, cata-
lytic vapor incin-
erator, flare,
boiler, process
heater condenser,
or carbon
adsorption system
design and opera-
tional requirements
for closed-vent
systems based on
265.1034(b)
methods
monitoring of
closed-vent
systems during ini-
tial leak detection
monitoring, con-
ducted by the date
that the facility
becomes subject
to 265.1033
provisions,
annually, and as
requested by
Regional
Administrator
control of detect-
able emissions no
later than 1 5
calendar days
after emission
is detected
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1033(0
265.1 033(i)(1)
265.1033(1X2)
265.1033(i)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG 15:
iQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•-
Page 96 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-*-JL 8
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
first attempt at
repair no later
than 5 calendar
days after emission
is detected
closed vent
systems and con-
trol devices used
to comply with
provisions of Sub-
part AA shall be
operated at all
times when emis-
sions may be
vented to them
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1033fl)(4)
265.1033(k)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TEST METHODS AND PROCEDURES
compliance with
265.1034 test
methods and
procedures by
owner or operator
subject to provi-
sions of Subpart
AA
when testing a
closed-vent system
for compliance
with 265.10330)
requirements,
comply with
following test
requirements:
monitoring in
compliance with
Reference Method
21 in 40 CFR
Part 60
detection instru-
ment shall meet
the performance
criteria of Refer-
ence Method 21
79
79
79
79
265.1034(a)
265.1034{b)
265.1 034(b)(1)
265,1 034(b)(2)
.
Page 97 of 132
DC6.9 - 12H1/91
JL e -V
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
calibration of
instrument by
procedures speci-
fied in Reference
Method 21
calibration gases
shall be:
zero air
mixture of methane
or n-hexane and
air at specified
concentration
background level
determined as set
forth in Reference
Method 21
instrument probe
traverse require-
ments as described
in Reference
Method 21
arithmetic differ-
ence compared
with 500 ppm for
compliance
determination
performance test
requirements to
determine com-
pliance with
265.1032(a) and
265.1033{c)
reference methods
and calculation '
procedures to use
when determining
total organic
compound
concentrations and
mass flow rates
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1034(b)(3)
265.1034(b)(4)
265.1 Q34(bH4Hi)
265.1034(bH4Hii)
265.1034(b)(5)
265.1034(bH6)
265.1 034(b)(7)
265.1034(c)
265.1 034(c)(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 98 of 132
DC6.9 - 12^11/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Method 2 in
40 CFR Part 60
for velocity and
volumetric flow
rate
Method 18 in
40 CFR Part 60
for organic content
performance tests
in three separate
runs; conditions
for conducting
runs; averaging
results on a
time-weighted
basis
equation for
determining
total organic
mass flow rates
equation for
determining annual
total organic
emission rate
determination of
total organic
emissions from all
process vents using
265.1034(c)(1)(lv)
equation and
265.1034(c)(1)(v)
equation
recording of pro-
cess information
necessary to
determine per-
formance test
conditions; certain
operational periods
not applicable
performance testing
facilities provided
by owner or
operator
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 034(c)(1)W
265.1034(c)(1)(ii)
265.1 034(c)(1 Hill)
265,1034(c)(1)(iv)
265.1034(c)(1)(v)
265.1034(c)(1)(vi)
265.1034(c)(2)
265.1034(c) (3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"TOUW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 99 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/1V91
••*- JL. e
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
sampling ports
adequate for
265.1034(c)(1)
test methods
safe sampling
platform(s)
safe access to
sampling
platform(s)
utilities for
sampling and
testing equipment
use of time-
weighted average
of three runs
in making comp-
liance determina-
tions; Regional
Administrator
approval needed
for average based
on two runs if a
sample is
accidentally lost
or certain
conditions occur
to demonstrate a
process vent is not
subject to Subpart
AA requirements,
use one of two
methods to deter-
mine an annual
average total
organic concen-
tration of less
than 10 ppmw
direct measurement
using the following
procedures:
minimum of four
grab samples under
specified process
conditions
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 034(c)(3)(i)
265.1 034(c)(3)(ii)
265.1 034(c)(3)(iii)
265.1034(c)(3)fiv)
265.1034(c)(4)
265.1034(d)
265.1034(d)(1)
265.1034(d)(1)(i)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 100 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-*-
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6; interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
for waste generated
onsite, collect grab
samples before
exposure to the
atmosphere; for
waste generated
offsite, collect grab
samples at the
inlet to the first
waste management
unit that receives
the waste under
specific conditions
sample analysis
using Method 9060
or 8240 of
SW-846
calculation of
time-weighted,
annual average
total organic
concentration of
waste
using knowledge
of the waste to
determine its total
organic concen-
tration is less than
10 ppmw; documen-
tation of the waste
determination is
required; examples
of acceptable
documentation
guidelines for the
determination that
hazardous wastes
are managed with
time-weighted
annual average
total organic
concentrations less
than 10 ppmw
CHE6K-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1034(dH1)(H)
265.1034(d)(1Hiii)
265.1034(d)(1Kiv)
265.1034(d)(2)
265.1034(e)
265.1034(e)(1)
265.1 034(e)(2)
265.1034(e)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
'•
Page 101 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
..
., A. S
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Method 8240
procedures
used to resolve
dispute in case
of disagreement
between owner or
operator and
Regional Admini-
strator regarding
the determination
made in
265.1034(e)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 034(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT i
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
compliance with
recordkeeptng
requirements
recordkeeping
requirements for
more than one
hazardous waste
management unit
in one reeord-
keepinq system
information that
must be recorded
in the facility
operatinq record
for 265.1033(a)(2)-
complytng facili-
ties, an implemen-
tation schedule
that includes
specified dates and
rationale; inclusion
in operating record
by effective
date the facility
becomes subject to
Subpart AA
provisions
up-to-date
documentation of
265.1032
standards
79
79
79
79
79
265.1 035(a)(1)
265,1035(a)(2)
265.1035(b)
265.1035(b)(1)
265.1035(b)(2)
-
Page 102 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
5- JL 0* e
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information and
data identifying
all affected process
vents and specific
information for
each vent
information and
data supporting
determinations of
vent emissions and
emission reduc-
tions; new deter-
mination required
if any action
taken increases
total emissions
a performance test
plan for owners or
operators using
test data
for determination
a description of
the determination
that a planned test
will be conducted
when unit is
operating at the
highest load or
capacity level
detailed engineering
description of
closed-vent system
and control device
detailed description
of sampling and
monitoring
procedures
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 035{b)(2)fi)
265.1 035(b)(2)fli)
265.1035(b)(3)
265.1 035(b)(3)(i)
265.1 035(b)(3)(ii)
265.1035(b)(3MiiKA)
265.1 035(b)(3)(IIMB)
265.1 035(b)(3)fli)(C)
265.1035(b)(3)OI)(D)
265.1 035(bK3){ii){E)
265.1 035(bH3Miii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 103 of 132
OC6.9 - 12/11/91
.Ik. L
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
documentation of
compliance with
265.1033
information refer-
ences and source
records including
the dates of each
compliance test
required
by 265.1033(0
if engineering
calculations are
used, a design
analysis and other
documents that
present basic con-
trol device design
information; design
analysis addresses
vent stream
characteristics and
control device
operation
parameters
design analysis
requirements for a
thermal vapor
incinerator
design analysis
requirements for a
catalytic vapor
incinerator
design analysis
requirements for a
boiler or process
heater
design analysis
requirements for a
flare
design analysis
requirements for a
condenser
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1035(b) (4)
265.1 035(b)(4)(i)
265.1035(b)(4)(il)
265.1 035(b)(4)(iii)
265.1 035(b)(4)(iii)(A)
265.1035(b)(4)(iiiHB)
265.1035(b)(4Hiii)(C)
265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(D)
265.1 035(b)(4)(iii)(E)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 104 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
design analysis
requirements for
carbon adsorption
system that
regenerates the
carbon bed directly
onsite
design analysis
requirements for a
carbon adsorption
system that does
not regenerate the
carbon bed directly
onsite
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner or
operator regarding
operating
parameters
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner or
operator regarding
control equipment
meeting design
specifications
all test results
when performance
tests are used to
demonstrate
compliance
information to be
recorded and kept
up-to-date in the
facility operating
record for each
closed-vent system
and control device
subject to the Part
265 requlations
description and
date of each
modification
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265,1 035(b)(4M!HHF)
265.1035(b)(4){litHG)
265.1 035(W(4Hiv)
265.1035(W(4)(v)
265,1 035(b)(4)(vi)
265.1035(c)
265.1035(c){1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQURT
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 105 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/1V91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
identification of
operating para-
meter, description
of monitoring
device and location
diagram for comp-
liance with
265.1033(f)(1) and
(f)(2)
information
required by
265.1 033(f)-(l)
date, time and
duration of each
period that occurs
white control
device is operating
when any moni-
tored parameter
exceeds the value
established in the
design analysis
when combustion
temperature is
below 760°C for a
thermal vapor
incinerator
when temperature
of vent stream is
more than 28°C
below average
temperature or
when temperature
difference across
catalyst bed is less
than 80 percent of
the design average
temperature
difference for a
catalytic vapor
incinerator
boiler or process
heater
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1035(c)(2)
265.1 035(c)(3)
265.1 035(c)(4)
265.1035(c){4)(i)
265.1 035(c)f4)(H)
265.1035(c)(4)(iii)
265.1035(cK4)(iii)(A)
265.1035(c)(4)(iii)(B)
265.1 035(c)(4)(iv)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 106 of 132
DC6.9 - 1 % 11/91
* I'M -•-
, A,vJ>..»
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
flame zone
temperature is
more than 28°C
below design
average temper-
ature
position
changes
period when the
pilot flame is not
ignited for a flare
period when
organic compounds
are more than
20 percent greater
than the design
level for a
condenser
condenser that
complies with
265.1033(f)(2)
(vi)(B)
temperature of
exhaust vent stream
is more than 6°C
above design
average
temperature
temperature of
exiting coolant
fluid is more than
6°C above design
average
temperature
period when
organic compounds
are more than 20
percent greater
than the design
level for a
carbon adsorption
system
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 035(cM4Hiv)(A)
265.1 035(c)(4)(iv)(B)
265.1035(c)(4)(v)
265.1 035(cH4)(vi)
265.1035(c)(4)(vii)
265.1035(cM4)(vii)(A)
265.1035(c)(4)(vii)(B)
265.1035(c)(4)(viii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQlHV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 107 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
period when vent
stream flow
exceeds predeter-
mined regeneration
time for a carbon
adsorption system
explanation for
each period under
265.1035{c){4) of
the cause for para-
meters being
exceeded and
measures
implemented
date when existing
carbon is replaced
log to record
specific dates
date of each con-
trol device start-
up and shutdown
records required
by paragraphs
265,1035(c)(3)-
(c){8) need be
kept only 3 years
monitoring and
inspection infor-
mation for control
device other than
a thermal vapor
incinerator,
catalytic vapor
incinerator, flare,
boiler, process
heater, condenser,
or carbon adsorp-
tion system must
be recorded in the
facility
operatinq record
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1035(c)(4)(ix)
265.1035{c)(5)
265,1035{c){6)
265.1 035(c)(7)
265.1035(c)(7Ki)
265.1035(c)(7)(ii)
265.1035(c)(8)
265.1 035{d)
265.1035(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
Kiour"
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
; *
Page 108 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
•A..4LC
-------
DIE. NO. 9541,00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
logging of infor-
mation used to
determine if
process vent is
subject to 265.1032
and 265.1032(d)(2)
reserved
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 035(f)
265.1036 - 265.1049
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRIN9ENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART BB - AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS
APPLICABILITY
owners and oper-
ators of facilities
that treat, store
or dispose of
hazardous wastes
except as provided
in 265.1
except as provided
in 265.1064(j),
applicability of
Subpart BB to
equipment that
contains or
contacts hazardous
wastes with
organic concen-
trations of at
least 10 percent by
weight that are
managed in units
or facilities subject
to Part 270 permtt-
tinq requirements
equipment subject
to Subpart BB,
Part 265 shall be
marked
79
79
79
79
79
265.1050(3)
265.1050(b)
265,1050(b)(1)
265,1 050{b){2)
265.1050(c)
•
-
Page 109 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
equipment in
vacuum service
excluded from
requirements of
265.1052 to
265.1060 require-
ments if identified
as required in
265. 1064(a) (5)
DEFINITIONS
all terms have
meaning given them
in 264,1031, the
Act, and Parts
260-266
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 050(d)
265.1051
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EoTJIV^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•-
STANDARDS: PUMPS IN LIGHT LIQUID SERVICE
monthly moni-
toring to detect
leaks as specified
by 265.1063{b)
methods except as
provided in
265.1 052(d), (e)
and (f)
visual inspection
each calendar
week
conditions
indicating a
leak is detected
time frame for
leak repair, except
as provided in
265.1059
first attempt
at leak repair
not to exceed
5 calendar
days after
leak detection
79
79
79
79
79
79
265.1052(a)(1)
265.1 052{aK2)
265.1 052fb)(1)
265.1052(b)(2)
265.1 052(c)(1)
265,1Q52(c)(2)
Page 110 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
pump equipped
with dual mechan-
ical seal system
that includes
a barrier fluid
system is exempt
from 265.1052(a)
if specific require-
ments are met:
operational and
equipment
requirements for a
dual mechanical
seal system
organic concentra-
tion limitation
for barrier
fluid system
sensor requirement
weekly visual
check of pump
daily check of
barrier fluid
system sensor
or monthly check
of audible alarm
determination of
criterion to indi-
cate failure of
systems
leak detection
criteria
repair of leak
not to exceed
15 calendar days,
except as provided
in 265.1059
CHECK- "
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1052(d)
265.1052(d)(1)
265.1052{d)(1)(i)
265.1052(dK1)(li)
265.1052(d)(1)(iii)
265.1052(d){2)
265.1052(d)(3)
265.1 052(d){4)
265.1 052{d)(5Ki)
265,1052{d)(S)(ii)
265.1 052(d)(6)(i)
265.1052(d)(6)(ii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
•;
BROADER
IN SCOPE
«•
Page 111 of 132
DC6.9 -
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
first attempt at
leak repair not
to exceed 5
calendar days
after leak detection
conditions under
which pump desig-
nated for no detec-
table emissions is
exempt from
265.1Q52(a),(c) and
(d) requirements
pump equipped
with closed-vent
system and control
device in comp-
liance with
265,1060 is
exempt from
265.1052{a)-(e)
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
26S.1052(d)(6Hiii)
265.1052(e)
265.1052(e)(1)
265.1052(e) (2)
265.1 052(e)(3)
265.1 052(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
E5UIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: COMPRESSORS
seal system
requirement for
compressor, except
as provided in
265.1053(h) and (i)
specifications
for compressor
seal system
organic concen-
tration limitation
for barrier fluid
sensor
requirement
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
265.1053(a)
265.1053(b)
265.1053(b)(1)
265.1 053(b)(2)
265,1053(bX3)
265.1 053(c)
265.1053(d)
Page 112 of 132
DC6.9 - 12^11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO, 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6; Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
daily check of
barrier fluid
system sensor
or monthly check
of audible alarm;
daily check if
compressor located
within boundary
of unmanned site
determination of
criterion to indicate
failure of systems
leak detection
criteria
repair of leak not
to exceed 15
calendar days,
except as
provided in
265.1059
first attempt at
leak repair not
to exceed 5
calendar days after
leak detection
compressor equip-
ped with closed-
vent system and
control device in
compliance with
265.1060 is
exempt from
265.1053(a) and
(b) requirements,
except as provided
in 265.10530)
conditions under
which compressor
designated for no
detectable emis-
sions is exempt
from 265,1 053(a)
through (h)
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
i
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 053(e)(1)
265.1053(6) (2)
265.1053(f)
265.1053(a)(D
265.1053(a)(2)
265.1Q53(h)
265.1053(1)
265.1053(0(1)
265.1053(0(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
1ROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 113 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ECU17-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: PRESSURE RELIEF DEVICES IN GAS/VAPOR SERVICE
except during
pressure releases,
no detectable
emission standards
for the operation
of pressure relief
device in gas/
vapor service, as
measured by
265.1063(c) method
time requirement
and criteria for
return of pressure
relief device to a
condition of no
detectable emis-
sions, except as
provided in
265.1059
monitoring of
pressure relief
device within 5
calendar days after
pressure relief to
confirm no detec-
table emissions,
as measured by
265.1063(c) method
pressure relief
device equipped
with closed-vent
system and control
device in comp-
liance with
265.1060 is
exempt from
265.1054{a)
and (b)
79
79
79
79
265.1054(a)
265.1054(b)(1)
265.1054(b)(2)
265.1054(c)
-
*
Page 114 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECKS
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL0<§ 18! "
"E"QDI7-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: SAMPLING CONNECTING SYSTEMS
sampling con-
necting system
equipped with
closed purge or
closed-vent
system
return collect and
recycle purged
waste with no
detectable emis-
sions; control
device in
compliance
with 265.1060
in situ sampling
systems exempt
from 265,1055(a)
and (b)
requirements
79
79
79
79
79
79
265.1055(a)
265.1055(b)
265.1 055(b)(1)
265.1 055(b)(2)
265.1055(b)(3)
265.1055(c)
•
STANDARDS: OPEN-ENDED VALVES OR LINES
each open-ended
valve or line
shall be equipped
with a cap,
blind flange,
plug, or a second
valve
requirement to
seal open end at
all times except
during specified
operations
operational require-
ments for open-
ended valve or
line equipped with
a second valve
79
79
79
265.1056(a)(1)
265.1056(a) (2)
265.1056(b)
Page 115 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
requirements for
bleed valve
or line when a
double block and
bleed system is
used; compliance
with 265.1056(a)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1056(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: VALVES IN GAS/VAPOR SERVICE OR IN LIGHT LIQUID SERVICE
monthly monitoring
of each valve in
gas/vapor or light
liquid service
using 265.1063(b)
methods; compliance
with 265.1057(b)-
(e), except as
provided in
265.1 057(f), (g)
and (h), 265.1061
and 265.1062
instrument reading
of 10,000 ppm or
greater indicates
leak
monitoring
requirements if
leak not detected
for two successive
months
monthly monitoring
requirement if
leak detected
repair of leak
not to exceed 1 5
calendar days,
except as provided
in 265.1059
first attempt
at leak repair
not to exceed
5 calendar
days after
leak detection
79
79
79
79
79
79
265.1057(a)
265.1057(b)
265.1057(c)(1)
265.1 057(c)(2)
265.1 057(d)(1)
265.1057(d)(2)
«
Page 116 of 132
DC6.9 - 1211/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
best practices to
include in first
attempt at repair
valve designated
for no detectable
emissions under
265.1 064(g)(2)
is exempt
from 265.1057(a)
requirements
if specified
conditions are met
conditions under
which an unsafe-
to-monitor valve
as described in
265,1 Q64(h)(1) is
exempt from
265.1057(a)
requirements
conditions under
which a difficult-
to-monitor valve
as described in
265.1064(h)(2) is
exempt from
265,1057(a)
requirements
CHECK- ""
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265,1057(6)
265.1057(e)(1)
265.1057(e)(2)
265.1057(e)(3)
265.1057(e)(4)
265.1057(f)
265.1057(0(1)
265.1057(0(2)
265.1057(0(3)
265.1057(q)
265,1 057 (q)(1)
265.1057(a) (2)
265.1057(h)
265.1057(h)(1)
265.1057(h)(2)
265,1057(h){3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANA16<5 IS:
ESUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
-;
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
Page 117 of 132
DC6.9 - 12*11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ESORT
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS: PUMPS AND VALVES IN HEAVY LIQUID SERVICE, PRESSURE
RELIEF DEVICES IN LIGHT LIQUID OR HEAVY LIQUID SERVICE, AND FLANGES
AND OTHER CONNECTORS
monitoring of
specified pumps
and valves,
pressure relief
devices, flanges
and other con-
nectors within 5
days using
265.1Q63(b)
methods in case of
potential leaks
reading of 10,000
ppm or greater
indicates leak
repair of leak
not to exceed 1 5
calendar days,
except as
provided in
265.1059
first attempt
at leak repair
not to exceed
5 calendar
days after
leak detection
first attempt at
repair includes
best practices
described
under 265.1057(e)
79
79
79
79
79
265.1058(a)
265.1058{b)
265.1 058(c)(1)
265.1058(cM2)
265.1058(d)
.
•>
STANDARDS: DELAY OF REPAIR
requirements for
the delay of repair
of equipment for
which leaks have
been detected
type of equipment
for which delay of
repair allowed
79
79
265.1059(a)
265.1059(b)
Page 118 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
conditions
under which
delay of repair of
valves allowed
conditions
under which
delay of repair of
pumps allowed
conditions for
delay of repair
beyond a
hazardous waste
management unit
shutdown
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1059(c)
265.1 059(c)(1)
265.1059(c)(2)
265.1 059(d)
265.1059(d)(1)
265.1 059(d)(2)
265.1059(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG. IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
»
STANDARDS: CLOSED-VENT SYSTEMS AND CONTROL DEVICES
owners or oper-
ators of closed-
vent systems and
control devices
shall comply
with 265.1033
provisions
79
265.1060
ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FOR VALVES IN GAS/VAPOR SERVICE OR IN LIGHT LIQUID
SERVICE: PERCENTAGE OF VALVES ALLOWED TO LEAK
alternative standard
allowing no greater
than 2 percent of
valves to leak
for an owner or
operator subject
to 265.1057
requirements
79
265. 1061 (a)
Page 119 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
notification,
performance test,
and repair require-
ments if an owner
or operator decides
to comply with
alternative standard
monitoring
standards, leak
detection criterion
and determination
of leak percentage
when conducting
performance tests
written notification
to Regional
Administrator of
intent to follow
265.1057(a)-(e)
work practice
standard if owner
or operator
decides to no
longer comply
with 265.1061
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265,106Kb)
265.1 061 (b)(1)
265.1 061 (W(2)
265.1 061 (b)(3)
265.1 061 (c)
265.1061 (c)(1)
265.1 061 (c)(2)
265.1 061 (c)(3)
265.1 061 (d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
-;
BROADER
IN SCOPE
"
ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS FOR VALVES IN GAS/VAPOR SERVICE OR IN LIGHT LIQUID
SERVICE: SKIP PERIOD LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR
election to
comply with
265.1062(b)(2)
and (3) alternative
work practices by
owner or operator
subject to 265.1057
requirements
notification of
Regional Admini-
strator before
implementing
alternative
work practice
79
79
265,1 062{a)(1)
265.1062(a) (2)
Page 120 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
compliance with
265.1057
requirements,
except as described
in 265.1 062(b)(2)
and (b)(3)
conditions under
which an owner
or operator
may begin to skip
one of the quarter-
ly leak detection
periods for valves
subject to 265.1057
requirements
conditions under
which an owner
or operator may
begin to skip three
of the quarterly
leak detection
periods for valves
subject to 265.1057
requirements
compliance with
265.1057 monthly
monitoring require-
ments if percentage
of valves leaking
exceeds 2 percent;
may elect to use
265.1062 require-
ments again
after meeting
265.1057(c)(1)
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1062(b)(1)
265.1062{b)(2)
265.1062(bH3)
265.1062{b)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
TATE ANALOG IS:
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
TEST METHODS AND PROCEDURES
compliance with
test methods and
procedure require-
ments by owner
or operator subject
to provisions of
Subpart BB
79
265.1063(a)
Page 121 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
leak detection
monitoring as
required in
265.1052-265.1062
shall comply
with specified
requirements:
monitoring in
compliance with
Reference Method
21 in 40 CFR
Part 60
detection instru-
ment shall meet
the performance
criteria of Refer-
ence Method 21
calibration of
instrument by
procedures speci-
fied in Reference
Method 21
calibration gases
shall be:
zero air
mixture of methane
or n-hexane and
air at specified
concentration
instrument probe
traverse
requirements as
described in
Reference
Method 21
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1063(b)
265.1 063(b)(1)
265.1 063(bH2)
265.1 063(b)(3)
265.1063(b)(4)
265.1063(b)(4)(i)
265.1063(b)(4Hii)
265.1063(b)(5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
i
Page 122 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
test compliance
requirements for
equipment with no
detectable emis-
sions as required
in 265.1052(6),
265.10530),
265.1054 and
265.1 057 (f)
in accordance with
265.1 3(b), deter-
mination by owner
or operator of
whether equipment
contains or con-
tacts a hazardous
waste with organic
concentration equal
to or greater than
10% by weight
using the
following:
methods described
in ASTM Methods
D 2267-88,
E 169-87,
E 168-88
and E 260-85
Method 9060 or
8240 of SW-846
application of the
knowledge of the
nature of the
hazardous waste
stream or the
process by which
it was produced;
documentation
required; examples
of documentation
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1063(0)
265.1063(c)(1)
265.1 063(c)(2)
265.1063(c)(3)
265.1063(c)(4)
265.1063(d)
265.1 063(d){1)
265.1063(d){2)
265.1063{d)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALM IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
''
Page 123 of 132
DC6.9 - 1211/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
determination as
specified in
265.1063(d) can be
revised only after
following
265.1063(d)(1)
or (d)(2)
procedures
use of
265.1 063(d)(1)
or (d)(2) to resolve
determination
disputes between
owner or operator
and Regional
Administrator
samples used
for determination
representative
of highest expected
total organic
content hazardous
waste
to determine if
pumps or valves
are in light
liquid service,
vapor pressures of
constituents may
be obtained from
standard reference
texts or may be
determined by
ASTM D-2879-86
performance tests
for control device
shall comply with
265.1034(c)(1)
through (c)(4)
procedures
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1063(6)
265.1063(f)
265.1063(0)
265.1063(h)
265.1063(i)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
compliance with
recordkeeping
requirements
79
265.1064(a)(1)
Page 124 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
recordkeeping
requirements for
more than one
hazardous waste
management unit
in one
recordkeeping
system
specific informa-
tion that owners
and operators
must record in
the facility
operating record
for facilities that
comply with the
provisions of
285.1 033(a)(2), an
implementation
schedule as
specified in
265.1033(a)(2)
performance test
plan as specified
in 265.1 035(b)(3)
if test data
are used for
control device
demonstration
documentation of
compliance with
265.1060, including
documentation or
results specified in
265.1 035(bH4)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1064(a) (2)
265.1064(b)
265.1064(b)<1)
265.1064(b)(1)(i>
265,1064(b)(1){ii)
265.1 064{bH1)flin
265.1 064(bM1Miv)
265.1064(b)(1Hv)
265.1064{b)(1Hvi)
265.1064(W(2)
265.1 064(bH3)
265.1 064(b)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CrTATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
^
Page 125 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information
requirements
when each leak
is detected as
specified in
265.1052,
265.1053, 265.1057
and 265.1058
inspection log
information
requirements when
each leak is
detected as
specified in
265.1052,
265.1053,
265.1057 and
265.1058
for each closed-
vent system and
control device
subject to
265.1060, design
documentation and
monitoring,
operating and
inspection informa-
tion recorded in
facility operating
record as specified
in 265.1 035(c)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1064(c)
265.1064{c)(1)
265.1064(c)(2)
265.1 064(c){3)
265.1064(d)
265.1064(d)(1)
265.1064WK2)
265.1064(d)(3)
265.1064(d)(4)
265.1064(dK5>
265.1064(d){6)
265.1064fd)(7)
265.1Q64(d)(8)
265.1 064(d)(9)
265.1 064{d)(10)
265.1064(6}
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
Page 126 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring and
inspection infor-
mation for control
device other than
a thermal vapor
incinerator,
catalytic vapor
incinerator, flare,
boiler, process
heater, condenser,
or carbon adsorp-
tion system must
be recorded in the
facility
operating record
information
requirements for
equipment subject
to the require-
ments of
265.1052 through
265.1060 to be
recorded in a log
and kept in the
facility operating
record
information
requirements for
valves subject to
the requirements
of 265.1057(g)
and (h)
information
requirements for
valves complying
with 265.1062
CHECK-
US!
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1064(f)
265.1064(q)
265.1064(a)(1)
265.1 064(Q)(2)(I)
265.1064(a)(2Hii)
265.1064(a)(3)
265.1 064(aM4Hi)
265.1 064(Q)(4)(if)
265.1 064(Q)(4)(iii)
265.1 064(a)(5)
265.1064(h)
265.1064(hM1)
265.1064(h)(2)
265.1064(1)
265.1064(i)(1)
265.1064(0(2}
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS!
""KURT
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 127 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA §
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
additional
information
requirements
criteria required in
265.1052(d)(5)(ii)
and 265.1053(e)(2)
and an explanation
of the design
criteria
any changes to the
criteria and the
reasons for the
changes
information
requirements to be
recorded in a log
for determining
exemptions as pro-
vided In the appli-
cability section of
Subpart BB and
other specific
Subparts
records of equip-
ment leak and
operating informa-
tion need be
kept for only
three years
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1064(1)
265.1064(D(1)
265.1 064(i)(2)
265.1064(k)
265.106400(1)
265.1064(k)(2)
265.1 064(k)(3)
265.1064(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ItJUIV-
AlENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 128 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
the owner or
operator of
facility subject to
Subpart BB and to
regulations at
40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart VV, or
40 CFR Part 61 ,
Subpart V, may
elect to determine
compliance by
documentation
either pursuant
to 265.1064
or provisions of
40 CFR Part 60 or
Part 61 , to the
extent that the
documentation
duplicates the
documentation
required under
Subpart BB
reserved
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1064(m)
265,1065 - 265.1079
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
gTATE ANALOG IS:
EOTJI?^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•
APPENDIX I TO PART 265
RECORDKEEPING INSTRUCTIONS
additional instructions
for keeping portions
of the operating
record
*
Appendix I
APPENDIX III TO PART 265
EPA INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
table of parameters
and maximum levels
•*
Appendix III
Page 129 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6; Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EOUIV- MORE
ALENTI STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX IV TO PART 265
TESTS FOR SIGNIFICANCE
background infor-
mation on use of
Student's t-test
*
Appendix IV
APPENDIX V TO PART 265
EXAMPLES OF POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE WASTE
list of wastes and
potential con-
sequences of mixinq
*
Appendix V
-
'
VThls paragraph was affected by Revision Checklist 51 (September 1, 1988; 53 FR 33938) which
was withheld by EPA. See note at the beginning of this checklist for explanation.
1
This subsection was modified by 50 FR 28702, the final rule addressed by Revision Checklists
17 A - 17 S, but was not included in these checklists.
Revision Checklist 54 removed the comment following 265.54(e).
This requirement was moved from 265,75(h) to 265.75(j) by Revision Checklist 30,
265,110{b) was added by Revision Checklist 24. It was amended by Revision Checklist 28 to
read as 265.110(b)(3) presently reads. Revision Checklist 52 added a new 265.110(b)(2),
redesignating the old 265.110(b)(2) as 265.11Q(b)(3). Interestingly, the wording of the
265.110(b)(2) added by Revision Checklist 52 is the same as the wording of the 265.110{b)(2)
added by Revision Checklist 24.
Revision Checklist 24 significantly revised the 265.112 section. Much of the original code (Base
Program Checklist IV B) survived but was modified and also moved to different
paragraphs/subparagraphs by Revision Checklist 24. Thus, when IV B appears in the Checklist
Reference column for any of the 265.112 citations, it more times than not indicates that the text of
those citations is relevant to Checklist IV B while the actual citation number is not. For example,
IV B appears as a checklist reference for 265.112(b)(4), (6) and (7), yet paragraph 265.112(b) was
not broken down into subparagraphs (1)-(7) in code relevant to Checklist IV B. Footnotes at the
paragraph level will indicate where the code appeared under the old formatting as per Base
Program Checklist IV B.
Page 130 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
Many of the current requirements of 265.112(b) and (b)(1)-(b)(7), as designated and modified by
Revision Checklist 24, were part of the base program at 265.112(a) and (a)(1)-(4). States which
do not adopt the optional (less stringent) requirement at 265,112(b)(7) must be careful to retain
the closure plan requirement for "an estimate of the expected year of closure" as first introduced
into the base program as a portion of 265.112(a)(4).
Part or all of the text of the following citations was introduced Into the code at 265.112(b) as per
Base Program Checklist IV B: 265.112(c), (c)(1), (c)(1){!)-(»), and (c)(2). Revision Checklist 24
modified this text and moved it from paragraph (b) to paragraph (c).
Revision Checklist 24 designated the citations within the double lines as optional revisions
(265.112(d)(1)-(d)(4)). Similar, more stringent and nonopfonal provisions originated in the code at
265,112(c), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (d) as per Base Program Checklist IV B. If States choose to adopt
the 265.112(d)(1)-(d)(4) optional provisions as per Revision Checklist 24, they must adopt them as
a unit rather than by individual provision. In other words, all or none of the (d)(1)-(d)(4) provisions
must be included in a State's code. The only exception for adopting States is the optional
revisions subsequently made by Revision Checklist 64. These subsequent changes are less
stringent than those addressed by Revision Checklist 24, so States may or may not make those
changes. If a State chooses not to adopt the Revision Checklist 24 optional provisions, it must
retain code equivalent to that found In the base program at 265.112(c), (c){1), (c)(2), and (d).
Citations within the double lines are optional, but if a State chooses to modify its program to
adopt requirements equivalent to these provisions, it must adopt such requirements as a unit
rather than by individual provision. In other words, all or none of these provisions must be
included in a State's code. Subsequent changes to these provisions may or may not be optional
for States that have adopted the original unit of provisions. An optional sign appears in front of
the subsequent revision checklist number(s) If such subsequent changes are less stringent than or
reduce the scope of the original requirements.
Text from 265,118(a)(1-3) in Base Program Checklist IV B was moved to 265.118(e)(1-3) by
Revision Checklist 24.
Text from 265.118(b) and (e) in Base Program Checklist IV B was moved to 265.118(d)(1-2) by
Revision Checklist 24.
Text from 265.118(c)(1-2) in Base Program Checklist IV B was moved to 265.118(e)(1-2) by
Revision Checklist 24.
Text from 265.118(d) in Base Program Checklist IV B was moved to 265.118(f) by Revision
Checklist 24.
Text from 265.118(f)(1-2) in Base Program Checklist IV B was moved to 265.118(g)(1-2) by
Revision Checklist 24.
Revision Checklist 24 extensively revised 265.119 as per Base Program Checklist IV B, including
a new section title. The original code contained no subparagraphs.
Page 131 of 132
DC6.9- 12H1/91
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C6: Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATION
til Alt ANALOG IS:
KSOW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
16 The current text of 265.120 was Introduced by Revision Checklist 24 whereas the original text of
265.120 as in the base program was moved to 265.119(b) by Revision Checklist 24.
17 The text of 265.142(a)(1) was originally included in 265.142(a).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Note there is an error in both the July 1, 1989 and 1990 CFRs. Both incorrectly omit
265.147(a)(1 }(i)&(ii) and 265.147(b)(l)(i)&(ii). A technical correction will be published in the near
future to fix these omissions. In the meantime, States should Include analogous requirements in
their regulations.
Although not included in Checklist IV B, the text of the current 265.147(h) was included in the
base program as 265.147{g). This paragraph was moved by Revision Checklist 27.
Revision Checklist 28 completely revised this base program (Checklist IV B) section, 265.190.
Revision Checklist 28 completely reorganized and revised the regulations pertaining to tank
systems which originally appeared in Checklist IV B at 265.191 through 265.194 and 265.197.
Paragraphs 265.310(c) and (d) were removed by the final rule addressed by Revision Checklist
15; however, these removals were not included on Revision Checklist 15.
Revision Checklist 17 F made extensive changes to this section of code, including redesignating
the original paragraphs 265.314(b) and (c) to (c) and (e), reserving (d), and adding new
paragraphs (b) and (f).
Revision Checklist 15 completely revised the regulations at 264,315.
This code is part of the optional requirements for the alternate treatment standards for lab packs
under the Third Third Scheduled Waste Rule. If adopted, all of the requirements (i.e., 264.316(f),
265.316(f), 268.7(a)(7), 268.7(a){8), 268.42(c), 268.42{c){1)-{4), and Appendices IV and V to Part
268} related to these alternate treatment standards must be adopted.
Page 132 of 132
DC6.9 - 12/11/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C7
Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and
Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
40 CFR Part 266 as of June 30, 1990
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ESJI7-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART A - [RESERVED]
SUBPART B - [RESERVED]
SUBPART C - RECYCLABLE MATERIALS USED IN A MANNER CONSTITUTING DISPOSAL
APPLICABILITY
applied to or placed
on the land:
without mixinq
after mixing or in
combination
subparagraph
removed
products for general
public's use; must
have undergone
chemical reaction
so they are
inseparable and must
meet treatment stan-
dards of 268, Subpart
D; exemption for
certain commercial
fertilizers containing
recyclable materials;
zinc-containing
fertilizer exemption
13
13
13,37
13,37
1-13,50
66
266.20(3)
266.20(a)(1)
266.20(a)(2)
266.20(a)(3)
266.20(b)
-
"
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS AND TRANSPORTERS OF MATERIALS USED IN A
MANNER THAT CONSTITUTES DISPOSAL
generator and trans-
porter requirements
13
266.21
Page 1 of 9
DC7.9 - 1212/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C7: Standards for the Management of
Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO STORERS OF MATERIALS THAT ARE TO BE USED IN A
MANNER THAT CONSTITUTES DISPOSAL WHO ARE NOT THE ULTIMATE USERS
requirements for
storers of material
13
266.22
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO USERS OF MATERIALS THAT ARE USED IN A MANNER
THAT CONSTITUTES DISPOSAL
requirements for
users of material
use of dioxin-contami-
nated material is
prohibited
13,17 G
17 G
266.23(a)
266.23(b)
SUBPART D - HAZARDOUS WASTE BURNED FOR ENERGY RECOVERY
APPLICABILITY
recovery in boilers
and industrial
furnaces; definition
of "hazardous waste
fuel"
hazardous wastes
not regulated under
this subpart:
used oil burned for
energy recovery
meeting certain re-
quirements is subject
to Part 266, Subpart
E requlation
wastes exempt from
regulation under
261 .4 and
261.6(a)(3)(v) through
(ix) and wastes subject
to 261.5
13,19
13
13,t19
13.t19
266.30{a)
266,30(b)
266.30(b)(1)
266.30(b)(2)
PROHIBITIONS
hazardous waste fuel
may be marketed to:
nottfiers who have
EPA ID
19
19
266.31 (a)
266.31 (a)(1)
Page 2 of 9
OC7.9 - 12/12/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C7: Standards for the Management of
Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
burners with 266.31 (b)
boilers or industrial
furnaces
devices hazardous
waste fuel may be
burned in:
industrial furnaces
identified in 260.10
260,10-defined boilers;
specific industrial
boilers; specific utility
boilers
1 no burning in cement
kilns in incorporated
municipalities greater
than 500,000;
exception
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
19
19
19
19
17 J.19
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.31 (a)(2)
266.31 (b)
266,31 fb){1)
266.31 (b)(2)
266.31 (b)(2Hi)
266.31 (b)(2)fii)
266.31 (c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINQENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FUEL
generators are
subject to 262
generators who
market are also
subject to 266.34
generators who burn
are subject to 266.35
13,19
13,19
13,19
266.32{a)
266.32(b)
266.32(c)
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FUEL
transporters are
subject to 263
13,19
266.33
2 STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO MARKETERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FUEL
definition of marketers
prohibitions
under 266.31 (a)
notification
of activities
applicable provisions
for storage
Part 262 standards for
off-site shipment
19
19
19
19
19
266.34
266.34(a)
266.34(b)
266.34(c)
266.34(d)
Page 3 of 9
DC7.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C7; Standards for the Management of
Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
required notices from
burner or marketer;
marketer certifies
EPA notification
recordkeeping
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
19
19
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.34(eM1)
266.34(e)(1)fl)
266.34(e)(1Mii)
266.34(e)(2)
266.34(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG IS:
ytjfte BROADER
STRINGENT IN SCOPE
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO BURNERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FUEL
definition of
"burners"
prohibitions
under 266,31 (b)
notification
of activities
3 applicable provisions
for generators,
existing storage
facilities, new storage
facilities
required notices
from burner to
marketer
recordkeeping
requirements
19
19
19
13.19
19
19
266.35
266.35(a)
266,35(b)
266.35(c)(1)
266.35(c)(2)
266.35(C)(3)
266.35(d)
266.35(d)(1)
266.35(d)(2)
266.35(e)
*
CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION FOR SPENT MATERIALS AND BY-PRODUCTS EXHIBITING
A CHARACTERISTIC OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
paragraph
removed
•M3.19
266.36
Page 4 of 9
DC7.9 - 12/12/91
-------
DIE. NO, 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C7: Standards for the Management of
Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART E - USED OIL BURNED FOR ENERGY RECOVERY
APPLICABILITY
used oil burned for
energy recovery;
definition of "used
oil fuel"
definition of
"used oil"
used oil mixed with
hazardous waste
used oil subject to
regulation under
Subpart E; criteria
it must meet
allowable levels of
constituents
PROHIBITIONS
off-specification
used oil may be
marketed to:
burners or other
marketers who have
notified EPA and
have EPA ID
burners burning in
industrial furnaces or
boilers identified in
266,41 (b)
devices for burning
off-specification
used oil:
260.10 defined
industrial furnaces
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
266.40(a)
266.40{b)
266.40(0)
266.40(d)
266.40(d)(1)
266.40(d)(2)
266.40(6)
266.41 (a)
266.41 (a)(1)
266.41 (a)(2)
266.41 (b)
266.41 (b)(1)
-
-
-
Page 5 of 9
DC7.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C7: Standards for the Management of
Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
260.10 defined
boilers; specific in-
dustrial boilers;
specific utility boilers;
specific used oil-fired
space heaters
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
19
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.41 (b){2)
266.41 (b)(2)(i)
266.41 (b)(2)(H)
266.41 (b)(2)(W)
266.41 (b)(2)(«IMA)
266.41 (b)(2HiHHB)
266.41 (b)(2)(i!i)(C)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
.
^TATE ANALOG IS:
BSD IV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
,
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*•
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF USED OIL BURNED FOR ENERGY RECOVERY
except 266.42(b)&(c),
generators not subject
to Subpart E
generators who
market directly to burner
are subject to 266.43
generators burning
used oil are subject
to 266.44
19
19
19
266.42(a)
266.42(b)
266.42{c)
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO MARKETERS OF USED OIL BURNED FOR ENERGY RECOVERY
"marketers" defined;
persons who are not
requirements
marketers are
subject to:
analysis of used
oil fuel
prohibitions
under 266.41 (a)
notification of
location and activities
19
19
19
19
19
266.43(3)
266.43(a)(1)
266.43(aK2)
266.43(b)
266.43(b)(1)
266.43(b)(2)
266.43(b){3)
Page 6 of 9
DC7.9 -
-------
DIE. NO, 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C7: Standards for the Management of
Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
preparation of invoice
and information
requirements
required notices from
burner or marketer;
marketer certifies
EPA notification
recordkeeping require-
ments for used oil
fuel meeting specifi-
cation and off-specifi-
cation used oil fuel
eHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
19
19
19
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266,43(bM4)
266.43(bM4){i)
266.43{b){4)(ii)
266.43(bM4)(in)
266.43(b)(4Miv)
266.43{b)(4)(v)
266,43 (b)(4)(vi)
266.43(b)(5)(i)
266.43(b)(5)(D(A)
266.43(b)(5)
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C7: Standards for the Management of
Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
required notices
from burner to
marketer
used oil fuel analysis
recordkeeping
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
19
19
19
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266,44(0)
266.44{c)(1)
266,44(c)(2)
266.44(d)(1)
266.44(d)(2)
266.44(e)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART F - RECYCLABLE MATERIALS UTILIZED FOR PRECIOUS METAL RECOVERY
APPLICABILITY AND REQUIREMENTS
reclamation of
recyclable materials
to recover
precious metals
requirements for
generators, trans-
porters or storers
recordkeeping
requirements for
storers
applicable provisions
for materials accumu-
lated speculatively
13
13
13
13
266.70{a)
266.70(b)
266.70(b)M)
266,70(b){2)
266.70{c)
266.70fc)(1)
266.70(c)(2)
266.70(c)(3)
266.70(d)
Page 8 of 9
DC7.9 - 12/1^91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C7: Standards for the Management of
Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"KSUW"
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART G - SPENT LEAD-ACID BATTERIES BEING RECLAIMED
APPLICABILITY AND REQUIREMENTS
persons who reclaim
batteries
requirements for
storage before
reclamation
13
13
266.80(a)
266.80(b)
266.80(bK1)
266.80(b)(2)
«
In Revision Checklist 17 J, this requirement was 266.31 (b)(1). Revision Checklist 19 moved this
paragraph to 266.31 (c), reworded It and removed the requirements of the former 266.31 (b)(2)
regarding petroleum refinery hazardous wastes.
This section was originally introduced by Revision Checklist 13, but Revision Checklist 19's
changes completely superseded it. Revision Checklist 17 K also affected 266.34(d), but Revision
Checklist 19's changes completely superseded these changes as well.
This subparagraph was introduced by Revision Checklist 13, but the changes made by Revision
Checklist 19 completely superseded K,
Page 9 of 9
DC7.9 - 12?12'91
-------
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8
Land Disposal Restrictions
40 CFR Part 268 as of June 30, 1990
Notes: 1) The following Part 268 sections are not delegable to States because of the national
concerns which must be examined when decisions are made relative to them; 268.5 {case-by-case
effective date extensions); 268.42(b) (application for alternate treatment method); and 268,44 (variance
from a treatment standard). "No migration" petitions under 268.6 will be handled by EPA, even
though States may be authorized to grant such petitions in the future. States have the authority to
grant such petitions under RCRA Section 3006 because such decisions do not require a national
perspective, as is the case for decisions under 268.5, 268.42(b) or 268.44. However, EPA has had
few opportunities to implement the land disposal restrictions and expects to gain valuable experience
and information from reviewing "no-migration" petitions.
2) In the past, the nondelegable sections/paragraphs of the LDR regulations have been omitted from
the LDR checklists because States could not assume the authority for them. However, this procedure
has led to confusion among the States on how to handle the sections/paragraphs In their code. For
this reason, the Agency has decided to include these nondelegable sections on the LDR checklists.
To differentiate these sections from the detegabie portions of the LDR restrictions, asterisks precede
(a single row) and follow (a double row) each non-delegabte section. If States have already filled out
a version of this consolidated checklist which does not Include the nondelegable sections, they need
not fill out a revised version containing these sections. This change in format was made only to
improve clarity.
The Agency suggests that States incorporate the nondelegable portions of the LDR regulation into
their regulations, ft is essential, however, that States leave the terms "Administrator", "Federal
Register" and "Agency" unchanged, i.e., States may not substitute analogous State terms for these
Federal terms. Similarly, States incorporating by reference must be careful to except these sections
from blanket substitutions of State terms for Federal terms. For a more complete discussion of
issues surrounding nondelagabte sections, see Appendix J of the State Authorization Manual (SAM).
3) Note that white 268.40(b) is delegable to States, "Administrator" in the following phrase "approved
by the Administrator under the procedures set forth in 268.42(b)" should not be replaced with an
analogous State term because it is referring to decisions under 268.42(b) which will be made by the
EPA Administrator.
4) Adopting the alternate treatment standards for lab packs is optional. However, if a State chooses
to adopt these alternate standards, all of the requirements related to these standards must be
adopted, including all of the provisions added by the Third Third Scheduled Waste Rule (i.e., Revision
Checklist 78) at 264.316(1), 265.316(f), 268.7(a)(7), 268.7(a)(8), 268.42(c), 268.42(c)(1)-(4), and
Appendices IV and V to Part 268.
7) Guidance regarding the use of the new TCLP versus the EP Toxlctty Test may be found at 55 FR
22660 (June 1, 1990). The code (40 CFR 268.40(a} and 268.41 (a)) addressing this issue contains a
serious technical error which is discussed in Footnote 27 found at the end of this checklist
Page 1 of 50 oca* -1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQU(V-| MORE
ALENT! STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE. SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
purpose
applicability
conditions for con-
tinued land disposal:
persons with an
extension
persons with an
exemption
1 wastes that are hazar-
dous only because
they exhibit a hazar-
dous characteristic,
and which are other-
wise prohibited from
land disposal if
the wastes:
disposed into
a nonhazardous or
hazardous injection
well as defined in
40 CFR 144.6(a)
do not exhibit
any prohibited
characteristic of
hazardous waste at
the point of injection
2 removed
3 removed
preserve waiver
availability under
121(d)(4) of CERCLA
34
34
34,66
34
34
78
78
78
34,39,
50.66
39,48,
50,78
50
268.1 (a)
268. Kb)
268.1 re)
268.1 (cMD
268.1 (eK2)
268.1 (c)(3)
268.1 fc)(3)ffl
268.1 (c)(3)(ii)
268.1(c>(4)
268.1 (cM5)
268.1 (d)
Page 2 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8; Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
wastes which are not
subject to any
provisions of
Part 268;
wastes generated by
generators of less
than 100 kg of
hazardous waste or
less than 1 kg of
acute hazardous
waste, as defined
in 261 .5
waste pesticides that
a farmer disposes
pursuant to 262.70
wastes identified or
listed as hazardous
after November 8,
1984 for which EPA
has not promulgated
land disposal
prohibitions or
treatment standards
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
66
66
66
66
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268,1(6)
268.1(e)(1)
268.1 (e)(2)
268.1(e)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SVATS ANALOQ IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PART
introductory paragraph
reaardina definitions
"halogenated
organic compounds"
or "HOCs'
4 "hazardous
constituent or
constituents"
4 "land disposal"
5 "nonwastewaters"
6 "polychiorinated
biphenyis" or
"PCBs"
"wastewaters"
"F001, F002, F003
F004, FOGS solvent-
water mixtures"
78
39.78
34.78
34,39,
78
78
39.78
78
78
268.2
268.2(a)
268,2(b)
268.2(c)
268.2(d)
268.2(e)
268.2(fl
268.2(flm
Page 3 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"K011, K013, K014
wastewaters"
"K103 and K104
wastewaters"
"inorganic solid
debris"; specific
inorganic or metal
materials:
metal slaas
classified slaa
alass
concrete
masonry and
refractorv bricks
metal cans,
containers, drums
or tanks
metal nuts, bolts,
pipes, pumps, valves,
appliances, or
industrial equipment
scrap metal as
defined in
40CFR261.1(C)(6)
CI-KCK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.2(f)(2\
268.2(f)(3)
268.2(a)
268.2(a)(1)
268.2(aK2)
268.2(a)(3)
268.2(aM4)
268.2(aM5)
268.2(a)(6)
268.2(aH7)
268.2(a)(8)
ANALOGOUS
STATE OrTATION
oFAH: ANALOG IS,"
ETSTJlV"
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPi
DILUTION PROHIBITED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR TREATMENT
7 except as provided
in 268.3(b),
dilution not
substitute for
treatment; restriction
regarding circumven-
tion of effective dates
and avoidance of
prohibition of Subpart
C or RCRA 3004
permissible forms
of dilution related
to Sections 307 or
402 of the CWA
34,39,
78
78
268.3(at
268.3(b)
Page 4 of 50
OC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8:
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
Land
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t TREATMENT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT EXEMPTION
when prohibited
wastes may be
treated in a surface
impoundment
treatment occurs in
impoundments
soft hammer wastes
in treatment surface
impoundments that
meet a list of
conditions:
sampling and testing
requirements for
wastes with and
without treatment
standards; super-
natant and sludge
samples tested
separately
annual removal of
specific residues;
residues subject to
valid certification;
flow-through standard
of removal for
supernatant
requirements for
subsequent manage-
ment of treatment
residues in another
impoundment; pro-
hibited unless
certification under
268.8 and standards
of 268.8(a) are met
recordkeeping
requirements must
be specified in the
facility's waste
analysis plan
design requirements/
exemptions
34
34
34,39,
50
50
50
50
50
34
268.4(a)
268.4(aH1)
268.4(a)(2)
268.4(a)(2)(i)
268.4(a)(2)(ii)
268.4(a)(2)(iii)
268.4(a)(2)(iv)
268.4(a)(3)
Page 5 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8:
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
Land
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
exempt under
264.221 (d) or (e) or
265.221(c) or (d)
conditions under
which Administrator
grants waiver of
requirements;
meets §3005(iK2)
modification granted
on basis of a demon-
stration of no migra-
tion into groundwater
or surface water at
any future time;
satisfies §30050(11)
no miqration
submittal of written
certification and waste
analysis plan
evaporation of hazard-
ous constituents not
considered treatment
for exemption purposes
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34
34
34
39
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.4(aH3Kl)
268.4(a)(3)0i)
268.4(aM3Mi!)(A>
268.4(a)(3)(li)(B)
268.4Ca)(3)(ilMC)
268.4(a)(3)(lii)
268,4(a)(4)
268.4(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
. , ATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268.5 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 2 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
PROCEDURES FOR CASE-BY-CASE EXTENSIONS TO AN EFFECTIVE DATE
application to EPA
Administrator for an
extension to effective
date of any Part 268,
Subpart C restriction;
what the applicant
must demonstrate:
34
268.5(a)
Page 6 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8:
Disposal Restrictions (eont'd)
Land
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
good-faith effort to
locate and contract
with treatment,
recovery, or disposal
facilities nationwide
to manage waste
according to
Subpart C
effective date
binding contractual
commitment to con-
struct or provide
alternate treatment,
recovery (e.g., re-
cycling), or disposal
capacity that meets
Subpart D treatment
standards; require-
ments when no treat-
ment standards
demonstration that
alternative capacity
cannot reasonably
be available
by effective date
due to circumstances
beyond applicant's
control; how this must
be demonstrated
capacity being con-
structed or provided
by applicant must be
sufficient capacity for
entire quantity
of waste
detailed schedule for
obtaining required
permits or outlines of
how and when
alleviate capacity
available
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34.39
34
34
34
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.5(a)(1)
268.5(a)(2)
268.5(a)(3)
268.5(a)(4)
268.5(a)(5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATS ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 7 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
arranged for adequate
capacity during exten-
sion and documented
in all site locations
where wastes will be
managed
surface impoundment
or landfill used must
meet 268.5(h)(2)
requirements
certification by
authorized represen-
tative signing an
application
Administrator may
request additional
information
extension applies
only to waste
generated at
individual facility
covered by
extension
Administrator may
grant extension of up
to 1 year from
effective date;
extension for 1
additional year if
268.5(a) demon-
stration can still be
made; no extension
beyond 24 months
from 268, Subpart C
effective date; length
of extension deter-
mined by Admini-
strator and basis;
public notice and
comment; final
decision published in
Federal Register
notify Administrator of
change in
certified conditions
CI-ECK-
UST
REFERENCE
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.5(a)(6)
268.5(a)(7)
268.5(b)
268.5(c)
268.5(d)
268.5(6)
268.5W
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATION
STATS ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 8 of 50
DCS 9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
written progress re-
ports at intervals
designated by Admini-
strator; what progress
reports must include;
conditions for revoca-
tion of extension by
Administrator
during period establi-
shed by Administrator
for which extension is
in effect:
268.5(a) storage
restrictions do not
apply
conditions on disposal
in landfill or surface
impoundment regard-
less if unit is existing,
new, replacement or
lateral extension
interim status landfill
requirements
permitted landfill
requirements
interim status surface
impoundment
requirements
permitted surface
impoundment
requirements
requirements for
landfills disposing
of specified PCB
waste
pending decision on
application, com-
pliance with all legal
disposal restrictions
once effective date
has been reached
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34
34,39
34,50,66
34
34
34,39
34
39
34
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.5(0.)
268.5(h)
268.5(h)(1)
268.5(hH2)
268.5(h)(2)(i)
268.5(h)(2)(ii)
268.5(hH2Uiin
268.5(h)(2HM
268.5(h)(2)(v)
268.5(i)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
£
EQUIV-
ALENT
>TATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 9 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8:
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
Land
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE: ANALOG i5:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268.6 is NOT DELEQABLE. States should see Note 2 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
PETITIONS TO ALLOW LAND DISPOSAL OF A WASTE PROHIBITED
UNDER SUBPART C OF PART 268
submit petition to
Administrator;
demonstration of
no waste migration;
demonstration
components
identify specific
unit and waste
waste analysis
comprehensive
disposal unit
characterization
monitoring plan
detecting migration
at the earliest time
sufficient information
to assure Admini-
strator that owner/
operator is In com-
pliance with other
applicable Federal
State and local laws
Administrator
approved sampling,
testing and estimation
techniques
model calibration;
models verified
with actual data
quality assurance/
control plan approved
by Administrator
uncertainty
analysis
what each petition
must include:
34
34
34
34
50
50
34
34
34
34
50
268.6(a)
268,6(a)(1)
268.6(a)(2)
268.6(aH3)
268.6(a)(4)
268.6(aH5)
268.6(bM2)
268.6(b)(3)
268.6(b)(4)
268,6(b)(5)
268.6(c)
8
Page 10 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring plan
including description
of monitoring program
to verify continued
compliance with
variance; information
which must
be included
media monitored
type of mo niton na
monitoring
station location
monitorinq interval
specific hazardous
constituents to
be monitored
monitoring program
implementation
schedule
monitoring
station equipment
sampling and
analytical techniques
employed
data
recording/reporting
procedures
268.6(c)(1) monitoring
program must be in
place by Administrator
specified time period,
as part of approval
of the petition
prior to prohibited
waste receipt at unit
268.6(c)(1) monitoring
data sent to Admini-
strator according to
monitoring plan must
be according to
approved format and
schedule
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.6(c)(1)
268.6(c)(1Ki)
268.6(c)(1)(ii)
268.6(c)(1Hiin
268.6(c)(1)(iv)
268.6(c)(1)(v)
268.6(cK1Hvi)
268.6(c)(1Hvin
268.6(c)(1)(viii)
268.6(cM1Kix)
268.6(c)(2)
268.6(cM3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
3 1 AT? ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 11 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring data as per
268.6(c)(1) monitoring
plan must be kept
in on-site
operating record
criteria the 268.6(c}(1)
monitoring program
must meet:
Administrator approval
for all sampling,
testing, and analytical
data; data accurate
and reproducible
Administrator approval
of ail estimation and
monitorinq techniques
QA/QC plan for ail
aspects of monitoring
program provided to
and approved by
Administrator
petition submitted
to Administrator
reporting of changes
at unit and/or
surrounding environ-
ment that signifi-
cantly depart from
variances and affect
migration potential
changes to unit
design, construction
or operation proposed
in writing and a
demonstration to
Administrator 30 days
pn'or to change;
Administrator makes
determination if
petition is invalidated
and determines
appropriate response;
Administrator approval
before changes
can be made
CHECK-
US?
REFERENCE
50
50
50
50
50
34.50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.6(c)(4)
268,5(0(5)
268,6(cH5Hi)
268.6(cM5)fli)
268.6(c)(5)(iii)
268.6(d)
268.6(e)
268.6(e)Cn
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
10
Page 12 of 50
DCS 9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (eont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
within 10 days of
discovering change,
written notification to
Administrator if
condition is not as
predicted or modeled
in petition;
Administrator decides
if change requites
further action
owner/operator
responsibilities
if hazardous
waste migration:
immediate suspension
of prohibited waste
receipt
within 10 days
written notification
to Administrator
Administrator decision
within 60 days as to
continued receipt of
prohibited waste;
Administrator deter-
mines if further
examination of any
miqration warranted
signed
statement
Administrator may
request additional
information
waste unit to which
petition applies
Administrator gives
public notice in
Federal Register,
final decision in
Federal Register
term of petition
requirements prior
to Administrator's
decision
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
50,66
50
50
34,50
34,50
34,50
34.50
34.50
34,50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.6fe)(2)
268.6ffl
268.6m(1)
268.6ffi(2)
268.6(f)(3)
268.6(cri
268.6(h)
268.6(0
268.6(i)
268.6M
268.6(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATi ANALOG IS:
^OXllV-
ALSNT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
Page 13 of 50
OC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
petition granted by
Administrator does
not relieve
responsibilities
under RCRA
noneligibility of
certain liquid PCB
waste for "no
migration* petitions
under 268.6
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34,50
39,50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.6(m)
268.6(n)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATJON
EQUIV-
ALENT
St'ATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BfldADferi
IN SCOPE
12
13
WASTE ANALYSIS AND RECORDKEEPING
generator determines
if restricted waste;
268.32 and 268.43
exceptions
if generator is manag-
ing restricted waste
that does not meet
applicable treatment
standards, must
notify treatment or
storage facility of
appropriate treatment
standards
information
the notice
must include
if managing restricted
waste that can be
land disposed without
further treatment,
notice and certifi-
cation to treatment,
storage, or land
disposal facility
34,39
50
34,39,
50
34
34,39,
78
34
34,39,
50
268.7{a)
268.7faM1)
288.7(aM1MD
268.7(a)(1Hin
268.7(a)(1Miin
268.7(a)(1Xiv)
268.7(a)(2)
Page 14 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information required
in notice to treatment,
storage or land
disposal facility
certification
signature/statement
for waste subject to
exemption from
prohibition (such as a
case-by-case 268.5
extension, 268.6
exemption or Subpart
C nationwide capacity
variance) on land
disposal method
used for the waste,
notice to receiving
facility that waste
is not prohibited
from land disposal
information the notice
must include
for prohibited waste
managed in tanks or
containers under
262.34 and treated to
meet 268 Subpart D
standards, waste
analysis plan to be
developed, followed
and kept on-site
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34,39,
78
34
34.39
34,50,
66
50
50.78
50
50,66,
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(a)(2HO
268.7(a)(2)(I)(A)
268.7(a)(2MWB)
268.7(a)(2)(IHC)
268.7(a)(2)M(D)
268.7(a)(2)(in
268.7(aH3)
268.7(aU3)m
268.7(aM3Min
268.7(a)(3)(iii)
268.7(a)(3)(iv)
268.7(a)(3)(v)
268.7(a)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUITY
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
14
Page 15 of 50
DCS 9 • 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL. REQUIREMENT
waste analysis plan
based on detailed
chemical and physical
analysis of represen-
tative sample; contain
information necessary
to treat waste in
accordance with 268
requirements
file plan with EPA
Regional Admini-
strator or authorized
State 30 days prior
to treatment;
delivery verified
compliance with
268.7(a)(2)
notification
requirements for
wastes shipped
off-site
removed
maintenance of data
supporting knowledge
of waste; retention of
waste analysis data
on-site in files
five-year retention
period for notices,
certifications,
demonstrations,
etc., produced
relative to 268.7;
extensions during
enforcement actions
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50,78
50,78
50,78
50,78
34,50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(a)(4)(!)
268.7(a)(4)OD
26&7(a)(4)(ill)
268,7faX4Miv)
268.7(a)(5)
268.7(a)(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOQ IS:
ESUIV-
A LENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
15
15
15
15
16
Page 16 of 50
DCB 9 • 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
t, notice for a generator
17 managing a lab pack
that contains wastes
identified in
Appendix IV if use
alternative treatment
standards under
268.42;
268.7(a){5)&(6)
compliance;
certification
t, notice for a
17 generator managing
a lab pack that
contains organic
wastes specified in
Appendix V if use
alternate treatment
standard under
268.42;
268.7(a)(5)&(6)
compliance;
certification
notification and
certification
requirements for
small quantity
generators with
tolling agreements
pursuant to
40 CFR 262.20(6)
treatment facility
testing at frequency
specified in waste
analysis plan
testing when
standards are
expressed as
concentrations in
waste extract
testing of 268.32 or
3004{d) prohibited
wastes not subject to
Subpart D treatment
standards
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
78
78
34,39,
50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(aH7)
268.7faM8)
268.7(aH9)
268,7(W
268.7(bM1)
268.7{bM2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 17 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
testing for wastes
with treatment
standards expressed
as concentrations
in waste
notice with each
shipment by treat-
ment facility to
land disposal facility
information the
notice must include
certification of each
shipment
certification
requirements for
wastes with treat-
ment standards
expressed as concen-
trations in the waste
extract or in the
waste, or for wastes
prohibited under
268.32 or RCRA
Section 3004{d)
which do not have
268, Subpart D treat-
ment standards
certification require-
ments for wastes with
treatment standards
expressed as
technologies
certification
requirements for
wastes with treat-
ment standards ex-
pressed as concen-
trations in the waste
pursuant to 268.43
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
34,50
34,50
34,39,
50,78
34,50
34,39,
50
34,39,
50.78
34,50
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(b)(3)
26&7fb)(4)
268.7(b>(4)fl)
268.7
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
compliance with
generator notice
and certification
requirements if
waste sent offsite
20 no 268.7(b){4) notifi-
cation for recyclable
materials used in a
manner constituting
disposal and subject
to 266.20(b); with
each shipment
268.7(b)(5)
certification and
268.7(b)(4) notice
to Regional Adminis-
trator; records of
recipients of waste-
derived products
21 requirements for
land disposal facility
except where the
owner or operator
is disposing
recyclable wastes
pursuant to 266.20{b):
21 have copies of notice
and certifications
under 268.7(a) or (b)
and certifications in
268.8 if applicable
21 test of waste or
extract; applicable
treatment standards
to be met; frequency
of testing
22 removed
22 removed
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50,66
78
34,39,
50,78
34,39
50
39.50
50,78
66,78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(b)(6)
268.7(b)(7)
268.7(c)
268.7(c)(1)
268.7(c)(2)
268.7(0(3)
268.7(c)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 19 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RORA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CrTATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
LANDFILL AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
disposal of 268.33{f)
prohibited wastes in
landfills or surface
impoundments in
compliance with
268.5(h)(2) if
requirements of
268.8 are met;
section not in effect
as of May 8, 1990
good faith generator
effort to contract
with treatment and
recovery facilities
providing greatest
environmental benefit
specific requirements
for generator if no
practically available
treatment for waste:
prior to initial ship-
ment, demonstration
to Regional Adminis-
trator containing
specified lists and
written discussion;
certification; waste
shipment
for initial shipment,
demonstration and
certification sent
to receiving
facilities; certification
only for subsequent
shipments; generator
recordkeeping and
five-year retention
specific requirements
for generator if there
are practically
available treatments
for waste:
50,78
50
50.66
50,66
50,66
50,66
268.8(3)
268.8(a)(1)
268.8(a)(2)
268.8(a)(2Hi)
268.8(a)(2)(ii)
268.8(a)(3)
Page 20 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8; Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
prior to initial ship-
ment, demonstration
to Regional Adminis-
trator containing
specified lists and
written discussion;
certification; waste
shipment
with initial shipment
copy of demonstra-
tion and certification
sent to receiving
facilities; certification
only for subsequent
shipments; generator
recordkeeping and
five-year retention
where there is prac-
tically available treat-
ment for waste prior
to disposal, copy of
demonstration and
certification submitted
to receiving facility
with initial shipment;
certification only for
subsequent shipments;
generator record-
keeping and five-year
retention
additional information
for certification if
requested by Regional
Administrator; sub-
mittai of new demon-
stration and certi-
fication as provided
in 268.8(a) to the
receiving facility
notification when any
change in conditions
forming basis of
certification occurs
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
66
66
50
50
50,66
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.8(a)(3)m
268.8(a)(3Hii)
268.8(aH4)
268.8(W
268.8(bH1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
23
Page 21 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
invalidation when
Regional Administra-
tor finds practically
available treatment
method or a method
yielding greater
environmental benefit
than certified
when certification is
invalidated, generator
must cease shipment,
communicate with
facilities receiving
waste, and keep
records of
communication
receiving treatment,
recovery or storage
facilities keep copy
of generator's
demonstration and
certification
receiving treatment,
storage or recovery
facility certify
waste treated accord-
ing to generator's
demonsfratlon
for initial shipment,
treatment, recovery
or storage facility
must send copy of
generator's
demonstration and
certification(s)
to facility receiving
waste or treatment
residues; certification
only for subsequent
shipments, if
certification conditions
remain unchanged
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
50
50
50,66
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.8(b)(2)
268.8(bH3)
268.8(0)
268.8(cM1)
268.8(0(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 22 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
disposal facility must
assure certification
prior to disposal in
landfill or surface
impoundment unit and
units in accordance
with 268.5(h)(2) for
wastes prohibited
under 268.33W
wastes may be
disposed in landfill
or surface impound-
ment meeting
268.5(h){2) require-
ments if certified
and treated
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50,66
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.8(d)
268.8(e)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOP E
SPECIAL RULES REGARDING WASTES THAT EXHIBIT A CHARACTERISTIC
determination of
applicable treatment
standards under
Subpart D of Part 268
by initial generator
of a solid waste;
code designation
the treatment standard
for the waste code
listed in 40 CFR
Part 261, Subpart D
will operate for wastes
both listed under
Subpart D, Part 261
and exhibit a
characteristic under
Subpart C»
Part 261; conditions
under which treatment
standards for all
applicable listed and
characteristic waste
codes must be met
78
78
268.9(a)
268.9(b)
Page 23 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
no prohibited waste
which exhibits a
characteristic under
40 CFR Part 261,
Subpart C may be
land disposed unless
waste compiles with
Part 268, Subpart D
treatment standards
wastes that exhibit
a characteristic are
subject to ail 268,7
requirements, but no
notification once the
wastes are no longer
hazardous; if not
hazardous, notifi-
cation/certification
sent to EPA Regional
Administrator or
authorized State
information needed
with each notification
certification signed
by authorized
representative stating
language found in
268.7{b)(5>m
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
78
78
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.9(0)
268.9(d)
268.9(dH1)
268.9(dM1)m
268.9(dK1Hii)
28&9(
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SlAlt ANALOG IS:
EQUIY-1 MORE
ALENTI STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART C - PROHIBITIONS ON LAND DISPOSAL
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - SOLVENT WASTES
effective November 8,
1986, F001-F005
spent solvent wastes,
as specified in
261.31, are pro-
hibited from land
disposal unless
one or more
conditions apply:
generated by an
SQG of 100-
1000 kq/mo
generated by a
CERCLA/corrective
action except where
waste is contaminated
soil or debris
concentration-specific
exemption (solvent
waste with less than
1% total solvent
constituent)
solvent waste residue
of treating a
268.30(a)(1), (a)(2),
or (a) (3) waste or
residue from other
wastes meeting
specific requirements
effective November 8,
1988, the F001-F005
solvent exemptions of
268.30(a)(1)-(4) are
prohibited from land
disposal
34
34
34,50
34.50
39
34.50
268.30(a)
268.30(a)(1)
268.30(a)(2)
268.30(a)(3)
268.30fa)(4)
268.30(b)
24
Page 25 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
land disposal of
F001-F005 solvent
wastes that are con-
taminated soil and
debris (and their
treatment residues)
resulting from CERCLA
action or RCRA cor-
rective action
prohibited after
November 8, 1990;
permitted disposal in
landfill or surface
impoundment unit in
compliance with
268.5(h){2) prior
to November 8, 1990
situations where
268.30(a), (b) and
(c) do not apply:
wastes treated to
meet Subpart D of
Part 268
disposal at facility
with successful no-
migration petition
wastes and units for
which case-by-case
extensions have been
granted
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
34,50
34,50
34,50
34.50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.30(c)
268.30(d)
268.30(d)(1)
268.30(d)(2)
268.30(d)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
25
25
25
25
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - DiOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES
effective November 8,
1988, the dloxln-
containlng wastes,
FQ20-F023 and
F026-F028, are
prohibited from land
disposal unless a
specific condition
applies:
34,50
268.31 (a)
Page 26 of 50
DCS 9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8:
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
Land
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
these wastes are
contaminated soil and
debris waste resulting
from response action
under CERCLA or
from a RCRA
corrective action
prohibit land
disposal of F020-
F023 and F026-F028
dioxin-containing
wastes of 268.31 (a)(1)
effective November 8,
1990
between November 8,
1988, and November
8, 1990, wastes of
268.31 (a)(1) disposed
in landfill or surface
impoundment must
meet 268.5(h)(2)
and applicable 264
and 265 requirements
26 situations where
268.31 (a) and (b)
do not apply
26 wastes treated to
meet Subpart D,
Part 268 standards
26 disposal at facility
with successful no-
miqration petition
26 extension to effective
date of a prohibition
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
34,50
34.50
34,50
34.50
34.50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.31 (a)(1)
268.3Kb)
268.31 (c)
268.31 (d)
268.31 (d)(1)
268.31 (d)(2)
268.31 (d)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - CALIFORNIA LIST WASTES
prohibitions effective
July 8, 1987, except in
injection wells:
liquids having pH less
than or equal to 2.0
liquids containing
PCBs greater than or
equal to 50 ppm
39
39
39
268.32(a)
268.32(a)(1)
268.32(a)(2)
Page 27 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
liquids containing
HOCs greater than or
equal to 1,000 mg/I
and less than
10,000 mo/1
reserved
reserved
268.32(a) and (e)
requirements do
not apply until specific
calendar dates:
July 8, 1989 for
contaminated soil or
debris not resulting
from a 104 or 106
CERCLA response or
a RCRA corrective
action; disposal
allowed between
July 8, 1987, and
July 8, 1989, in
landfill or surface
impoundment in
compliance with
268.5fm(2)
November 8, 1990
for contaminated soil
or debris resulting
from a CERCLA 104
or 106 response or
a RCRA corrective
action; disposal
between November 8,
19S8, and November
8, 1990, permitted in
landfill or surface
impoundment in com-
pliance with
268.5(m(2)
land disposal
prohibitions effective
November 8, 1988:
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
39
39
39
39,50
50
50
39,50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.32(a)(3)
268.32(b)
268.32(0)
268.32(d)
268.32(d)(1)
268.32(d)(2)
268.32(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 28 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
27 liquids containing
HOCs greater than or
equal to 1,000 mg/I
and not prohibited
under 268.32faU3)
nonliquid wastes
containing HOCs
greater than or
equal to 1 ,000 mg/kg
and not wastes
described in 268.32(d>
between July 8, 1987,
and November 8,
1988, 268.32(e)(1) and
(e)(2) wastes may be
disposed of in a
landfill or surface
impoundment if
disposal complies
with 268.5(hH2)
requirements of
268.32{a), (d) and (e)
do not apply under
certain conditions;
granted a 268.6
exemption
granted a 268.5
extension
in compliance with
Subpart D standards,
RCRA 3004{d) or
section prohibitions
requirements of
268.32(a)(3), (d)
and (e) do not
apply when subject
to Part 268, Subpart
C prohibition
method 9095
required
applicability of
waste analysis/
recordkeeping
requirements of
268.7:
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
39
39.50
39,50
66
39,50
39
39
39
39.50
39
39
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.32feM1)
268,32feU2)
268.32(fl
268.32fa)
268.32(a)(1)
268.32(aM2)
268.32(aM3)
268.32(h)
268.320)
26&32(D
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG! IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BSOADER
IN SCOPE
Page 29 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8:
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
Land
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
initial generator must
use 261.22(a)(1)
procedures or
knowledge of pH;
pH less than or equal
to 2.0 restriction
initial generator must
test for or have know-
ledge of HOC or PCS
concentration levels;
restriction above levels
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
39
39
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.32(11(1)
26&32fl)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CrTATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - FIRST THIRD WASTES
specific wastes
prohibited from land
disposal effective
Auqust 8, 1988
land disposal prohi-
bition of K061 waste
containing 15% or
greater of zinc
pursuant to
268.41 treatment
standard for K061
containing less than
15% zinc
K048, K049, K050,
K051, K052, K081
(contain 5% or
greater zinc), K071
wastes prohibited from
land disposal effective
Auqust 8, 1990
effective August 8,
1990, land disposal
prohibition of wastes
specified in 268.10
having a treatment
treatment standard
in 268, Subpart D
based on incineration
and which are con-
taminated soil and
debris
50,66
50
50
50
268.33(a)
268.33(aH1)
268.33(W
268.33(c)
Page 30 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8:
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
Land
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
between November 8,
1988, and August 8,
1990, landfill or
surface impoundment
disposal of wastes
included under
268(b) & (c) permitted
if unit is in compliance
with 268.5(h)(2)
requirements of
268(a)-(d) do not
apply if:
waste meets
applicable 268,
Subpart D standards
granted an exemption
from prohibition for
wastes and units
under 268.6
granted an extension
to an effective date
for wastes under
268.5
prohibition of
landfill or surface
impoundment disposal
of wastes specified
in 268.10 for which
treatment standards
have not been promul-
gated (other than
268.32 or section
3004(d) prohibitions)
unless a demonstration
and certification have
been submitted
for a waste listed
in 268.10, initial
generator testing to
determine exceedance
of 268.41 and 268.43
treatment standards;
prohibition from
land disposal if
exceed standards
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
50
50
50
50.66
f-
50.66
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.33(d)
268.33(e)
268.33(e)(1)
268.33(e)(2)
268.33(e)(3)
268.33m
268.33(a)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 31 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8:
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
Land
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
UST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
TsQjJIV-
AU5NT
MORE
STRINQENT
BHOADER
IN SCOPi
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - SECOND THIRD WASTES
effective June 8,
1989, prohibition from
land disposal of
specific 261.31, 261.32
and 261.33 wastes
effective June 8,
1989, prohibition from
land disposal, except
underground injection
pursuant to 148.14(f)
and 148.15{d), of
certain 261.32 wastes
effective June 8,
1989, prohibition
from land disposal
of F006, F008, F009,
F011 and F012
effective July 8, 1989,
F007 prohibited from
land disposal except
underground injection
pursuant to 148.14(f)
July 8, 1989, until
December 8, 1989,
F011 and F012 non-
wastewaters prohibited
from land disposal
pursuant to 268.41
and 268.43 treatment
standards for FOOT,
F008 and F009 non-
wastewaters; effective
December 8, 1989,
F011 and F012 pro-
hibited from land
disposal pursuant to
268.41 and 268.43
treatment standards
for F011 and F012
nonwastewaters
63
63
63
63
63
268.34(a)
268.34(b)
268.34(C)
268.34(c)f1)
268.34(cH2)
Page 32 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
effective June 8,
1 991 , wastes specified
in 268.34 with Part
268, Subpart D treat-
ment standard based
on incineration, and
which are con-
taminated soil and
debris, are prohibited
from land disposal
requirements for
landfill or surface
impoundment disposal
of wastes included in
268.34(c) and (d) be-
tween June 8, 1989,
and June 8, 1 991 ;
applies to F007, F008,
F009, F011, and F012
only between June 8,
1989, and July 8, 1989
requirements of
268.34(a)-(d) do
not apply if:
meet applicable 268
Subpart D standards
granted an exemption
pursuant to a 268.6
petition for the wastes
and units covered by
the petition
268.34(a), (b) and (c)
do not apply 'rf
granted extension
under 268.5 for
wastes covered by
extension
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
63
63
63
63
63
63
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.34W)
268.34(e)
268.34W
268.34(f)m
268.34(fK2)
268.34(a)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 33 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
between June 8,
1989, and May 8,
1990, prohibition
from land disposal
in landfills or
surface impoundments
of 268.1 1 wastes for
which Subpart D
treatment standards
are not applicable,
including California
list wastes subject
to prohibitions under
3004(d) or 268.32;
exceptions under
268.8
initial generator testing
to determine if a
268.10, 268.11 and
268.12 waste exceeds
applicable 268.41 and
268.43 treatment
standards; land
disposal prohibited
and all 268 require-
ments apply if con-
stituents exceed Part
268, Subpart D levels
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
63
63
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.34CM
268.34(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS * THIRD THIRD WASTES
effective August 8,
1990, prohibition
from land disposal of
certain wastes
specified in 261.31,
261.32, 261 .33(e)
and 261.33(0
effective November 8,
1990, prohibition
from land disposal
of certain wastes
specified in 261.32
78
78
268.35(a)
268.3503)
Page 34 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
effective May 8, 1992,
prohibition from land
disposal of certain
wastes specified in
261.31, 261.32,
261.33(6), and
261.33(f); certain
characteristic
wastes; inorganic
debris defined in
268.2(a)(7); and RCRA
hazardous wastes
containing naturally
occurring radioactive
materials
effective May 8, 1992,
prohibition from land
disposal of 268.12
mixed radioactive/
hazardous wastes
effective May 8, 1992,
prohibition from land
disposal of wastes
specified in 268.35
as having Subpart D,
Part 268 treatment
standards based on
incineration, mercury
retorting, or
vitrification, and
which are
contaminated soil
or debris
between May 8, 1990,
and August 8, 1990,
wastes included in
paragraph 268.35(a)
may be disposed of
in a landfill or surface
impoundment only if
such unit is in
compliance with
268.5(h)(2)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
78
78
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.35(c)
268.35(d)
268.35(e)
268.35(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
s'ArE ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
•
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 35 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
between May 8, 1990,
and November 8,
1990, wastes included
in paragraph 268.35(b)
may be disposed of in
a landfill or surface
impoundment only if
such unit is in
compliance with
268.5(h)(2)
between May 8, 1990,
and May 8, 1992,
wastes included in
paragraphs 268.35(c),
(d) and (e) may be
disposed of in a
landfill or surface
impoundment only if
such unit is in
compliance with
268.5(h)(2)
conditions under
which requirements
of paragraphs
268.35(a), (b), (c), (d)
and (e) do not aoplv:
wastes meet
applicable Part 268,
Subpart D standards
persons granted
exemption under 268.6
wastes meet
applicable alternate
standards under
268.44
persons granted
extension to the
effective date
of a prohibition
under 268.5
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.35(0)
268.35(h)
268,35(i)
268.35(1X1)
268.35(i)(2)
268.35(iH3)
268.35(i)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 36 of 50
DCS.9 - 1/20/92
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
initial generator testing
to determine if a
268.10, 268.11 and
268.12 waste exceeds
applicable 268.41 and
268.43 treatment
standards; land
disposal prohibited
and all 268 require-
ments apply if con-
stituents exceed Part
268, Subpart D levels
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.35(i)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
oiA'e ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART D - TREATMENT STANDARDS
APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENT STANDARDS
28 restricted waste under
268.41 may be land
disposed if extract of
waste or treatment
residue, developed
using Appendix i
methods, does not
exceed 268.41 Table
CCWE values;
exceptions; specific
wastes may be land
disposed if extract or
treatment residue
does not exceed
Table CCW values
for any hazardous
constituent in
Table CCWE for
waste
restricted waste with
a 268.42 treatment
technology may be
land disposed if speci-
fied technology or an
Administrator-approved
method is used
34,139,
50.78
39
268.40(a)
268.40(b)
Page 37 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
except as specified
in 268.43(c),
restricted waste
Identified in 268.43
may be land disposed
only if Table CCW
constituent concen-
tration values are
not exceeded
CHECK-
UST
REFERENCE
50,78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.40(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
28 treatment standards;
explanation of
Table CCWE
Constituent Concen-
trations in Waste
Extract
treatment standards
for common
constituents in
combined wastes
34,50,
63,78
34,50,
63,70
34
268.41 (a)
268.41 (a)/
Table CCWE
268.41{b)
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS SPECIFIED TECHNOLOGIES
treatment of wastes
identified in
268.42(a){1)&(2) and
Tables 2 and 3 with
technology(s) specified
In 268.42(a)(1)&{2)
and in Table 1
of 268.42
standard for
incineration of
liquid hazardous
wastes containing
PCBs
standard for
incineration
of certain nonliquid
hazardous wastes
containing HOCs;
where standards do
not apply
29 removed
34,78
39
39,50,
78
63,78
268.42(a)
268.42(a)(1)
268.42(a)(2)
268.42(aK3)
Page 38 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
removed
Technology Codes and
Description of
Technology-Based
Standards
Tech no logy- Based
Standards by RCRA
Waste Code
Technology-Based
Standards for Specific
Radioactive Hazardous
Mixed Waste
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
63,78
78
78
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.42(a)(4)
268.42(a)/Table 1
268.42(a)/Table 2
268.42(a)/Table 3
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG is:
EQUIV
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
29
Guidance note: 268.42(b) is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 2 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this paragraph into their code.
submit application to
Administrator
demonstrating alter-
nate treatment can
achieve 268.42(a),
(c), & (d) performance
specifications;
information demon-
strating compliance
with Federal, State
and local require-
ments; criteria for
approval by
Administrator; approval
in writing containing
provisions and con-
ditions as the Admini-
strator deems appro-
priate; compliance by
person to whom
approval is issued
34.39.78
268.42(b)
Page 39 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECH-
US!
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
sfAft ANALOQ i&
B301V-
ALENT
MORE
STWNQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t,
17 ALTERNATE TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR LAB PACKS
conditions for
eligibility of lab
packs for land
disposal:
compliance of lab
packs with applicable
provisions of
264.31 6 and 265.316
Part 268 Appendix IV
and Appendix V
hazardous wastes
contained in lab
packs
incineration of
lab packs in
accordance with
Part 264, Subpart O
and Part 265,
Subpart O
requirements
treatment standards
for incinerator
residues from lab
packs containing
D004, D005, D006,
D007, D008, D010
and D011
78
78
78
78
78
268.42(c)
268.42(c)(1)
268.42(c)(2)
268.42(c)(3)
268.42fc)(4)
Page 40 of 50
DC8.9 • 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8:
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
Land
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
30 radioactive
hazardous mixed
wastes with Table 3
treatment standards
not subject to 268.41 ,
268.43 or Table 2
treatment standards;
radioactive hazardous
mixed wastes not
subject to Table 3
treatment standards
remain subject to
268.41 , 268.43 and
Table 2 treatment
standards
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.42(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG (S:
MoAJIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS WASTE CONCENTRATIONS
introductory paragraph
for Table CCW
explaining table
Constituent Concen-
trations in Wastes; no
land disposal for
specified K wastes
meet lowest con-
stituent treatment
standard when mixing
wastes with differing
treatment standards
for a constituent
of concern
conditions for
demonstrating
compliance with
treatment standards
for organic
constituents
provided:
34,50,
63,78
50,62,
63.78
50,63
78
268.43(a)
268.43(a)/
Table CCW
268.43(b)
26B.43M
31
Page 41 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
treatment for
organic constituents
established based on
incineration in units
operated in accor-
dance with Subpart O
requirements of Part
264 or Part 265 or
based on combustion
in fuel substitution
units in accordance
with applicable tech-
nical requirements
organic constituents
treated using
paragraph
268.43(c)(1> methods
good-faith efforts
fail to detect the
organic constituents;
when such efforts
must be demonstrated
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
78
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.43(cM1)
268.43(c)(2)
268.43(0(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CrTATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOC
MORE
STRINGENT
1 IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268.44 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 2 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
VARIANCE FROM A TREATMENT STANDARD
conditions for
variance; petition
Administrator; what
must be
demonstrated
procedures in
accordance with
260.20
statement signed by
petitioner or autho-
rized representative
34
34
34
268.44(a)
268.44(b)
268.44(c)
Page 42 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
additional information
or samples may be
requested by
Administrator;
additional copies for
affected States and
reaion
Administrator gives
public notification
in Federal Reaister;
final decision in
Federal Reqister
268.7 waste analysis
requirements must be
followed for wastes
covered by variance
requirements during
petition review
apply to Administrator
or delegated represen-
tative for site-specific
variance from a treat-
ment standard if
specified conditions
are appropriate; what
applicant must
demonstrate
260.20(b)(1)-(4)
information must
be included
Assistant
Administrator or
delegated represen-
tative may request
additional information
if site-specific
treatment standard
variance then com-
pliance with 268,7
waste analysis
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34
34
34
50,66
50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.44(d)
268.44(e)
268.44(f)
268.44(0)
268.44(h)
268.440)
268.440)
268.44(k)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
iQUlV
AUENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 43 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
during application
review process, com-
pliance with land
disposal restrictions
once effective date
for waste reached
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.44(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
. PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE
PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE OF fSTRICTED WASTES
except as provided in
268.50, storage of
wastes restricted
from land disposal
is prohibited unless
certain conditions
are met:
on-site storage
exemption for
qenerator
treatment, storage,
and disposal
facility exemption
container labeling
tank labeling
transporter exemption
storage up to
one year
storage longer
than one vear
268.50(a) prohibition
does not apply if
waste is exempt from
a prohibition on the
type of land disposal
utilized for the waste
34,39
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34,50,
66
268.50(a)
268.5Q(a)(1)
268.50(a)(2)
268.50(aH2)(i)
268.50(a)(2Hii)
268.50(aM3)
268.50(b)
268.50(c)
268.50(d)
Page 44 of 50
DCS,9 - 1/20/92
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
no prohibition where
treatment standards
are not specified or
are met, or com-
pliance with 268.32
or RCRA 3004 exists
requirements for
storage of liquid
hazardous wastes
containing PCBs at
concentrations greater
than or equal to
50 ppm
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34,t39
39
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.50(6)
268.50(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
sFAifc ANALOG is:
SQuiv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX I TO PART 268
32
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE (TCLP)
TCLP Is published
in Appendix II of
Part 261
34,74
Appendix I
APPENDIX II TO PART 268
TREATMENT STANDARDS (AS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE TREATMENT RESIDUAL EXTRACT)
table
34
Appendix II
APPENDIX III TO PART 268
LIST OF HALOGENATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS REGULATED UNDER 268.32
HOC definition and
list of HOCs regulated
under 268.32
39
Appendix III
Page 45 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
w-O
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8:
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
Land
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE crTATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX IV TO PART 268
t,
17 ORQANOMETALLIC LAB PACKS
list of hazardous
wastes that may
be placed in
"organometallic" or
"Appendix IV tab
packs"
78
Appendix IV
APPENDIX V TO PART 268
t,
17 ORGANIC LAB PACKS
list of hazardous
wastes that may be
placed in "organic"
or "Appendix V
lab packs"
78
Appendix V
APPENDIX Vi TO PART 268
RECOMMENDED TECHNOLOGIES TO ACHIEVE DEACTiVATION OF CHARACTERISTICS
SECTION 268.42
IN
list of technologies
which achieve the
standard of
"deactivation to
remove character-
istics of ignttability,
corrosivrty, and
reactivity"; use of
specified technologies
not mandatory; alter-
native methods not
performed in land
disposal unite
n
78
Appendix VI
Page 46 of 50
OC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8: Land
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
MA" ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX VII TO PART 268
EFFECTIVE DATES OF SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULATED IN THE LDRs
comprehensive list of
wastes and effective
dates
78
Appendix VII
APPENDIX VIII TO PART 268
NATIONAL CAPACITY LDR VARIANCES FOR UIC WASTES
comprehensive list
of national capacity
LDR variances for
UIC wastes
78
Appendix VIII
A new subparagraph was introduced into the code by Revision Checklist 78. The original
subparagraph 268.1(c)(3) was introduced by Revision Checklist 34, modified by Checklist 39, then
removed by Revision Checklist 50, with 268.1 (c)(4) redesignated as (c)(3). The redesignated
subparagraph 268.1(c)(3) was subsequently removed by Revision Checklist 66.
Subparagraph 268.1 (c)(4) originated in Revision Checklist 34, was modified by Revision Checklist
39, redesignated as 268.1 (c)(3) while the original 268.1 (c)(5) was redesignated as 268.1 (c)(4) by
Revision Checklist 50, and finally removed by Revision Checklist 66.
Subparagraph 268.1 (c)(5) originated in Revision Checklist 39, and was revised by Revision
Checklist 48. This text was redesignated as 268.1 (c)(4) and new 268.1 (c)(5) text was introduced
by Revision Checklist 50. This Subparagraph was finally removed by Revision Checklist 78.
These definitions were introduced into the code as part of 268.2(a) by Revision Checklist 34.
Revision Checklist 78 designated them as individual paragraphs 268.2(b) and (c). The text of the
old 268.2(b), introduced into the code by Revision Checklist 34, was deleted from the section by
Revision Checklist 78.
Note there is a typographical error in the Federal Register notice for Revision Checklist 78 (55 FJR
22520, June 1, 1990). The reference to "(g)(6)" should be "(f)."
This definition was introduced into the code as part of 268.2(a) by Revision Checklist 39.
Revision Checklist 78 designated it as an individual paragraph 268.2(e).
This subparagraph was originally 268.3 when it was added to the code by Revision Checklist 34.
However, it was redesignated as 268.3(a) by Revision Checklist 78.
Page 47 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C
Disposal Restrictions (cor
SPA 9
Land
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
SBOJV-
ALENT-
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
8 268.6(c) was originally introduced by Revision Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 50 redeslgnated
that 268.6(c) as 268.6{d) and inserted a new 268.6(cj.
The original 268.6(d) was introduced by Revision Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 50
redesignated that paragraph as 268.6(g). That same checklist redesignated 268.6(c) as 268.6(d).
10 268.6(e) was introduced by Revision Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 50 redesignated that
268.6(e) as 268.6(h) and inserted a new 268.6(e).
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
268.6(f) was introduced by Revision Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 50 redesignated that 268.6{f)
as 268.6(i) and inserted a new 268.6(f).
268.6(d)-(j) were originally introduced by Revision Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 50
redesignated these paragraphs as 268.6(g)-(m).
268.6(k) was originally introduced by Revision Checklist 39. Revision Checklist 50 redesignated it
as 268.6(n).
Note that the rule addressed by Revision Checklist 78 (55 FR 22520} makes it appear as if
268.7{a)(3)(iii)-(v) were removed (see page 22687). This was an error and these subparagraphs
should remain in the code.
Initially, subparagraphs 268.7(a)(4)(i)-(iv) were introduced into the code by Revision Checklist 50.
Revision Checklist 78 completely changed the text of (a)(4)(i)-(iii) and removed (a)(4)(iv).
This subparagraph was originally 268.7(a)(4) when it was added to the code by Revision Checklist
34. However, it was redesignated as 268.7(a)(5) by Revision Checklist 50.
This code is part of the optional requirements for the alternate treatment standards for lab packs
under the Third Third Scheduled Waste Rule. If adopted, all of the requirements (i.e., 264.316(f),
265.316(f), 268.7(a)(7), 268.7(a)(8), 268.42(c), 268.42(c)(1)-(4), and Appendices IV and V to Part
268) related to these alternate treatment standards must be adopted.
These subparagraphs were originally 268.7(b)(1) and 268,7(b)(1)(i)-(iv) when they were added to
the code by Revision Checklist 34. However, they were redesignated as 268.7(b)(4) and
268.7(b)(4)(i)-(lv) by Revision Checklist 50.
These subparagraphs were originally 268.7(b)(2) and 268.7(b)(2)(i)-(ii) when they were added to
the code by Revision Checklist 34. However, they were redesignated as 268.7(b)(5) and
268.7(b)(5)(i)-(ii) by Revision Checklist 50.
This paragraph was originally 268.7(b)(8) when it was entered into the code by Revision Checklist
50, but it was redesignated as 268.7(b)(7) by Revision Checklist 78 because the old 278.7(b)(7)
and 278.7(b)(7)(i)-(iv) were removed by Revision Checklist 78. Revision Checklist 66 corrected
268.7(b)(8) before it was redesignated by Revision Checklist 78.
Page 48 of 50
DC8.9 • 1/20/82
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8:
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
Land
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EOUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
The notice, certification and test requirements currently found in Federal code at 268.7(c)(1) and
(c)(2) were originally addressed in paragraph 268.7(c), as introduced into the code by Revision
Checklist 34. 268.7(c) was subsequently modified by Revision Checklists 39 and 50. Revision
Checklist 39 added the testing requirements now found at 268.7(c)(2), although at the time the
paragraph was still designated as 268.7(c). It was Revision Checklist 50 that significantly revised
the paragraph so that the notice and certification requirements now appear at (c)(1) and the
testing requirements appear at (c)(2). The checklist reference column, then, includes all relevant
checklists for 268.7(c)(1) and (c)(2), rather than just Revision Checklist 50 which primarily affected
the format.
22 Subparagraphs 268.7(c)(3) and (c)(4), introduced into the code by Revision Checklists 50 and 66,
respectively, were removed from the code by Revision Checklist 78.
23
24
25
26
27
28
An error in the September 6, 1989 rule (54 FR 36967) makes it appear that the revisions to
268.8(a) include the removal of 268.8(a)(4). This was not the Agency's intent and 268.8(a)(4)
remains in Federal code as introduced by Revision Checklist 50.
The 268.30(a) introduction appeared in the final rule addressed by Revision Checklist 50, but was
not changed by that rule. See Revision Checklist 50 for more information.
These subparagraphs were originally 268.30(c) and 268.30(c)(1)-(3) when they were introduced
into the code by Revision Checklist 34. However, Revision Checklist 50 redesignated them as
268.30(d) and 268.30(d)(1)-(3) because that checklist inserted a new paragraph at 268.30(c).
These subparagraphs were originally 268.31 (b) and 268.31 (b)(1)-(3) when they were introduced
into the code by Revision Checklist 34. However, Revision Checklist 50 redesignated them as
268.31 (d) and 268.31 (d)(1)-(3) because that checklist inserted a new paragraph at 268.31 (b).
While this subparagraph appeared in the final rule addressed by Revision Checklist 50, this rule
did not change this subparagraph. See Footnote 9 of Revision Checklist 50.
The current text of 268.40(a) and 268.41 (a) indicates that an extract or treatment residue of
certain wastes may be land disposed only if certain requirements are met using either the test
method in Appendix I of Part 268 or the test method in Appendix II of Part 261. Following
promulgation of the March 29, 1990 Toxicity Characteristics rule addressed by Revision Checklist
74 (55 FR 11798, as amended at 55 FR 26986), both of these appendices relate to the same test
method, the TCLP. Previously, the Part 261 appendix contained the EP Toxicity test procedures
while the Part 268 appendix contained the TCLP. EPA will issue a correction to the rule for these
particular paragraphs in the near future, clarifying which procedures may be used. Until such
time, however, EPA indicates that for the specific waste exceptions listed in these paragraphs, the
TCLP can be used for measuring compliance with the treatment standards for those specified
wastes, and if the extract or treatment residue fails that test, the EP Toxicity test can be used. If
the extract or residue passes that less stringent test, then such waste is considered in compliance
with the treatment standards. For more information related to the use of either of the two test
methods, see the discussion at 55 FR 22660 (June 1, 1990).
Page 49 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
•O
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C8:
Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 9
Land
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALCXi IS:
ESUV-
AL1NT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
^ INSCOPI
29
30
31
32
268.42{a)(3) and 268.42(a)(4) were introdueed into toe code by Revision Checklist 63. Revision
Checklist 78 removed these paragraphs.
The 55 FR 22520, June 1 , 1 990, code incorrectly states that a subparagraph 268.42 (e) is added.
Federal Register did not contain a 268.42(e); it only added 268.42(d).
While 268.43(b) appeared in the final rule addressed by Revision Checklist 63, the text of the
paragraph was not changed and remains the same as that introduced by Revision Checklist 50.
As background, the TCLP was originally promulgated in 268, Appendix I, on November 7, 1986
(51 FR 40572; Revision Checklist 34) for use in the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program to
determine whether certain wastes require treatment prior to iand disposal and to determine
whether certain treated wastes meet the applicable treatment standards. The TC rule and its
June 29, 1990 modification promulgated a revised TCLP at 261, Appendix II, with modifications
based on the Agency's own research and public comment. This TCLP is to be used in both the
TC and the LDR programs. The objective of the above footnoted revision to 268, Appendix I, is
to assure that the TCLP entered into the code by the November 7, 1986 notice (51 FR 40572;
Revision Checklist 34) is removed and replaced by the TCLP entered into the code and amended
by the final rules (55 jFR 11798 and 55 FR 26986) addressed by Revision Checklist 74. The
actual placement of the TCLP within a State's code is not that important, per se; what is important
is that a State's code contains only the Revision Checklist 74 TCLP.
Page 50 of 50
DC8.9 - 1/20/92
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9
EPA Administered Permit Programs: The Hazardous Waste Permit Program;
Procedures for Decision Making
40 CFR Parts 270 and 124 as of June 30, 1990
Notes: 1) States need not use a two-part permit application process. The State application process
must, however, require information in sufficient detail to satisfy the requirements of §§270,13 through
270.29.
2) Note that this checklist uses "@" and "#" in the left margin as special footnoting symbols. These
symbols are defined at the end of this checklist.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAL6<3 IS:
EoUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 270 - EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM
SUBPART A - GENERAL INFORMATION
1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THESE REGULATIONS
o/o permit and post-
closure permit
requirements
facilities for which
RCRA permits are
required
V,
44 G,
tei
V
270. 1(c)
270.1 (c)(1)
270.1(c)(1)(i)
270.1 (cMIMin
270.1(c)(1)(iii)
;
Page 1 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12^91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
t persons not required
to obtain a RCRA
permit
t further exclusions
from RCRA permit
requirements
t permits for less than
an entire facility
post-closure permit if
closure by removal or
decontamination; how
demonstration may
be made:
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.1 (cK2)
i
V.23 i 270.1(c)(2)(!)
V.48 270.1(cM2)(B)
V
V
V
44 G
t44G
270,1{e)(2Miii)
270.1 (c)(2)flv)
270.1 fc)(2Hv)
270.1(c)(2Hvi)
270.1 (c)(2)(vii)
270.1
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
procedures for closure
equivalency deter-
mination; public
hearing; written
statement if closure
fails standards;
subject to post-
closure permitting
requirements
DEFINITIONS
applicability to
Parts 270, 271 and
124
"Administrator"
"application"
"aquifer"
"closure"
"component"
"CWA"
"Director"
"disposal"
"disposal facility"
"draft permit"
"elementary neutral-
ization unit"
"emergency permit"
"Environmental Pro-
tection Aaencv (EPA)"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
44 G
*
*
*
*
*
t54
*
*
*
*
*
*,52
*
*
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270,1 (c)(6)fl)
270.1(cK6Kii)
270.1(cM6Hiii)
270.2(intro)
270.2
270,2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2(a)
270.2(b)
270.2
270.2
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
felAft ANALOG
IrtORE
STRINGENT
IS;
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
!
Page 3 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"EPA"
"existing hazardous
waste management
(HWM) facility or
existinq facility"
"facility mailing
list"
"facilitv or activity"
"Federal, State and
local approvals or
permits necessary
to begin physical
construction"
"functionally equiva-
lent component"
"qenerator"
"around water"
"hazardous waste"
"Hazardous Waste
Management facility"
"HWM facility"
"injection well"
"in operation"
"major facilitv"
"manifest"
"National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System"
"NPDES"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
*
#
t54
*
*
t54
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.2
270.2
270.2(a)
270.2(bU1)
270.2(b)(2)
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG lS:
EQUlV-
ALENT
MORE
STRIN0ENT
-
;
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
i
Page 4 of 67
OC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"new HWM facility"
"off-site"
"on-site"
"owner or operator"
"permit"
"permit-by-rule"
"person"
"Phase 1"
"Phase II"
"physical
construction"
"POTW
"publicly owned
treatment works"
"RCRA"
"Regional
Administrator"
"schedule of
compliance"
"SDWA"
"site"
"State"
"State Director"
"State/EPA
Agreement"
"storage"
"transfer facility"
"transporter"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270,2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
270.2
ANALOGOUS
STATE CrTATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
i 16:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
1
•
- -
Page 5 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
"treatment"
"UIC"
"underground
injection"
"underground source
of drinking water
(USDWT
"USDW
"wastewater treat-
ment unit"
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
*
*
*
*
*
*,52
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.2
270.2
270,2
270.2
270.2fa)(1)
270.2fa)(2)
270.2(aM2Hi)
270.2(a)(2)(ii)
270.2CW
270.2
270.2
270.2(a)
270.2(5)
270.2(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
EFFECT OF A PERMIT
effects of compliance
with RCRA permit;
permit may be
modified, revoked,
reissued or terminated
property rights or
exclusive privilege
not conveyed by
permit
f permit not authorize
iniury/lnfrinqement
V,
44 E,
t54
v
*
270.4(a)
270.4(b)
270.4(c)
Page 6 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
re DERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECR"."
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAtaSTS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
1ROADER
IN SCOPE
NONCOMPLIANCE AND PROGRAM REPORTING BY THE DIRECTOR
preparation and
submittal of reports
by Director
quarterly reports for
major facilities
format of
quarterly reports
@ instances of
noncompliance to
be reported in
quarterly reports
V
V
V
V
270.5
270.5(3)
270.5(a)(1)
270.5{aH1){i)
270.5(a)(1)(H)
270.5(a)(1)(«n
270.5(aX1)(iiiMA)
270.5(a)(1)(iii)(B)
270.5(a)(1)(iii){C)
270.5(a)(1)(iiiMD)
270.5(a)(1)(iii)(E)
270.5{aM2)
270.5{aH2){i)
270.5{aH2Mii)
270.5(a)(2)(lll)
270.5(a)(2Miv)
270.5(a»(2)(v)
270.5(a)(2)(v)(A)
"
270.5(a«2)(v)(B)
270.5(a)(2)(v)(C)
270.5{a)(2)(vi)
S
|
Page 7 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
@ annual reports
@ schedule
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V
v.ti
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.5(b)(1)
270.5(b){2)
270.5(C)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
1QUIV-
' ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
REFERENCES
publications Incor-
porated bv reference
available at Office of
the Federal Register;
approved by director;
incorporation and
changes
M1.35
*
270.6(a)
270.6(b)
SUBPART B - PERMIT APPLICATION
GENERAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
permit application
who applies/signs
@ completeness
information
requirements
when existing HWM
facilities must submit
Part A of their permit
application
extension of Part A
due date using
Federal Register
Part A due date
extension using
RCRA 3008
compliance order
V.17 P,
t17Q
V
V,17 P,
t17S,
tei
V
V.t17 P
V
23
V
V
270.10(8)
270.10(b)
270.10(0)
270.10(d)
270.10(e)(1)
270,10(e)(1)m
270.10(e)(1)(ii)
270. 10(e)(1 Mill)
270.10(e)(2)
270.10(e)(3)
Page 8 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
submission of
Part B
failure to furnish
a Part B
2 permits for new
HWM facilities
updating permit
applications
permit
reapplieations
recordkeepinq
exposure information
must be included in
Part B application
after Auqust 8, 1985
information for
permit conditions
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V.17 P
V
V, 17 M
V
V.17 M,
t17 M
v
V
V
17 S
44 F
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.10(e){4)
270.1 0(e)(5)
270.10(0(1)
270.10(0(2)
270.10(0(3)
270.10(a)(D
270.10(a)(1)(l)
270.10(a)(D(ii)
270.10(a)d)fli!)
270.1 0(a)(2)
270.10(h)
270.10(0
270.10(i)(1)
270.10(D(D(i)
270.10(i)(1)(in
270.10(i)(1)(iii)
270.10(D(2)
270.10(k)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQU1V-
• ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MdHe
STRINGENT
IS;
BROADEN
IN SCOPE
.
Page 9 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINOENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SIGNATORIES TO PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND REPORTS
who should sign
permit applications
who should sign
reports
changes to
authorization
certification by
signatories
V
V.t2
V
V,f2
V
V
V,t2
270,11 (a)
270.11(a)(1)
270.11(aH1)(i)
270.11(a)(1)(ii)
270.11(a)(2)
270,11(a){3)
270.11(aM3)(i)
270.1 1(a)(3)(ii)
270.1Kb)
270.11(b){1)
270.11(b)(2)
270.11(b){3)
270.1 1 (c)
270.1 Kd)
-
*
CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
# confidential business
information claims
@ denial of claims
*
V
270.12(a)
270.12(b)
Page 10 of 67
DC9.9 -
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK- "•
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE AFJATOS IS!
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
3 CONTENTS OF PART A OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION
#
#
#
#
information
which must be
# included in Part A
of the permit
# application
*
V
*
V
*
V
*
270.13
270.13(a)
270.13(b)
270.13(c)
270.13(d)
270.13{e)
270.13(f)
270.13(0)
270.13(h)
270.13(h)(1M2)
270.13(0
270.130)
270.13(k)
270.1 3(k)(1H9)
270.13(1)
270.13(m)
I
»
i
Page 11 of 67
DC9.9 - 1212/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"B3U1V-
AL1NT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
3 CONTENTS OF PART B: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
# general information
requirements; specific
requirements as in
270.14-270.29;
compliance with Part
264 standards; case-
by-case allowances;
270.11 requirements;
registered professional
engineer certification
general information
required for all
HWM facilities
general facility
description
chemical and
physical analyses
copy of waste
analysis plan
description of
security procedures
and equipment
copy of general
inspection schedule
justification of
waiver(s) request
for preparedness
and prevention
copy of
contingency plan
*
V
V
V
V
V
V.28,45,
59,79
V
V.14
270.14(a)
270.14(b)
270.14(bM1)
27Q,14(b)(2)
270.14(b)(3)
270.14(b)(4)
270,14{b){5)
270.14(b)(6)
270.1 4(bH7)
Page 12 of 67
DC9.9 • 12<12/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
description of
various procedures,
structures or
equipment used at
the facility to
prevent emergencies/
hazardous waste
releases
description of
precautions to prevent
accidental ignition or
reaction of wastes
traffic pattern,
volume and control
facility location
information; seismic
standard; political
jurisdiction
demonstration of
compliance with the
seismic standard;
information to be
submitted, what It
must show:
no displacement in
Holocene time; what
the information
must show
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V 1
V,79
79
V
V
V
V
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.14(b)(8)
270.1 4(b)(8)(i)
270.14(bH8)(H)
270,14(b)(8Hiii)
270.14(b)(8)(iv)
270.1 4(b)(8Hv)
270.14(b)(8Mvi)
270.14{b)(9)
270.14(b)(10)
270.14(b)(11)m
270.14(b)(11)(ii)
270.1 4(b)(11)(ii)(A)
270,14(b)(11)(ii)(A)
(1)
270.1 4(b)(11)(ii)(A)
(2)
270.14(b)(11)(ii)(A)
(3)
270,14{b)(11){ii)(A)
(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
E<3U!V-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 13 of 67
DC99 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
requirement that no
faults pass within 200
feet of treatment,
storage, or disposal
activities if faults
within 3,000 feet of
facility have had
Holocene displacement
100-year floodplain
identification
requirement
information
requirements for
facilities located
in the 100-year
floodplain
plan and schedule
for compliance with
264.18(b)
outline of
introductory and
continuing training
proqrams
specific inclusion
requirements for
closure and post-
closure plans
documentation that
notices under
264.119 have been
filed
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V
V
V
V
V
V.28,
45,59
V.24
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.1 40»(11)fli)(B)
270. 14(b)(11 Miii)
270.14(b)(11Miv)
270.14(b)(11MivMA)
270,14(b){11)(iv)(B)
270.1 4(b)(11)(iv)(C)
270.1 4{b)(11)(iv)(C)
(1)
270.14(b)(11)(iv)(C)
(2)
270.14(b)(11)(lv)(C)
(3)
270.14(b)(11)(iv)(C)
(4)
270.14{b)(11)(v)
270.14{b)(12)
270.14(b)(13)
270,14(b)(14)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
si A ft ANALOG is;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
'
Page 14 of 67
OC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
most recent closure
cost estimate under
264.142; financial
assurance documenta-
tion under 264.143
most recent closure
cost estimate under
264.144; financial
assurance documenta-
tion under 264.145
copy of insurance
policy; compliance
with 264.147
proof of coverage by
a State financial
mechanism
topographic map
requirements and
specifications
what the topographic
map must specifically
show
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V.24
V.24
V
V
V
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270,14{bM15)
270.14(b)(16)
270.14(b){17)
270,14(b){18)
270.14(b)(19)
270.14(b){19)(i)
270.14(bH19)(ii)
27Q,14(bM19Miii)
270.14(bM19)(iv)
270.14(bM19Hv)
270.14{b)(19)(vi)
270.14(b)(19Mvii)
270.14{b)f19Mviii)
270.14{bM19)(ix)
270.14(bM19)(x)
270.14(b)(19)(xi)
270,14(bK19Mxii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 15 of 67
DC9.9 -
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
submittal of
information to
Regional Administrator
as necessary
copy of notice of
approval for
extension under
268.5 or petition
under 268.6
additional informa-
tion requirements
for protection
of qroundwater
summary of ground-
water monitoring data
identification
of aquifers
additional typographic
map requirements
description of
contamination plume
that has entered
around water
plume delineated on
typographic map
identification of
Appendix IX
constituents
description of
proposed ground-
water monitoring
proa ram
establish a detection
monitoring program
to meet 264.98
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V
34
V,44 A
V
V
V
V
V
V.40
V
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.14(b)(20)
270,14(b)(21)
270.14(c)
270.1 4(cM1)
270.14(c)(2)
27Q.14(c)(3)
270,14(c){4)
270.1 4(c)(4Hi)
270.14(c)(4Hli)
27Q.14(c)(5)
270.14(cH6)
270.14(cM6)(i)
270.14(c)(6)(ii)
270.1 4(c)(6Miti>
270,14(c)(6)(iv)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
Page 16 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
establish a
compliance monitoring
program to meet
264,99 requirements
items to be
addressed to
demonstrate
compliance with
264.99
if hazardous
constituents in
ground water exceed
264.94 limits,
additional information
to establish
corrective action
program; when
information is not
required
information require-
ments for solid waste
management units
hazardous waste
release information
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V,38
V
V
V.38
44 A
44 A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.14(c)(7)
270.14(c)(7)(i)
270.14(c)(7)(li)
270.14(cH7)(iii)
270.14(c)(7)(iv)
270.14(c)(7)(v)
270.14(c)(7)(vi)
270.1 4(c)(8)
270,14(cK8){i)
270,14(c)(8)(ii)
270.14(c)(8){iii)
270.14(c)(8)(iv)
27Q.14(c)(8Kv)
270.14(d)
270.1 4(dH1)
270.14(d)(1)(i)
270.14(d)(1){ii)
270,1 4(d)(1){iii)
270,1 4(d){1){iv)
270.1 4(d)(1)(v)
270.14(d)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
i
EQUIV-
ALENT
STXTE ARAIC5
MORE
STRINGENT
-
is;
BROADER
IN SCC3PE
-
|
I
I
Page 17 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
RCRA Facility
Assessment
information
— CHECK:11
LIST
REFERENCE
44 A
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.14(d)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATION
STATE AWL55I5:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTAINERS
additional information
requirements
what containment
system description
must show for com-
pliance with 264.175
if no free liquids,
what demonstration of
compliance with
264.175(c) must
include
compliance with
264.176 and
264.177(c)
compliance with
264.177(a) and (b)
and 264.17(b) and (c)
V
V
V
V
V
270.15
270.1 5(a)
270.15(a)(1)
270.15(a)(2)
270.1 5(a)(3)
270.15(aM4)
270,1 5(a)(5)
270.15(b)
270.1 5(b)(1)
270,15(bM2)
270.15(c>
270.15(d)
<•
SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TANK SYSTEMS
information facility
owners/operators
using tanks must
provide
written, certified
assessment of each
tank system
dimensions and
capacity of each tank
V
V.28
V.28
270.16
270,16(3)
270.16(b)
Page 18 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
description of feed
systems, safety cutoff
bypass systems, and
pressure controls
diagram of piping,
instrumentation, and
process flow for each
tank system
description of external
corrosion protection
description of new
tank installation
plans and description
of secondary contain-
ment systems
information require-
ments for systems for
which a variance from
264.193 will be
sought
description of controls
and practices to
prevent spills and
overflows
description of design
and operation of tank
systems handling
ignitable, reactive,
or incompatible wastes
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V,28
V.28
V.28
V.28
14,28
28
28
28
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.16(c)
270.16fd)
270.16(e)
270.16(1)
270.16(a)
270.16(h)
270.16(h){1)
270.1 6(h)(2)
270.160)
270.16H)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-•
SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
information required
for facility owner/
operator using
surface impoundments
list of
hazardous wastes
V
V
270.17
270.17(a)
Page 19 of 67
DC9.9 • 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
detailed plans and an
engineering report;
264.221 items which
must be addressed
description of
inspections
certification by
qualified engineer
regarding structural
intearitv of each dike
description of
procedure for
removal from service
description of residue
and contaminated
material removal
procedures or
compliance with
264.228(a)(2) and (b)
ignitable or reactive
wastes, compliance
with 264.229
incompatible wastes,
compliance with
264.230
waste management
plan for F020, F021,
F022, F023, F026,
and F027 wastes
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
14
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.1 7(b)
270.1 7(b)(1)
270.17(b)(2)
270.1 7(bK3)
270.17(c)
270.1 7(d)
270.17{e)
270.17(1)
270.17(a)
270.17(h)
270.17(1)
270.17(0(1)
270.17(i)(2)
270.17(0(3)
270.170) (4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
•
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
Page 20 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EOUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE PILES
additional information
requirements for
facility owners/
operators using waste
piles for hazardous
wastes
list of hazardous
wastes placed or to
be placed in waste
pile
5 requirements if
exemption is souqht
detailed plans and an
engineering report;
relative to require-
ments of 264.251
6 description of
inspections
6 treatment done on
or in pile, details
of process and
equipment used
6 ignitable or
reactive wastes,
compliance with
264.256
6 incompatible wastes,
compliance with
264.257
6 description of
removal procedures
or compliance with
264.310(a) & (b)
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
270.18
270.18(3)
270.18(b)
270.18(c)
270.18(c)(1)
270.18(c)(2)
270.18(c)(3)
270,18(C)(4)
270.18(c)(5)
270.18(d)
270.18(e)
270.18(f)
270. 18 (a)
270.18(h)
m
j
Page 21 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
6 waste management
planter F020, F021,
F022, F023, F026
and F027 wastes
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
14
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.180)
270.18(0(1)
270.18(0(2)
270.18(0(3)
270.18(0(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR INCINERATORS
incinerators of
hazardous waste
must meet
270.19(a),(b) & (c),
except as 264.340
provides otherwise
requirements when
seeking an exemption
under 264.340(b)
or (c)
trial burn in
accordance with
270.62
requirements in lieu
of a trial burn;
submit specified
information:
V
V
V
V
270.19
270.19(a)
270.19(a)(1)
270.19(a)(2)
270.19(a)(3)
270.19(a)(4)
270.19(b)
270.19(c)
«
-
Page 22 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures tor Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
analysis of each
waste or mixture
of wastes
detailed engineering
description of
incinerator
comparison of waste
data; what data must
include
comparison of design
and operating
conditions
CHECK-
LIST
REFERiNCt
V
V
V
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.19(cH1)
270.1 9(c)(1 Hi)
270.1 9(cK1)(ii)
270.1 9(c)(1)(iii)
270.19(c)(1Hiv)
270.19(cH1)(v)
270.19(c){2)
270.1 9(c)(2)(i)
270.1 9(c)(2)(li)
270.19(cM2)(iii)
27Q.19(c)(2Hiv)
270.19(c)(2)(v)
270.19(c){2)(vi)
270.1 9(c)(2)(vH)
270.1 9(c){2){viii)
270.19(c)(2)(ix)
270.19(cH2)(x)
270.19(cK3)
270,19{c){4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
"«
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATrATTA'LW
MORE
STRINGENT
-
-
i
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
I
I
I
Page 23 of 67
DC9.9 - 12'12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
results from
previously conducted
trial burn(s)
expected incinerator
operation information
to demonstrate
compliance with
264.343 and 264.345
supplemental informa-
tion, as Director
finds necessary
waste analysis
data
approval of permit
application without
a trial bum
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V
V
V
V
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270,19(0(5)
270.19(c)(5)(i)
270.1 9(c)(5)(ii)
270.1 9(c){6)
270.1 9(O(6)(i)
270.19(0(6)01)
270.19(c)(6)(iii)
270.19(O(6)(iv)
270.19(c)(6)(v)
270.19(c)(6)(vi)
270.19(c)(6)(vii)
270.19(c)(6)(viii)
270.19(O(6)(lx)
270.19(0(7)
270.19(0(8)
270.19(d)
270.19(d)(1)
270.1 9(d)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
•
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES
additional informa-
tion requirements
for facilities that
use land treatment
V
270.20
Page 24 of 67
DCS.9 - 121291
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST 09; EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
description of plans
for treatment
demonstration
wastes and potential
hazardous
constituents
data sources to
be used
information related
to specific
laboratory or
field tests
description of land
treatment program
required under
264.271
wastes to be
land treated
design measures
and operating
practices necessary
to maximize
treatment
CREW
LIST
REFERENCE
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270,20(a)
270.20(a)(1)
270r20(a)(2)
270.20(a)(3)
270.20(a)(3)(i)
270.20(a)(3)(ii)
270.20(a)(3)(iii)
270.20(a){3Hiv)
270.20(b)
270.20(b){1)
270.20(b)(2)
270.20(b)(2)(i)
270.20{b)(2)(ii)
270.20(b)(2)(iH)
27Q.20(b)(2Hiv)
ANALOGOUS 1
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ARAtOa
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 25 of 67
DC9.9 - 1 a'12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
provisions for
unsaturated zone
monitoring
fist of hazardous
constituents expected
to be in or derived
from wastes used
proposed dimensions
of treatment zone
description of how
unit will meet
264.273 require-
ments; what
submission must
address
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V
V
V
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
27Q.2G(b){3)
270.20(b)(3)(i)
270.20(bM3Hii)
270.20(b)(3Hiii)
270.20(b)(3)(iv)
270.2Q(bM3)(v)
270.20(b)(3Kvi)
270.20(b)(3)(vR)
270.20{b)(4)
270.20(b)(5)
270.20(c)
270.20(cM1)
270.20(c)(2)
27Q.20(cH3)
270,20(c)(4)
270.20(c)(5)
270,20(c)(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
s'AVfe ANALOG is;
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
Page 26 of 67
DC9.9 -
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
food-chain crops and
description of how
required 264.276(a)
demonstration will
be conducted
presence of
cadmium
vegetative cover and
maintenance plan
durinq post-closure
ignitable or
reactive wastes;
meetinq 264.281
incompatible wastes;
meetinq 264.282
waste management
plan for F020, F021,
F022, F023, F026
and F027 wastes
CHECk-
UST
REFERENCE
V
V
V
V
V
14
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.20(d)
270.20(d)(1)
27Q.20(d)(2)
270.20(d)(3)
270.20(d)(4)
270.20(6)
270.20(1)
270.20(q)
270.20(h)
270.20(1)
270.20(0(1)
270.200X2)
270.20(0(3)
270.20(0(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
-
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-.
SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDFILLS
additional information
requirements for
facilities using
landfills
list of hazardous
wastes to be placed
in each landfill or
landfill cell
V
V
270.21
270.21 (a)
Page 27 of 67
.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
detailed plans and
engineering report
for landfill
if exemption from
Subpart F, Part 264,
then detailed plan and
engineering report
explaining specifically
listed items
description of
inspections
description of cover
and maintenance
procedures during
post closure; closure/
post-closure plans
ignitable or reactive
wastes, meeting
264.312
incompatible wastes,
meetinq 264.313
liquid waste or
wastes containing
free liquids prior
to May 8, 1985;
meetinq 264.31 4(a)
containers of
hazardous waste,
meeting 264.315
or 264.316
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V
V
V
V
V
V
V.17 F
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.21(b)
270.21 (b)(1)
270.21 (b)(2)
270.21 (b){3)
270.21 (b)(4)
270.21 (b)(5)
270.21 (c)
270.21 (d)
270.21 (e)
270.21 (f)
270.21(0)
270.21 (h)
270.21 (i)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
.
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•
Page 28 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
waste management
plan for F020, F021,
F022, F023, F026
and F027
reserved
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
14
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.21 (i)
270.21(1X1)
. 270.21 (i) (2)
270.21 (|)(3)
270.21(1X4)
270.22
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MISCELLANEOUS UNITS
additional informa-
tion for facilities
using miscellaneous
units
detailed description
of unit
hydrologic, geologic,
and meteorologic
assessments and land
use maps for
addressing and
meeting environmental
performance standards
potential exposure
pathways
effectiveness of
treatment
additional information,
as determined by
Director
45
45
45
45
45
45
270.23
270.23(a)
270.23(a)(1)
270.23(a)(2)
270.23(a)(3)
270.23(b)
270.23(c)
270.23(d)
270.23(e)
-
Page 29 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CrTATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
Sou iv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCESS VENTS
additional infor-
mation that must
be provided by
owners and
operators of
facilities that have
process vents to
which Subpart AA
of Part 264
applies, except as
provided in 264,1
implementation
schedule as
specified in
264.1033(a)(2) for
facilities that
cannot install
a closed-vent
system and control
device to comply
with Part 264
Subpart AA
provisions
on the effective
date the facility
becomes subject to
Part 264 or Part
265 Subpart AA
provisions
documentation of
compliance with
process vent
standards in
264.1032
includinq:
information and
data identifying all
affected process
vents and specific
information for
each vent
79
79
79
79
270.24
270.24(a)
270.24(b)
270.24(b)(1)
I
*
!
i
I
Page 30 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAt REQUIREMENT
information and
data supporting
estimates of vent
emissions and
emission reduc-
tions; estimates
made using
parameter values
representing high-
est load or capacity
level conditions
information and
data for deter-
mining if a process
vent is subject to
264.1032
requirements
a performance test
plan as specified
in 264.1 035(b)(3)
if applying to use
certain control
devices and using
test data to
determine
efficiency
or concentration
documentation of
compliance with
264.1033
including:
references and
sources used in
preparing
documentation
records including
dates of each
compliance test
required by
264.103300
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.24(b)(2)
27Q.24(b)(3)
270.24(c)
270.24W)
270.24(eW1)
270.24(d)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS;
I EQUlV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
i
Page 31 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
design analysis
and other docu-
ments that present
basic control
device design
information; design
analysis addresses
vent stream
characteristics and
control device
operation para-
meters as speci-
fied in
264.1035(b)(4)(il!)
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner
or operator
regarding operating
parameters used
in design
analysis
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner or
operator regarding
control device
meeting efficiency
design specifi-
cations
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.24(d)(3)
270.24(d)(4)
270.24(d)(5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALCkS IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
.
SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT
additional infor-
mation that must
be provided by
owners and
operators of
facilities that have
equipment to which
Subpart BB of
Part 264
applies, except as
provided in 264.1
79
270.25
|
Page 32 of 67
DC9.9 -
-------
DIR. NO. 95A1.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL BCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
for each piece of
equipment to
which Subpart BB
of Part
264 applies:
79
270.25(a)
equipment identifi-
cation number and
hazardous waste
management unit
identif ication
79
27Q.25(a)(1)
approximate
locations within
the facility
79
270.25(a)(2)
type of equipment
79
270.25(aH3)
percent by weight
total organics in
the hazardous
waste stream at
the equipment
79
270.25(a)(4)
hazardous waste
state at
the equipment
79
270.25(aK5)
method of
compliance with
the standard
79
270.25fa){6)
implementation
schedule as
specified in
264.1033(a)(2) for
facilities that
cannot install a
closed-vent
system and control
device to comply
with Part 264
Subpart BB
provisions on
the effective date
the facility
becomes subject to
Part 264 or Part
265 Subpart BB
provisions
79
270.25(b)
Page 33 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9; EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
a performance
test plan as
specified in
264.1035(b)(3)
if applying to use
certain control
devices and using
test data to
determine or
efficiency or
concentration
documentation
demonstrating
compliance with
264.1052 to
264.1059 equip-
ment standards
and containing
records required
under 264.1064;
Regional
Administrator may
request further
documentation
documentation to
demonstrate
compliance with
264.1060 shall
include:
references and
sources used in
preparing
documentation
records including
dates of each
compliance test
required
bv 264.1033(1)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
79
79
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270,25(c)
270.25(d)
270.25(6)
270.25(e)(1)
270.25(e)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
blATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
;
-
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•>
I
Page 34 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
DIE. NO, 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
design analysis
and other
documents that
present basic
control device
design information;
design analysis
addresses vent
stream characteris-
tics and control
device operation
parameters as
specified in
264.1035(b)(4)(Bi)
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner or
operator regarding
operating para-
meters used in
desiqn analysis
certification state-
ment signed and
dated by owner or
operator regarding
control device
meeting efficiency
design specifi-
cations
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
79
79
79
reserved
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.25(e)(3)
270.25(e)(4)
270.25(e)(5)
270.26-270.28
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
THURT
ALENT
MORE
STRiNQENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
j
j
t PERMIT DENIAL
director denial of
entire permit appli-
cation or active life
of hazardous waste
facility or unit
61
270.29
Page 35 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART C - PERMIT CONDITIONS
CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PERMITS
conditions which
will be
incorporated into
ail permits
duty to comply
duty to reapply
need to halt or
reduce activity
not a defense
event of
noncomplianee with
permit; permittee's
responsibilities
proper operation
and maintenance
permit actions
property riahts
duty to provide
information
inspection and entry
V
V
V
V
V,2
V
V
V
V
V
270.30
270.30(a)
270.30(b)
270.30(c)
270.30(d)
270.30{e)
270.30(«
270.30(0)
270.30(h)
270.30(0
270.30(0(1)
270.30(0(2)
270.30(0(3)
270.30(0 (4)
-
-
Page 36 of 67
OC9.9 - 12/12/9!
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitor! nq and records
siqnatory requirements
reporting require-
ments; planned
changes to facility
planned changes
resulting in non-
compliance with
permit; permittee
may not treat, store
or dispose of
hazardous waste until
certain specified
conditions are met
permit not transferable
except after notice to
Director; what Director
may require
monitoring reports
submittal of reports no
later than 14 days
following compliance
schedule date
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V
V.17 D,
17 P
V
V
V
V,t54
V
V
V
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.30(1) (1)
270.30(0(2)
270.30(i)(3)
270.30(iM3)(i)
270.30(i)(3)(ii)
270.30{i)(3)(iii)
270.30(i)(3)(iv)
270.30(iH3)(v)
270.30(D(3)(vi)
270.30(k)
270.30(1X1)
270.30(0(2)
270.30(!)(2)(i)
270.30(I)(2)(H)(A)
270.30(I)(2)(H)(B)
270.30(1X3)
270.30(0(4)
270.30(0(5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
C
EQUIV-
ALENT
1
if ATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
-
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 37 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
what permittee must
report within 24 hours
if noncompliance
endangers health or
the environment
submittal of manifest
discrepancy report
submittal of
unmanifested waste
report
submittal of
biennial report
submittal of other non-
compliance reports
submittal of other
information
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V
V
V
V.t1
V
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.30(0(6)0)
270.30(I)(6)(I)(A)
270.30(I)(6)(I)(B)
270.30(I)(6)(ii)
270.30(D(6)(li)(A)-(Q)
270.30(l)(6)(iii)
270.30(l)(7)
270.30(0(8)
270.30(0(9)
270.30(1) (10)
270.30(0(11)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
.
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDING AND REPORTING OF MONITORING RESULTS
all permits shall
specify:
requirements for
monitoring
equipment or methods
required monitorinq
applicable reporting
requirements
V
V
V
V
270.31
270.31(3)
270.3Kb)
270.31 (c)
ESTABLISHING PERMIT CONDITIONS
@ conditions
established on a
case-by-case basis
@ incorporation of appli-
cable requirements of
Parts 264 and 266
through 268
V
V.17 0,
34
270.32(a)
270.32(b)(1)
Page 38 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541,00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
i> terms and conditions
considered necessary
by Director to protect
human health and
environment
# what an applicable
requirement is
# incorporation of appli-
cable requirements into
new, reissued, modi-
fied or revoked and
reissued permits
5> incorporation either ex-
pressly or by reference
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
17 O
*
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.32(b)(2)
270.32(c)
270.32(d)
270.32(e)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
i
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALoS
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t SCHEDULES OF COMPLIANCE
permit may specify a
schedule of compliance
time for compliance
interim requirements
and dates for
achievement
reporting within 14
days of scheduled
dates
# permit applicant or
permittee may cease
activities rather than
continue to operate
decision to cease
activities; permit modi-
fied or cease before
noncompliance with
schedule
cease activities before
issuance of a permit;
permit shall contain
schedule leading to
termination
V
V
V
V
*
*
*
270.33{a)
270.33(a)(1)
270.33(a)(2)
27Q.33(a)(2H!)
270.33(a)(2)(il)
27Q,33(a)(3)
270.33(b)
270.33(b)(1)
270.33(b)(1)(i)
270.33{b)(1)(ii)
270.33(b)(2)
Page 39 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/31
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
two schedules in
permit if permittee
undecided whether to
cease regulated
activities
evidence of firm public
commitment
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
*
*
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.33(b)(3)
270.33(b)(3)(i)
270.33(b)(3)(ii)
270.33(b)(3)(iii)
270.33(b)(3Hiv)
270.33(b)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG is:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART D - CHANGES TO PERMIT
•• *
TRANSFER OF PERMITS
transfers
by modification
Class 1 modifications;
requirements of Part
264. Suboart H
V,t54
t54
270.40(a)
270.40(b)
MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION AND REISSUANCE OF PERMITS
# cause for modification
or revocation and
reissuance
# causes for modification
but not for revocation
and reissuance unless
permittee requests or
aarees
alterations or additions
information received
bv Director
7 new statutory
requirements or
regulations
modification of
compliance schedules
*,t54
*
V
V
V,44 D,
t54
V
270.41
270.41 (a)
270.41 (a)(1)
270.41 (a)(2)
270.41 (a)(3)
270.41 (a)(4)
Page 40 of 67
DC9.9 -
-------
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
8 when permit reviewed
under 270.50(d);
Director may modify
permit as necessary
for compliance
causes for modification
or revocation and
reissuance
facility siting
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V,
17 N,
tS4
V
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.41(8X5)
270.41{b)
270.41 (b)(1)
270.41 (b)(2)
270.41(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t,9 PERMIT MODIFICATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE
putting into effect
Class 1 modifications
as listed in Appendix
I; conditions;
notification of
Director bv permittee
to whom notice of
modification must be
sent and when
rejection of modifica-
tion by Director
modifications requiring
prior written approval
Class 2 procedures
instead of Class 1
procedures
Class 2 modifications
as listed In
Appendix I; what
request must include:
description of
exact changes
identification of
Class 2 modification
why modification is
needed
provision of applicable
information
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
270.42(a)(1)
270.42(a)(1)(i)
270.42(a)(1)(ii)
270.42(a)(1)(iii)
270.42(a)(2)
270.42(a)(3)
270.42(b)(1)
270.42(b)(1)(i)
270.42fb)(1)(ii)
270.42(b)(1)(iii)
270.42(b)(1)(iv)
Page 41 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
to whom notice must
be sent and when;
what notice must
include:
announcement of a
60-day comment
period
announcement of where
and when public
meeting will be held
name and phone
number of permittee's
contact person
name and phone
number of Agency
contact person
location for viewing
modification request
availability of
permittee's
compliance history
placement of modifica-
tion request copy in
vicinity of facility for
public access
when and where
permittee must hold
a public meeting
public comment
period
requirements after
receipt of modification
request:
approve request, with
or without chances
deny request
determine if Class 3
modification pro-
cedures are needed:
significant public
concern
complex nature of
chances
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(b)(2)
270.42(b)(2)(i)
270.42(b)(2)(ii)
270.42(b)(2)(iii)
270.42(b)(2Hiv)
270.42(b)(2)(v)
270.42(b)(2)(vi)
270.42(b)(3)
270.42(b)(4)
270.42(bH5)
270.42(b)(6Kn
270.42(b)(6Hi)(A)
270.42(b)(6Mi)(B)
270.42(b)(6Hi)(C)
270.42(bH6)(l)(C)(1)
270.42(bM6MMCM2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 42 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/01
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
approve as temporary
authorization
notify permittee that
decision will be made
in 30 days
requirements if
decision is extended
for 30 davs:
approve request, with
or without changes
deny request
determine if Class 3
modification pro-
cedures are needed
significant public
concern
complex nature of
changes
approve as temporary
authorization
temporary or auto-
matic authorization
following failure to
make decision
requirements of
permittee under
temporary or auto-
matic authorization;
temporary authoriza-
tion to conduct
activities as in
modification request
unless final approval
or denial, authorization
for life of permit
deferment of
permanent authoriza-
tion if failure to
notify public
CHECK-
LIST
REFERINCE
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(b)(6)(i)(D)
270.42(b)(6)(i)(E)
270.42(b)(6)(ii)
270,42{b)(6)(ii)(A)
270.42(b)(6)(ii)(B)
27Q.42(b)(6)(iiHC)
270.42(b)(6)(ii)(C)
(1)
270.42(b)(6)(ii)(C)
(2)
270.42{b)(6Hii)(D)
27Q.42(b)(6){iii)
270.42(bH6Kiv)(A)
:
270,42{b){6)(iv)(A)
(1)
270.42(b)(6)(iv)(A)
(2)
270.42{b)(6)(iv)(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
1
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE "ATWT.CS
MORE
STRINGENT
"
13:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
Page 43 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
if no final approval
or denial or reclassifi-
cation, authority to
conduct activities as
described in modifica-
tion request for life of
permit unless later
modification
consideration and
response to all
significant comments
extension of time
periods for final
approval, denial or
reclassification as
Class 3
reasons to deny or
change Class 2 permit
modification terms:
request is
incomplete
noncompiiance with
appropriate
requirements
failure to protect
human health and
environment
commencement of
construction under
Class 2
requirements for
Class 3 modifications
listed in Appendix 1:
description of
exact changes
identification of
Class 3
modification
why modification
is needed
provision of appli-
cable information
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(b)(6Kv)
270.420»(6)(vl)
270,42{b)(6Hvin
270.42tt>)(7)
270.42(b)(7)(i)
270.42(b)(7)(ii)
270.42(bM7HIH)
270,42(b)(8)
270.42(c){1)
270.42{c)(1Mi)
270.42(c)(1)0i)
270.42(c)(1)(Hi)
270.42{cH1 Hiv)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG IS:
MORE 8R6ADER
STRINGENT IN SCOPE
i
i
|X
4
1
'
i
i
l
i
Page 44 of 67
DC9.9 - IS/12/91
•Jli
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
to whom and when
notice must be sent;
what notice must
include:
announcement of a
60-day comment
period
announcement of when
and where public
meetinq will be held
name and phone
number of permittee's
contact person
name and phone
number of Agency
contact person
location for viewing
modification request
availability of
permittee's com-
pliance history
placement of modifica-
tion request copy in
vicinity of facility for
public access
when and where
permittee must hold
a public meeting
public comment
period
grant or deny modifi-
cation request after
public comment
period; consider and
respond to all
significant written
comments
other modifications
not explicitly
listed in Appendix 1
determination of
appropriate class:
changes that
necessitate Class 1
modifications
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(c){2)
270.42(c)(2Mi)
270.42(c)(2)(li)
270.42(c)(2)(tii)
270.42(c)(2)(lv)
270.42(cH2Hv)
270.42(c)(2)(vi)
270.42(c){3)
270.42(c){4)
270.42(c){5)
270.42(c}(6)
270.42(d){1)
270.42WM2)
270,42{dH2)(i)
ANALOGOUS
STATi CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MdrflE
STR'NGENT
IS:
iROADER
IN SCOPE
•
1 '
i
10
Page 45 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
changes that
necessitate Class 2
modifications
variations in types
and quantities of
wastes manaaed
technological
advancements
changes necessary to
comply with new
requlations
Class 3 modifica-
tions description
granting of tempo-
rary authorizations
temporary authoriza-
tion may be
requested for:
Class 2 modification
meeti nq criteria
Class 3 modification
meeting criteria and
providing improved
management or
treatment
what temporary
authorization request
must include:
description of
activities
why temporary author-
zation is necessary
sufficient information
to ensure compliance
to whom notice must
be sent
approve or deny
temporary authoriza-
tion quickly; basis for
decision:
authorized activities
in compliance with
Part 264
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(d)(2)(in
270.42(dH2MiiHA)
270.42(d)(2)(ii)(B)
270.42(d)(2)(ii)(C)
270.42(d)(2)(iii)
270.42(e)(1)
270.42(eH2Hi)
270.42{eK2)(i)(A)
270.42feK2MiKB)
270.42(e)(2Mii)
270.42(e)(2Hii)(A)
270.42(e)(2)(ii)(B)
27Q.42(e){2}(ii)fC)
270.42(e)(2)(iii)
270.42{e)(3)
270.42(eK3)(i)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
'
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANAL6S
M6RE
STRINGENT
•
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 46 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12^91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541,00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
necessity of temporary
authorization to
achieve an objective:
facilitate closure or
corrective action
activities
allow treatment or
storage in tanks or
containers of
restricted wastes
prevent disruption of
onqoinq activities
respond to sudden
changes in types or
quantities of wastes
managed
facilitate protection
of human health and
environment
reissuance of
temporary authoriza-
tion for Class 2 or 3
reissuance of Class 2
in accordance with
specific paragraphs
reissuance of Class 3
in accordance with
specific paragraph
when and to whom
notification of
grant, denial or
automatic authoriza-
tion decisions must
be sent
appeal of grant or
denial decision
appeal of automatic
authorization
newly listed or
identified wastes;
continued authority
to manage wastes
listed in Part 261 if:
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42{e)(3Hii)
270,42(e)(3MiiMA)
270.42(e)(3)(ii)(B)
270.42{e)(3)(ii)(C)
270.42(e)(3Hii)(D)
270,42(e)(3Hii){E)
270.42(e){4)
270.42{e)(4)(i)
270.42(e)(4)(ii)
270.42(f)(1)
270.42(f)(2)
270.42(0(3)
270.42(g)(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ATOCOS
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
Page 47 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
in existence as a
hazardous waste
facility on
effective date of
final rule listing or
identifyina waste
submit Class 1
modification request
in compliance with
265 standards
for Class 2 or 3
modifications, submit
complete modification
request within 180
days
certification that land
disposal units are in
compliance within 12
months
expansions are not
under 25 percent
capacity limit for Class
2 modifications
maintenance and
notice of updated
list of permit
modifications
remove 270.42(i)
throuah 270.42(o)
Appendix I;
classification
of modifications
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
34,t39,
t54
t54,t61
t64,78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(dH1)m
270.42(aM1)(ii)
270.42(a)(1)fiil)
270.42(a)(1)(iv)
270.42(a)(1)(v)
270.42(a)(2)
270.42(W
270.420HP)
270.42,
Appendix I
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG l§;
EQUlV^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
.
BROADER
,_ IN SCOPE
11
12
TERMINATION OF PERMITS
causes for terminating
a permit
Director shall follow
applicable Part 124
or State procedures
V
V
270.43(a)
270.43(a)(1)
270.43(a)(2)
270.43(aX3)
270.43(b)
Page 48 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/1291
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECk-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
• 'EQUlV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
13
SUBPART E - EXPIRATION AND CONTINUATION OF PERMITS
DURATION OF PERMITS
@ maximum
ten-vear term
@ no extension of
maximum term by
modification except
as 270.51 provides
f permit for less
than fullterm
five-year review for
land disposal
facilitv permits
V
V
V
17 N
270.50{a)
270.50(b)
270.50(c)
270.50(d)
SUBPART F - SPECIAL FORMS OF PERMITS
t PERMITS BY RULE
RCRA permit by rule
if listed conditions
are met
ocean disposal
barges or vessels;
specific conditions:
permit under
Part 220
compliance with
conditions of
that permit
*
V
V
V
270.60
27Q.60(a)
270.60(a)(1)
270.60(a){2)
Page 49 of 67
OC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
compliance with
specified hazardous
waste requiations
injection wells;
specific conditions:
permit under
Part 144 or 145
compliance with
permit conditions
and 144,14
requirements
conditions for UIC
permits issued
after November 8,
1984
publicly owned
treatment works;
specific conditions:
NPDES permit
compliance with
conditions of permit
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V
V
V
V
17 L
44 C
V
V
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.60(aK3)
270.60(a)(3)(l)
270.60(aH3)(l!)
270.60{a)(3)(iii)
270.60(a)(3)(iv)
270.60(aH3)(v)
270.60(aH3Hvi)
270.60(b)
270.6Q(b)(1)
270.60(b)(2)
270.60tt>)(3)
270.60(b)(3)(i)
270.60(b)(3)(li)
270.60(c)
270.60(c)(1)
270.60(c)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EbXiiv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
i
l
i
•
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
t
Page 50 of 67
DC9.9 - 1ZM2/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO, 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
compliance with
specified regulations
waste meets all
pretreatment
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V
17 L
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270,60(c)(3)
270.60(c)(3)fl)
270,60(eH3Mii)
270.60(c)(3)flll)
270.60(cM3Miv)
270.60(c)(3)(v)
270.60(c)(3)(vi)
270.60(c){3)(vii)
270.60(c)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
L ALENT
STATE ANALCX3
MORE
STRINGENT
.
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t EMERGENCY PERMITS
temporary emergency
permit
nonoermitted facility
permitted facility
V
V
V
270.61 (a)
270.61 (aMD
270.61 (a)(2)
Page 51 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
conditions of
emerqency permit
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.61 (b)(1)
270.61 ft>M2)
270.61{b){3)
270.61 (b)(4)
270.61 (b){5)
270.61 (b)(5)0)
270.61 (b)(5)(H)
270.61 (b)(5)(HI)
270.61 (bHSMiv)
270.61 (b)(5)(v)
270.61 (b)(6)
ANALCX3OUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
- »
t HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR PERMITS
permit conditions to
determine operational
readiness; trial bum;
permit modification
submittal of statement
with Part B for com-
pliance with 264.343
review and specifi-
cations by Director
permit conditions
during trial burn
trial burn plan,
Part B
trial burn plan
must include:
V,t54
V
V
V
V
V
270.62(3)
270.62{a){1)
270.62(aH2)
270. 62 (b)
270.62(b)(1)
270.62(b)(2)
|
l
Page 52 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
analysis of each waste
or mixture of waste
detailed engineering
description
detailed description of
sampling and
monitoring procedures
detailed test schedule
for each waste
detailed test
protocol
emission control
equipment description
rapid shut-down
procedures
enEe«-
L1ST
REFERENCE
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270,62fb)(2Hi)
270.62(b)(2)(i)(A)
270.62(b)(2)fl)(B)
270.62(b)(2Mi)(C)
270.62(b)(2)(i)(D)
27Q.62(b)(2)(ii)
270.62(b)(2)(if)(A)
270.62(b)(2)(li)(B)
270.62(b)(2)fli)(C)
270.62(bH2)(ii)(D)
270.62(bM2)(HME)
270.62(b)(2)(iWF)
270.62(b)(2)(iiHG)
270.62(b)(2)(ii)(H)
270.62(b)(2)(ii){l)
270.62(b)(2)(ii)(J)
270.62(b)(2)(iii)
270.62{b)(2)(iv)
270.62(b)(2)(v)
270.62(b)(2){vi)
270,62(b)(2)(vii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
S
EQUIV-
ALENT
I
rfATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
.
15:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
•
j
Page 53 of 67
OC9.9 - 1012/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
other information as
Director finds
necessary
sufficiency of
information
trial POHCs
conditions for
approval of trial
bum plan by Director
determinations to be
made durinq trial burn
certification and
submittal of results
submittal of data
certification of
submissions
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.62(b)(2)(viii)
270.62(b)(3)
270,62(b)(4)
270.62{b)(5)
270.62(b)(5KO
270,62(b)(5)(ii)
270.62(b)(5)(iii)
27Q,62{b)(5Hiv)
270.62(b)(6)
270.62(b)(6)(i)
270.62(b)(6Kii)
270.62(b)(6)(Hi)
27Q.62{bM6)fiv)
270.62{b)(6Hv)
270.62(b)(6Hvi)
270.62{b)(6)(vii)
270.62(b)(6Hviii)
270.62(b)(6»M
270.62(b)(6Hx)
270.62(b)(7)
27Q.62(b)(8)
270.62(b)(9)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CtTATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
•
BROADER
IN SCOPE
!
i
i
Page 54 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
operating requirements
in final permit
establishment of
permit conditions
following trial burn;
before final
modification
submittal of statement
with Part B for compli-
ance to 264.343
Director's review of
statement; specify
requirements
permit application for
existing incinerator;
submittal and timing
of trial burn plan
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V,f54
V
V
V
V.60
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.62(bH10)
27Q.62(c)
270.62(c)(1)
270.62(c)(2)
270.62(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
5TATS ANALOQ
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
f PERMITS FOR LAND TREATMENT DEMONSTRATIONS USJNG FIELD TEST OR LABORATORY
ANALYSES
treatment demonstra-
tion permit containing
264.272(c)
requirements
two-phase
facility permit
permit covering only
field test or laboratory
analyses
conditions for phased
permit; effectiveness
submittal of certifi-
cation and data
modification of second
phase of permit to
comply with Part 264,
Subpart M
V
V
V
V
V
V
270.63(a)
270.63(a)(1)
270.63(a)(2)
270.63(b)
270.63{b){1)
270,63{b}(2)
270.63(c)
270,63(d)
Page 55 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
permit modification
under 270.42 or
270.41 (a)(2); when
second phase of
permit becomes
effective
no second phase
modifications; notice
of final decision
remove
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V,t54
V,t54
V,t54
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.63(d)(1)
270.63(d)(2)
270.63(d){3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ESUIV-
ALENT
MORf
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
INTERIM PERMITS FOR UIC WELLS
# issuance of UIC
permit; compliance with
Part 264, Subpart R;
maximum of two years
*
270.64
-
»
t RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PERMITS
permit for experi-
mental activity not
promulgated under
Part 264 or 266;
permit provisions:
construction of
facilities; operation for
maximum of one year
unless renewed
receipt and treatment
of necessary wastes to
determine efficacy and
performance
capabilities
inclusion of necessary
requirements by
Administrator to
protect health
and environment
modify or waive Parts
124 and 270 require-
ments except financial
responsibility
immediate termination
as necessary
17 Q
17 Q
17 Q
17 Q
17 Q
17 Q
270.65(a)
270.65(a)(1)
270.65(aM2)
270.65(a){3)
270.65(b)
270.65(c)
Page 56 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
maximum of three
renewals; each
renewal maximum of
one year
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
17 Q
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.65
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
increases in design
capacity
lack of available
capacity
compliance with
Federal, State or
local requirement
changes or addition of
processes; revised
Part A permit
application
emeraencv situation
compliance with
Federal, State or
local requirement
changes in ownership
or operational control;
compliance demon-
strations; transfer of
duties
changes made in
accordance with
corrective action or
court order; changes
limited to releases that
originate within facility
boundary
changes not allowed if
amount to reconstruc-
tion of facility;
exceptions:
changes solely to
comply with 265.193
changes necessary to
satisfy standards of
3004(o) because of
Federal, State or local
requirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
v.tei
V.t61
tei
V,t61
V,t61
V,t61
V,24,
t61
t61
v.tei
28.t61
tei
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.72(aU2)
270,72(aM2)m
270.72(aX2Hii>
270.72(a)(3)
270.72fa)(3M)
270.72(a)(3)(ii)
270.72(a)(4)
270.72(a)(5)
270.72(b)
270.72(bW1)
270.72(b)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
SiArS ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 58 of 67
OC9.9
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
changes necessary to
allow continuing treat-
ment of newly listed
or identified wastes
treated, stored or
disposed of prior to
rule's effective date
changes during closure
in accordance with
approved closure plan
changes necessary to
comply with Interim
status corrective action
order or court order;
changes limited to
treatment, storage, or
disposal of waste that
originated within
boundary of facility
changes to treat or
store, in tanks or
containers, wastes
subject to 268 or RCRA
Section 3004 land
disposal restrictions,
if solely made for com-
pliance with these
requirements
15 redesiqnated
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
tei
tei
t61
39,tei
V,t61 .
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.72(b}(3)
270.72(b)(4)
270.72(b)(5)
27Q.72(b){6)
270.72(eMe)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
SSUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
t TERMINATION OF INTE
when interim status
terminates
final administrative
disposition of a permit
application
terminated
as provided in
270.10(e)(5)
RIM STATUS
V
V
V
270.73
270.73(a)
270.73(b)
Page 59 of 67
DC9.9
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
termination of interim
status for land
disposal facility
granted interim status
prior to November 8,
1984 on November 8,
1985. unless:
Part B submlttal
certification of compli-
ance with ground-
water monitoring and
financial responsibility
requirements
for land disposal
facility in existence
on the effective date
of statutory or regu-
latory amendment,
twelve months after
RCRA permit require-
ment; exceptions:
submtttal of Part B
application
certification of compli-
ance with ground-
water monitoring and
financial responsibility
requirements
16 for land disposal units
operating under
270.72(a)(1), (2), or
(3); 12 months after
effective date unless
certification of
compliance
16 for incinerators, on
November 8, 1989
unless Part B
applications by
November 8, 1986
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
17 P
17 P
17 P
17 P
17 P
17 P
t61
17 P,
t61
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.73(c)
270.73(c)(1)
270.73(0(2)
27Q.73(d)
270.73(d)(1)
270,73(d)(2)
270.73(6)
270.73(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CfTATION
SfAiE ANALOG is:
BCD iv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 60 of 67
DC9.9 - 1»1»91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
1 6 any facility other than
land disposal or
incinerator facilities
by November 8, 1992
unless Part B
applications by
November 8, 1988
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
17 P,
t61
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.73(0.)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANAICST'ISF ~
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 124 - PROCEDURES FOR DECISION MAKING
SUBPART A - GENERAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT
if permit required,
then must submit
application;
exceptions; when
processing shall
begin; signature
and certification
requirements
V.70
124.3(a)
124.3(a)(1)
124.3(a)(2)
124.3(a)(3)
MODIFICATION. REVOCATION AND REISSUANCE. OR TERMINATION OF PERMITS
who initiates a
modification,
revocation and
reissuance or
termination of permit;
reasons these actions
can be taken
modify or revoke and
reissue procedures:
only those conditions
to be modified shall
be reopened; entire
permit is reopened if
permit revoked and
reissued
minor modifications
are not subject to
124.5
V.70
V,t54,
70
V
V,t54,
70
124.5(a)
124.5(c)(1)
124.5(c)(2)
124.5(c)(3)
Page 61 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
@ termination
procedures; notice of
intent to terminate
CHECI^-
LIST
REFERENCE
VJO
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
124.5(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STAT1 ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
DRAFT PERMITS
decision to prepare
draft or deny
application
contents of a draft
permit
statement of basis or
fact sheet accom-
panies draft permit;
available to public;
public hearing; issue
final decision;
respond to comments;
appeals
V
V
VJO
V
124.6(a)
124.6(d)
124.6(d)(1)
124.6(d)(2)
124.6(d)(3)
124.6(d){4Ki)
124.6(e)
FACT SHEET
@
what the fact sheet
must be prepared for
what the sheet will
set forth; who
receives fact sheet
V
124.8(a)
Page 62 of 67
DC8.9
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
@ what the fact
sheet shall include
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
124.8(b)
124.8(b)(1) •
124.8(b)(2)
124.8{b)(4)
124.8(b){5)
124.8(b)(6)
124.8(b)(6)(iHiii)
124.8(b)(7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANAL6<3
MdRE
STRINGENT
'IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PERMIT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
what the Director
@ must give public
notice of
@ timing of public
notice
@ how public notice
shall be given
V
V
V
124.10(a)(1)
124.10(a)(1Mi!)
124.10(a)(1)(iH)
124.10(b)(1)
124.10{b){2)
1 24.10(c)
Page 63 of 67
OC9.9 - 1E/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
-
17,@ by mail; persons
to whom notice must
be mailed
@ publication in
a newspaper
@ legal notice to
public under State
law
<3> any other method to
give notice to
persons potentially
affected
@ minimum information
which must be
contained in a
public notice
CHECK- I
LIST
REFERENCE
V
VJO
V
V
V
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
124.10(0(1)
124.10{c){1 Hi)
124.1Q(O(1)(ii)
124.10(O(1)(iii)
124.10(c)(1)(ix)
124.10(c)(1)(ix)(A)
1 24.10(c)(1 )(ix)(B)
124.1 0(0(1 )(ix)(C)
124.10(c)(1)(x)(A)
& (B)
124. 10(0(2) W
12410(O(2)(ii)
124.10(0(3)
124.10(0(4)
124.10(d)(1)
124.10(d)(1)(i)
124.10(d){1)(ii)
124.10(d)(1)(iii)
124.10(d)(1)(iv)
124.10(d)(1)(v)
124.10(d)(1)(vi)
124.10(d)(1)(ix)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
5
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG IS:
MORE BROADER
STRINGENT IN SCOPE
i
I •
- •
;
j
i
;
!
Page 64 of 67
OC9.9 - 12/12/91
„-••
..'*
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
@ public notices for
hearinas; contents
@ all persons identified
in 124.10(c)(1)(i)-(iv)
must be mailed fact
sheet, the permit
application and the
draft permit
CHECK- "
LIST
REFERENCE
V
V
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
124.10(d){2)
124.10(d)(2Hi)
124.10{d){2)(ii)
124.10(d)(2)(i!l)
124.10(e)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
1
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATS ANALM
MORE
STRINGENT
'IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
procedures
PUBLIC HEARINGS
@ when director must
or may hold a
public hearing;
how public notice
shall be given
V
y
V.70
V
124.11
124.12(aH1)
124.12(a)(2)
124.12(a)(3)
124.12{a)(4)
-
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
@ Director's response to
comments and what it
must contain
@ response to
comments available
to the public
V
V
124.17(a)
124.17(aM1)
124.17(a)(2)
1 24.17(c)
©Procedural requirement. For explanation, see the instructions for the Consolidated Base Program
Checklists at the beginning of Appendix K.
Page 65 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
— CRECFP
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATTANALga IS!
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
# These provisions were not included in Base Program Checklist V, but were listed as provisions
under 271.14 which States must have the legal authority to implement. Thus, if States do not have
these provisions in their code, they must demonstrate legal authority to carry them out.
1
10
While included in the July 30, 1989 version of this consolidated checklist, 270.1 (a) & (b) were
removed from this consolidated checklist because EPA does not considered them essential for a
State to be authorized for a permit program. States may include analogous paragraphs of code if
they so choose, however.
Note that the 17 M & f17 M designation is correct. Revision Checklist 17 M deleted the old
270.10(f)(3) provision that allows a person to begin physical construction of a new hazardous
waste management facility subsequent to November 19, 1980, but prior to the effective date of the
unit-specific Part 264 Standards in limited circumstances. The Agency felt that this provision was
legally inconsistent with the general preconstruction ban. This removal is required. However, the
Agency added the 3005(a) TSCA exemption to 270.10(f)(3). Inclusion of this exemption is
considered optional as indicated on Revision Checklist 17 M.
See guidance on contents of the application found in the instructions to the Consolidated Base
Program Checklists.
The base program's 270.17(c)-(i) differs from the July 1, 1988, CFR because the July 15, 1985,
Federal Register (50 FR 28752) removed the original paragraph (c) and redesignated paragraphs
(d)-(j) as (c)-(i). This FR is addressed by Revision Checklists 17 A through 17 S, but this change
was not included in these checklists.
The final rule at 50 FR 28752, addressed by Revision Checklists 17 A through 17 S, revised this
subparagraph; however, this change was not included in any of these checklists.
The base program's 270.18(d)-(i) differs from the July 1, 1988, CFR because the July 15, 1985,
Federal Register (50 FR 28752), addressed by Revision Checklists 17 A through 17 S, removed
paragraph (d) and redesignated paragraphs (e)-(j) as (d)-(i). However, this change was not
included in any of these checklists.
Revision Checklist 54 modified this paragraph, including the deletion of 270.41 (a)(3)(t)-(iii).
However, these are optional changes and States not adopting the modifications of Revision
Checklist 54 should have code equivalent to that in the July 1, 1988 CFR.
Revision Checklist 54 removed the 270.41 (a)(5) that originally appeared in Checklist V. Revision
Checklist 17 N added 270.41 (a)(6). Revision Checklist 54 then redesignated 270.41 (a)(6) as
270.41 (a)(5).
Section 270.42 existed as part of the original promulgated code but was not included in Checklist
V for the base program. Checklist 54 completely revises and supersedes the original 270.42,
including removing 270.42(i)-(o).
Revision Checklist 24 modified the original 270.42(d); Revision Checklist 54 completely revised it.
Page 66 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541,00-14
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9: EPA Administered Permit Programs:
The Hazardous Waste Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making (cont'd)
SPA 9
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
12
Revision Checklist 34 added 270.42(o) and 270.42(o)(1)-(4) to the Federal code, and Revision
Checklist 39 modified 270.42(o)(1) and (2) and added 270.42(p) and 270.42(p)(1 )-(3). Revision
Checklist 54 subsequently removed 270,42(i)-(p).
Appendix I was introduced by Revision Checklist 54 as an optional modification to Section 270.42.
Changes to this appendix addressed by Revision Checklist 78 are relevant only if a State has
modified its code to include Appendix I as per Revision Checklist 54.
13 Section 270.51 was inadvertently included in the June 30, 1989 version of this consolidated
checklist, but was removed from this present version of this checklist because this section is not
essential for a State to adopt for permit program authorization. States may include an analogous
section of code if they so choose, however.
14
15
16
17
Checklist 61 made extensive revisions to 40 CFR 270.72, including the redesignation of 270.72(b)-
(e) paragraphs. Because Checklist V lists only the 270.72 citation without a breakdown into
subparagraphs, all current text corresponding to the base program that has undergone revision will
be identified as being associated with both Checklist V and the relevant revision checklist(s),
regardless of its current formatting.
All three 270.72(c)-(e) paragraphs were part of the base program. 270.72(c) was redesignated as
270.72(a)(3) by Revision Checklist 61. 270.72(d) was modified by Revision Checklist 24, then
redesignated as 270.72(a)(4) by Revision Checklist 61, 27Q.72(e) was modified by Revision
Checklist 28 and 39 before being redesignated as 270.72(b) by Revision Checklist 61.
These subparagraphs were designated as 270.73(e) and (f) when Revision Checklist 17 P
introduced them. Revision Checklist 61 added a new 270.73(e) and redesignated 270.73(e) and
(f) as 270.73(f) and (g).
The July 26, 1988 Federal Register (53 FR 28118) redesignated 124.10(c)(1)(viii) and (ix) as
(c)(1)(ix) and (x). These changes were addressed by Revision Checklist 70.
Page 67 of 67
DC9.9 - 12/12/91
-------
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14'
SPA 9
MODEL CONSOLIDATED
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S STATEMENT
FOR FINAL AUTHORIZATION.
INCLUDING CHANGES TO THE
FEDERAL RCRA PROGRAM
THROUGH JUNE 1990
I hereby certify, pursuant to my authority as and in accordance with
Section 3006{b) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, and 40 CFR 271 that in my opinion the
laws of the State [Commonwealth] of provide adequate authority to carry
out the program set forth in the "Program Description" submitted by the [State Agency].
The specific authorities provided are contained in statutes or regulations lawfully adopted at
the time this Statement is signed and which are in effect now [shall be fully effective by
], as specified below.
I. DEFINITION OF TERMS. REFERENCES AND TEST METHODS
A. State statutes and regulations contain definition of terms and a list of , ".
publications {as in 40 CFR 260.11) which have applicability throughout the statutes and
regulations as indicated in Consolidated Checklist C1 which includes the revisions made by
Revision Checklists 5, 11, 13, 23, 24, 28, 34, 35, 39, 45, 49, 52, 67, 71, 73, and 79.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3001-3007, 3010, 3014, 3015, 3017-3019, 7004; 40
CFR 260.10 and 260.11, as amended March 20, 1984 (49 FR 10490), December 4, 1984
(49 FR 47390), January 4, 1985 (50 FR 614), March 24, 1986 (51 FR 10146), May 2,
1986 (51 FR 16422), July 14, 1986 (51 FR 25422), November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572),
March 16, 1987 (52 FR 8072), July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25760), October 27, 1987 (52 FR
41295), December 10, 1987 (52 FR 46946), July 19, 1988 (53 FR 27290), and September
2, 1988 (53 FR 34079), September 29, 1989 (54 FR 40260), January 23, 1990 (55 FR
2322), March 9, 1990 (55 FR 8948), and June 21, 1990 (55 FR 25454).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations allow
petitions for equivalent testing or analytical methods as specified in 40 CFR 260.21 and as
indicated in Consolidated Checklist C1 which includes the requirements indicated in
Revision Checklist 11.
The phrase "OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement" is used to indicate
provisions that either are less stringent or reduce the scope of the program. Any
State which adopts an "optional" requirement must ensure that it is at least as
stringent as the Federal requirement.
DAQCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3001, 3004; 40 CFR 260.21 as amended December
4, 1984 (49 FR 47390).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. Specific provisions amending 40 CFR 260.10, 260.11 and 260.21 since
January 1, 1983, which are included in State statutes and regulations are listed below.
(1) State statutes and regulations amend the definition of "manifest" and
"manifest document number" as indicated in Revision Checklist 5 and
included in Consolidated Checklist C1.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3001; 40 CFR 260.10 as amended March 20, 1984
(49 FR 10490).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General - '.
(2) State statutes and regulations incorporate the most recent edition and update
to "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods"
(SW-846) as indicated in Revision Checklists 11 and 35 and included in
Consolidated Checklist C1.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3001; 40 CFR 260.11 as amended December 4, 1984
(49 FR 47390) and March 16, 1987 (52 FR 8072).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(3) State statutes and regulations include definitions of "boiler" and "industrial
furnace" and revise the definition of "incinerator" as indicated in Revision
Checklist 13 and included in Consolidated Checklist C1.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004; 40 CFR 260.10 as amended January 4, 1985
(50 FR 614).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(4) State statutes and regulations revise the definition of "designated facility" as
indicated in Revision Checklists 13 and 71 and included in Consolidated
Checklist C1.
10 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002{a), 3004; 40 CFR 260.10 as amended January 4, 1985
(50 FR 614) and January 23, 1990 (55 FR 2322).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(5) State statutes and regulations define "small quantity generator" as indicated
in Revision Checklist 23 and included in Consolidated Checklist C1,
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3001, 3002; 40 CFR 260.10 as amended March 24,
1986 (51 FR 10146).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(6) State statutes and regulations define "active life," "final closure," "hazardous
waste management unit," and "partial closure" as indicated in Revision
Checklist 24 and included in Consolidated Checklist C1.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004; 40 CFR 260.10 as amended May 2, 1986 (51
FR 16422).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(7) State statutes and regulations define "above ground tank," "ancillary
equipment," "component," "corrosion expert," "existing tank system" or
existing component," "inground tank," "installation inspector," "leak-detection
system," "new tank system" or "new tank component," "onground tank,"
"sump," "tank system," "underground tank," "unfit-for-use tank system" and
"zone of engineering control" as indicated in Revision Checklist 28 and
included in Consolidated Checklist C1.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005; 40 CFR 260.10 as amended July 14,
1986 (51 FR 25422).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(8) State statutes and regulations include the definitions at 40 CFR 260.10 and
the references at 260.11 (a) as applying to the land disposal restrictions (40
11 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
CFR Part 268) as indicated in Revision Checklists 34 and 39 and included in
Consolidated Checklist C1.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004; 40 CFR 260.10 and 260,11 (a) as amended
November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572), July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25760), and October 27, 1987 (52
ES 41295).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Pate of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(9) State statutes and regulations include the definition of "miscellaneous unit"
and revise the definition of "landfill" as indicated in Revision Checklist 45 and
included in Consolidated Checklist C1.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005; 40 CFR 260.10 as amended December
10, 1987 (52 FR 46946).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption . ;
Remarks of the Attorney General
(10) State statutes and regulations define "treatability study" as indicated in
Revision Checklist 49 and included in Consolidated Checklist C1.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3001, 3004, 3005; 40 CFR 260.10 as amended July
19, 1988 (53 FR 27290).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(11) State statutes and regulations revise the definitions of "elementary
neutralization unit" and "wastewater treatment unit" as indicated in Revision
Checklist 52 and included in Consolidated Checklist C1.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3001, 3004, 3005; 40 CFR 260.10 as amended
September 2, 1988 (53 FR 34079),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(12) State statutes and regulations incorporate 47 new testing methods as
approved methods for use in meeting the regulatory requirements under
Subtitle C of RCRA as indicated in Revision Checklists 67 and 73 and
included in Consolidated Checklist C1.
12 DAGCON9.9 - 12M6/91
-------
MR. NO. 9541.00-14'
SPA 9
Federal Authority; RCRA §§3001, 3004, 3005, and 3006; 40 CFR 260.11 as amended
September 29, 1989 (54 FR 40260) and March 9, 1990 (55 FR 8948).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(13) State statutes and regulations incorporate eight new testing methods to the
section of regulations that incorporates these methods by reference as
indicated in Revision Checklist 79 and included in Consolidated Checklist C1.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001, 3004, 3005, and 3006; 40 CFR 260.11 (a) as amended
June 21, 1990 (55 FR 25454).
Citation of Laws and Regulations;....Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
II. IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING
Federal Authority: Statutory Authorization RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 271.9 as amended
September 22, 1986 (51 FR 33712).
A. State statutes and regulations contain a list of hazardous wastes and
characteristics for identifying hazardous waste which encompass all wastes controlled under
40 CFR Part 261 as indicated in Consolidated Checklist C2 (formerly Checklists I B and I
C), which includes the changes made by Revision Checklists 4, 7, 13, 14, 17 J, 18, 20,
21, 22, 23, 26, 29, 33, 34, 37, 41, 46, 53, 56, 57, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, and 78,
the specific provisions of which are detailed further in other subsections of this Attorney
General's Statement.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (b); 40 CFR 261.10 through 261.33 and applicable
appendices as amended February 10, 1984 (49 FR 5308), May 10, 1984 (49 FR 19922),
January 4, 1985 (50 FR 614), January 14, 1985 (50 FR 1978), April 11, 1985 (50 FR
14216), July 15, 1985,(50 FR 28702), October 23, 1985 (50 FR 42936), December 31,
1985 (50 FR 53315), February 13, 1986 (51 FR 5327), February 25, 1986 (51 FR 6537),
March 24, 1986 (51 FR 10146), May 28, 1986 (51 FR 19320), August 6, 1986 (51 FR
28296), October 24, 1986 (51 FR 37725), November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572), June 5, 1987
(52 FR 21306), July 10, 1987 (52 FR 26012), April 22, 1988 (53 FR 13382), September
13, 1988 (53 FR 35412), October 31, 1988 (53 FR 43878), and October 31, 1988 (53 FR
43881), September 29, 1989 (54 FR 40260), October 6, 1989 (54 FR 41402), December
11, 1989 (54 FR 50968), February 14, 1990 (55 FR 5340), March 9, 1990 (55 FR 8948),
March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11798), May 2, 1990 (55 FR 18496), May 4, 1990 (55 FIR 18726),
and June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22520), and June 29, 1990 (55 FR 26986).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
13 DAQCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
6. State statute and regulations define solid and hazardous waste so as to
control all hazardous waste controlled under 40 CFR Part 261, as indicated in Consolidated
Checklist C2 (formerly Checklist I A) which includes the changes made by Revision
Checklists 8, 9, 13, 17 C, 19, 23, 28, 34 49, 65, 71, and 74.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.1 through 261.4 as amended June 5, 1984
(49 FR 23284), November 13, 1984 (49 FR 44978), January 4, 1985 (50 FR 614), April 11,
1985 (50 FR 14216), August 20, 1985 (50 FR 33541), July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702),
November 29, 1985 (50 FR 49164), November 19, 1986 (51 FR 41900), April 13, 1987 (52
FR 11819), March 24, 1986 (51 FR 10146), July 14, 1986 (51 FR 25422), November 7,
1986 (51 FR 40572), and July 19, 1988 (53 FR 27290), September 1, 1989 (54 FR
36592), January 23, 1990 (55 FR 2322), March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11798), and June 29,
1990 (55 FR 26986).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
•
C. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
provide: 1) exemption from regulations for hazardous waste as specified at 40 CFR 261 !5,
261.6, 261.7, 260.40 and 260.41, 2) variance from classification as a solid waste as
specified at 260.30, 260.31 and 260.33, or 3) variance to be classified as a boiler as
specified at 260.32 and 260.33 as indicated in Consolidated Checklists C1 and C2
(formerly Checklist I A) which include the changes made by Revision Checklists 13, 14, 17
A, 17 J, 19, 23, 31, 34 47, and 79.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 260.30-260.41 and 261.5 through 261.7 as
amended January 4, 1985 (50 FR 614), January 14, 1985 (50 FR 1978), April 11, 1985
(50 FR 14216), August 20, 1985 (50 FR 33541), July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702), November
29, 1985 (50 FR 49164), March 24, 1986 (51 FR 10146), August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28664),
November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572), November 19, 1986 (51 FR 41900), April 13, 1987 (52
FR 11819), July 19, 1988 (53 FR 27162), and June 21, 1990 (55 FR 25454).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
D. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
for delisting hazardous wastes including public notice and opportunity for comment before
requests are granted or denied as indicated in Consolidated Checklist C1 which includes
2 If a State chooses not to adopt these provisions, its statutes and regulations must
make it clear that the wastes covered by 40 CFR 261.5, 261.6 and 261.7 are
subject to full regulation under that State's hazardous waste regulations. If a State
chooses to adopt these provisions, its requirements must be at least as stringent as
the Federal requirements of 261.5, 261.6 and 261.7.
14 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
the changes made by Revision Checklists 17 B and 34. The specific provisions of these
revision checklists are detailed further in this Attorney General's Statement.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3001; 260.20 and 260.22 as amended July 15, 1985
(50 FR 28702), November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572), and June 27, 1989 (54 FR 27114).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
E. Specific provisions amending 40 CFR Part 261 and relevant portions of 40
CFR Part 260 since January 1, 1983, that are included in State statutes and requirements
are as follows:
(1) State statutes and regulations contain lists of hazardous waste which
encompass all wastes controlled under the following Federal regulations as
indicated in the designated Revision Checklists and included in Consolidated
Checklist C2:
(a) Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, 40 CFR 261.31, as amended . ;
February 10, 1984 [49 FR 5308], Revision Checklist 4.
(b) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement] Warfarin and zinc
phosphide listing, 40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f), as amended May 10,
1984 [49 FR 19923], Revision Checklist 7.
(c) Dioxin wastes are listed and otherwise identified as hazardous wastes
so as to encompass all such wastes controlled under 40 CFR
261.5(e), 261.7(b), 261.30(d), 261.31, and 261.33(f), as amended
January 14, 1985 [50 FR 1978], Revision Checklist 14.
(d) TDI, DNT and TDA wastes, 40 CFR 261.32 and 261.33(f), as
amended October 23, 1985 [50 FR 42936], Revision Checklist 18.
(e) Spent solvents, 40 CFR 261.31, as amended December 31, 1985 [50
FR 53319] and January 21, 1986 [51 FR 2702], Revision Checklist
20.
(f) EDB wastes, 40 CFR 261.32, as amended February 13, 1986 [51 FR
5330], Revision Checklist 21.
(g) Four spent solvents, 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.33(f), as amended
February 25, 1986 [51 FR 6541], Revision Checklist 22.
(h) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Listing of spent pickle
liquor from steel finishing operations, 40 CFR 261.32, as amended
May 28, 1986 [51 FR 19320] and September 22, 1986 [51 FR 33612],
Revision Checklist 26.
15 DAGCON99 - 12/16/91
,i<>
-------
SPA 9
(i) Listing of commercial chemical products and Appendix VIII
constituents, 40 CFR 261.33 and Appendix VIII, as amended August
6, 1986 [51 FR 28296], Revision Checklist 29; as amended July 10,
1987 [52 FR 26012], Revision Checklist 41; and as amended April 22,
1988 [53 FR 13382], Revision Checklist 46.
(j) EBDC wastes, 40 CFR 261.32, as amended on October 24, 1986 [51
FR 37725], Revision Checklist 33.
(k) Listing of spent potliners from aluminum reduction (K088) 40 CFR
261.32 and 261 Appendix VII as amended September 13, 1988 [53
FR 35412] as indicated in Revision Checklist 53.
(I) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Generic delisting of iron
dextran (CAS No. 9004-66-4), 40 CFR 261.33(f) and Appendix VIM, as
amended October 31, 1988 [53 FR 43878], Revision Checklist 56.
(m) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Generic delisting of
strontium sulfide (CAS No. 1314-96-1), 40 CFR 261.33(e) and 261
Appendix VIII, as amended October 31, 1988 [53 FR 43881], Revision.
Checklist 57. . '.
(n) Listing of two wastes (K131 and K132) generated during the
production of methyl bromide, 40 CFR 261.32 and 261 Appendices III.
and VII, as amended October 6, 1989 [54 FR 41402], Revision
Checklist 68.
(o) Listing of one generic category (F025) of waste generated during the
manufacture of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons by free radical
catalyzed processes and amending F024, 40 CFR 261.31 and 261
Appendix VII; adding one toxicant to 261 Appendix VIII; as amended
December 11, 1989 [54 FR 50968], Revision Checklist 69.
(p) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Amendments to the
F019 hazardous waste listing to exclude wastewater treatment sludges
from zirconium phosphating in aluminum can washing, when such
phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating process, 40 CFR
261.31, as amended February 14, 1990 [55 FR 5340], Revision
Checklist 72.
(q) Listing of four wastes (K107-K110) generated during the production of
1,1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) from carboxylic acid hydrazides, 40
CFR 261.31 and 261 Appendices III and VII, as amended May 2,
1990 [55 FR 18496], Revision Checklist 75.
(r) Listing of one waste (F039), 40 CFR 261.31 and 261 Appendix VII, as
amended June 1, 1990 [55 FR 22520], Revision Checklist 78.
16 • DAQCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (b).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(2) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
define hazardous waste so as to exclude waste pickle liquor sludge
generated by lime stabilization, but only to the extent that such waste is
excluded by 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2) as indicated in Revision Checklist 8 and
included in Consolidated Checklist C2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.3(c) as amended June 5, 1984 (49 FR
23284).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
•
(3) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
define hazardous waste so as to not exclude household waste other than
those household wastes excluded in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) and as indicated in
Revision Checklists 9 and 17 C and included in Consolidated Checklist C2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) as amended November 13, 1984 (49
FR 44980) and July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(4) State statutes and regulations define hazardous waste standards so as to
control all the hazardous waste controlled under 40 CFR Part 261 as
indicated in Revision Checklists 13 and 37 and included in Consolidated
Checklists C1.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR Part 261 as amended January 4, 1985 (50 FR
614), April 11, 1985 (50 FR 14216), August 20, 1985 (50 FR 33541), and June 5, 1987
(52 FR 21306).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(5) State statutes and regulations regulate the wastes of generators generating
100 kg or less per month of hazardous waste and 1 kg or less per month of
acutely hazardous waste as specified in 40 CFR 261.5 and as indicated in
17 DAQCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
Revision Checklists 23 (super-cedes prior amendments by Revision Checklist
17 A), 31 (amends Revision Checklist 23) and 47 (provides technical
corrections to Checklist 23). These requirements are included in
Consolidated Checklist C2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (d); 40 CFR 261.5 as amended March 24, 1986 (51 FR
10146), August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28664), and July 19, 1988 (53 FR 27162).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(6) [This requirement applies only if States have a delisting mechanism. This
requirement is NOT OPTIONAL for such States.) State statutes and
regulations provide authority to delist hazardous waste as indicated in
Revision Checklist 17 B and included in Consolidated Checklist C1.
(a) State statutes and regulations require that before deciding to delist a
waste, the State must consider whether any listing factor (including
additional constituents) other than those for which the waste was , ;
listed would cause the waste to be hazardous.
(b) State statutes and regulations require that there be no new temporary.
delistings without prior notice and comment. All temporary delistings
received before November 18, 1984, without the opportunity for public
comment and full consideration of such comment, shall lapse if not
made final by November 8, 1986.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (f)(1) & (2); 40 CFR 260.20(d) and 260.22 as amended
July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702) and June 27, 1989 (54 FR 27114).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(7) State statutes and regulations include as hazardous wastes those materials
specified in 40 CFR Part 261.33 if and when they are discarded or intended
to be discarded, when they are mixed with waste oil or used oil or other
material and applied to the land for dust suppression or road treatment or
when, in feu of their original intended use, they are otherwise applied to the
land, they are contained in products applied to the land, they are produced
for use as a (or component of) a fuel, distributed for use as a fuel, or burned
as a fuel as indicated in Revision Checklists 17 J and 37 and included in
Consolidated Checklist C2,
18 OAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-1A'
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001, 3014(a); 40 CFR 261.33 as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702) and June 5, 1987 (52 FR 21306).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(8) State statutes and regulations identify waste fuels and used oil fuels as solid
wastes so as to encompass all such wastes as controlled under 40 CFR
261.3, 261.5, and 261,6 as indicated in Revision Checklist 19 and included in
Consolidated Checklist C2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001, 3014(a); 40 CFR Part 261 as amended November 29,
1985 (50 FR 49164), November 19, 1986 (51 FR 41900), and April 13, 1987 (52 FR
11819).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
"•"'r ~ "" :: :: •» *
(9) [OPTIONAL: This is an optional requirement.] State statutes and regulations
exclude from regulation secondary materials that are reclaimed and returned
to the original process or processes in which they were generated where
they are reused in the production process provided they meet the
requirements specified at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(8)(i)-(iv) as indicated in Revision
Checklist 28 and included in Consolidated Checklist C2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.4 as amended July 14, 1986 (51 FR 25422),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(10) State statutes and regulations require that spent industrial ethyl alcohol,
which is exported for reclamation, must be either covered by an international
agreement specified in 262.58 or the person initiating its shipment and its
transporters are subject to the requirements specified in 261.6(a)(3)(i)(A) &
(B) as indicated in Revision Checklist 31 and included in Consolidated
Checklist C2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3017; 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(i) as amended August 8, 1986 (51
FR 28664).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
19 OAGCON9.9 - 12/15/91
-------
SPA 9
(11) State statutes and requirements include reference to the land disposal
restrictions (as specified at 40 CFR Part 268) so as to appropriately indicate
that the hazardous waste, identified and defined as specified in 40 CFR Part
261, is also subject to this restriction as specified in Revision Checklist 34
and included in Consolidated Checklist C2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) & (m); 40 CFR Part 261 as amended November 7,
1986 (51 FR 40572).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(12) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
exempt (with certain limitations) waste samples used in small scale
treatability studies from Subtitle C regulation as indicated in Revision
Checklist 49 and included in Consolidated Checklist C2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.4(e) & (f) as amended July 19, 1988 (53 FR^
27290).
Citation of laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(13) State statutes and regulations exclude from the mining waste exemption the
six wastes at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)(i) through 261.4(b)(7)(vi), as indicated in
Revision Checklist 53.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (b); 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7) as amended September 13, 1988
(53 FR 34512).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(14) State statutes and regulations that:
(a) provide final criteria to define Bevill-excluded mineral processing
wastes, finalize the Bevill status of nine mineral processing waste
streams, and list those mineral processing wastes subject to
conditional retention as indicated in Revision Checklist 65.
20 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (b); 40 CFR 261.3 and 261.4 as amended September 1,
1989 (54 FR 36592).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(b) remove five conditionally retained mineral processing wastes from the
exemption from hazardous waste regulation under the Bevill exclusion,
and amend the definitions of "beneftciation" and "designated facility"
as indicated in Revision Checklist 71.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001(b){3)(A)(ii); 40 CFR 260.10 and 261.4(b)(7) as amended
January 23, 1990 (55 FJR 2372).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
-• *
(15) State statutes and regulations replace first edition SW-846 information with-
third edition information as indicated in Revision Checklists 67 and 73 and
included in Consolidated Checklist C2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261 Appendix III as amended September 29,
1989 (54 FR 40260) and March 9, 1990 (55 FR 8948).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(16) State statutes and regulations revise the existing toxicity characteristic by
replacing the Extraction Procedure (EP) leach test with the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) for identifying wastes that are
defined as hazardous and subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA as
indicated in Revision Checklist 74 and included in Consolidated Checklist C2.
State statutes and regulations also provide for the addition of 25 organic
chemicals and their regulatory levels to the list of toxic constituents of
concern as indicated in Revision Checklist 74 and included in Consolidated
Checklist C2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002(a), 3001, 3002 and 3006; 40 CFR Part 261 as
amended March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11798) and June 29, 1990 (55 FR 26986).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment, and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
21 DAGCON9.9 - 12M6/91
-------
SPA 9
(17) State statutes and regulations contain language to result In consistent
interpretation of the criteria for listing wastes as hazardous under RCRA as
indicated in Revision Checklist 76 and included in Consolidated Checklist C2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (a); 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) as amended May 4, 1990 (55 FR
18726).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(18) State statutes and regulations include language making the characteristic of
hazardous waste requirements and the requirements regarding container
resides and inner liners consistent with the Third Third Land Disposal
Restrictions as indicated in Revision Checklist 78 and included in
Consolidated Checklist C2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001, 3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR 261.20, 261.21, 261.22,
261.23, 261.24, and 261.33(c) as amended June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22520).
' * *
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(19) State statutes and regulations include requirements for recyclable materials
addressing the organic air emission standards for process vents and
equipment leaks as indicated in Revision Checklist 79 and included in
Consolidated Checklist C2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.6(c)&(d) as amended June 21, 1990 (55 FR
25454).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
HI- STANDARDS FOR GENERATORS
Federal Authority: RCRA §3002; 271.10 as amended on April 1, 1983 (48 FR 14146),
June 30, 1983 (48 FR 30113), March 20, 1984 (49 FR 10490), March 26, 1984 (49 FR
11180), August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28664), and September 22, 1986 (51 FR 33712).
A. State statutes and regulations provide coverage of all generators covered by
40 CFR Part 262 and include requirements for EPA identification number, reporting and
recordkeeping, accumulation of hazardous waste for short time periods, packaging, labeling,
marking, placarding, international shipments, manifesting of hazardous waste for off-site
shipment, notification procedures for interstate shipments as indicated in Consolidated
22 DAQCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
DIR. NO, 9541,00-14'
SPA 9
Checklist C3 (formerly Checklist II) which includes the revisions represented by Revision
Checklists 1, 5, 12, 17 D, 17 R, 23, 28, 31, 32, 34, 39, 42 48, 71, and 78.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3002; 40 CFR Part 262 as amended January 28, 1983 (48 FR
3977), March 20, 1984 (49 FR 10490), December 20, 1984 (49 FR 49568), July 15, 1985
(50 FR 28702), March 24, 1986 (51 FR 10146), July 14, 1986 (51 FR 25422), August 8,
1986 (51 FR 28664), October 1, 1986 (51 FR 35190), November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572),
July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25760), September 23, 1987 (52 FR 35894), July 19, 1988 (53 FR
27164), January 23, 1990 (55 FR 2322), and June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22520).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B, Specific provisions amending 40 CFR Part 262 since January 1, 1983 that
are included in State statutes and requirements are as follows:
(1) State statutes and regulations require that generators submit a biennial report
and that the biennial report contain the information in 40 CFR 262.41 (a) as .
indicated in Revision Checklist 1 and included in Consolidated Checklist C3. *
Federal Authority: RCRA §3002; 40 CFR Part 262 as amended January 28, 1983 (48 FR
3977).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(2) State statutes and regulations require generators to use the national uniform
manifest as indicated in Revision Checklists 5, 17 D and 32 and included in
Consolidated Checklist C3.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3002, 3003; 40 CFR Part 262 as amended March 20,
1984 (49 FR 10490), July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702), and October 1, 1986 (51 FR 35190).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(3) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow generators to accumulate at the site of generation, without a permit or
interim status, as much as 55 gallons of hazardous waste or one quart of
acutely hazardous waste provided that the generator complies with the
requirements specified in §262.34(c) as indicated in Revision Checklist 12
and included in Consolidated Checklist C3.
23 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3002, 3004, 3005; 40 CFR 262.34(c) as amended
December 20, 1984 (49 FR 49568).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(4) State statutes and regulations require generators to submit as part of a
Biennial Report a description and certification regarding efforts taken to
minimize the amounts and toxicity of wastes as indicated in Revision
Checklists 17 D and included in Consolidated Checklist C3.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3002(a){6), (b); 40 CFR 262.41 (a){6)-(8) as amended July 15,
1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(5) State statutes and regulations require generators (including small quantity
generators of between 100 and 1000 kg/mo) to certify to a good faith effort
to minimize hazardous waste as specified in Revision Checklists 17 D and
32 and included in Consolidated Checklist C3.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3002(a)(6), b; 40 CFR Part 262 Appendix - Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest Form as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702) and October 1, 1986 (51
FR 35190).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(6) State statutes and regulations require generators and transporters of
hazardous waste destined for export outside the United States to comply with
standards equivalent to those as indicated in Revision Checklists 17 R, 31,
and 48 (with the latter providing technical corrections to Checklist 31) and
included in Consolidated Checklists C3, C5, C6 and C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3017; 40 CFR 262.50, 264.1, 265.1, and 270.1 (c)(2)(ii) as
amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702), August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28664), and July 19, 1988
(53 FR 27164).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
24 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
(7) State statutes and regulations provide for special generator requirements for
hazardous waste produced by small quantity generators of between 100 and
1000 kilograms/month as indicated in Revision Checklist 23 and included in
Consolidated Checklist C3.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (d); 40 CFR Part 262 as amended March 24, 1986 (51 FR
10146).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(8) State statutes and regulations require that generators who accumulate
hazardous waste on site in containers or tanks must comply with certain
sections of 40 CFR Part 265 as indicated in Revision Checklist 28 and
included in Consolidated Checklist C3.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002, 3001, 3002, 3010; 40 CFR 262.34 as amended
on July 14, 1986 (51 FR 25422). , ;
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(9) State statutes and regulations require that, if a waste is determined to be
hazardous, the generator must refer to the requirements specified in 40 CFR
Parts 264, 265 and 268 for possible exclusions or restrictions pertaining to
management of his specific waste as indicated in Revision Checklist 34 and
included in Consolidated Checklist C3.
Federal Authority: §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR 262.11(d) as amended on November 7,
1986 (51 FR 40572).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(10) ["OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and
requirements provide that a farmer disposing of waste pesticide from his own
use in accordance with the requirements specified at 40 CFR 262.70 is not
subject to the land disposal restrictions as indicated in Revision Checklist 39
and included in Consolidated Checklist C3.
25 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR 262.70 as amended on July 8,
1987 (52 FR 25760) and July 19, 1988 (53 FR 27164).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(11) State statutes and regulations require that generators, of between 100 and
1000 kg/mo of hazardous waste, file an exception report in those instances
where the generator does not receive confirmation of delivery of his
hazardous waste to the designated facility as indicated in Revision Checklist
42 and included in Consolidated Checklist C3.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001 (d) and 3002(a)(5); 40 CFR Parts 262.42 and 262.44 as
amended September 23, 1987 (52 FR 35894).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(12) State statutes and regulations require that generators who ship hazardous
waste to a designated facility in an authorized state which has not yet
obtained authorization to regulate that particular waste as hazardous assure
that the designated facility agrees to sign and return the manifest to the
generator, and that any out-of-state transporter signs and forwards the
manifest to the designated facility, as indicated in Revision Checklist 71 and
included in Consolidated Checklist C3.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3002 and 3003; 40 CFR 262.23(e) as amended on
January 23, 1990 (55 FR 2322).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(13) State statutes and regulations provide for generator requirements as
necessitated by the Third Third land disposal restrictions as indicated in
Revision Checklist 78 and included in Consolidated Checklist C3.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3002, 3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR 262.11(c), and 262.34(a)
as amended June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22520).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
26 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
IV. STANDARDS FOR TRAKSPORTERS
Federal Authority: RCRA §3003; 40 CFR 271.11 as amended on April 1, 1983 (48 FR
14146), August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28664), and September 22, 1986 (51 FR 33712).
A. State statutes and regulations provide coverage of all the transporters
covered by 40 CFR Part 263 and include requirements for EPA identification number,
recordkeeping, manifesting, and actions regarding hazardous waste discharged during
transit, as indicated in Consolidated Checklist C4 (formerly Checklist III) which includes the
changes made by Revision Checklists 23, 31 and 34.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3003; 40 CFR Part 263 as amended on March 24, 1986 (51
FR 10146), August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28664), and November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. Specific provisions amending 40 CFR Part 263 since January 1, 1983 that. ".
are included in State statutes and requirements are as follows:
(1) State statutes and regulations provide that transporters transporting
hazardous waste from a generator who generates greater than 100 kg but
less than 1000 kg of hazardous waste in a calendar month need not comply
with the manifest and recordkeeping system requirements specified in 40
CFR 263.20 and 263,22 provided the requirements specified in 40 CFR
263.20(h)(1)-(4) are complied with as indicated in Revision Checklist 23 and
included in Consolidated Checklist C4.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (d); 40 CFR Part 263 as amended March 24, 1986 (51 FR
10146).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(2) State statutes and regulations prohibit transporters from accepting wastes
from an exporter unless an EPA Acknowledgement of Consent is attached to
the manifest (except for transport by rail and water which must comply with
the requirements specified at 263.20(e)(2) & (f)(2)). Both documents must
accompany the waste enroute. The transporter is required to deliver a copy
of the manifest to a U.S. Customs Official at the point where the waste
leaves the U.S., and the transporter must refuse a waste for export if he
knows the waste does not conform to the Acknowledgement of Consent.
These requirements are indicated in Revision Checklist 31 and are included
in Consolidated Checklist C4,
27 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3017; 40 CFR 263,20 as amended August 8, 1986 (51 FR
28664),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(3) State statutes and regulations exempt, from the land disposal requirements,
transporters who store hazardous waste shipments at transfer facilities,
meeting the requirements specified in 263.12, as indicated in Revision
Checklist 34 and included in Consolidated Checklist C4,
Federal Authority; RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR 263.12 as amended November 7,
1986 (51 FR 40572).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
* »
V. STANDARDS FOR FACILITIES
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004, 3004(e); 40 CFR 271.12 and 271,13(a) as amended on
April 1, 1983 (48 FR 14146) and September 22, 1986 (51 FR 33712),
A. State statutes and regulations provide standards for hazardous waste
management facilities equivalent to 40 CFR Parts 264 and 266 including: 1) technical
standards for tanks, containers, waste piles, incineration, chemical, physical and biological
treatment facilities, surface impoundments, landfills and land treatment facilities, 2) financial
responsibility during facility operation, 3) preparedness for and prevention of discharges or
releases of hazardous waste, 4) contingency plans and emergency procedures, 5) closure
and post-closure requirements, including financial requirements ensuring that money will be
available during these periods for monitoring and maintenance, 6) ground-water monitoring,
7) security to prevent unauthorized access to the facility, 8) facility personnel training, 9)
inspections, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting; 10) manifest requirements, and 11)
other requirements to the extent they are included in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 266. These
standards for hazardous waste management facilities are as indicated in Consolidated
Checklists C5 (formerly Checklist IV A) and C7 which include the changes made by
Revision Checklists 1, 13, 14, 16, 17 D, 17 E, 17 F, 17 G, 17 H, 17 I, 17 J, 17 K, 17 I,
19, 24, 27, 28, 30, 34, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44 B, 45, 48, 50, 52, 54, 55, 64, 66, 74, 77, 78,
and 79.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004; 40 CFR Parts 264 and 266 as amended January 28,
1983 (48 FR 3977), January 4, 1985 (50 FR 614), January 14, 1985 (50 FR 1978), April
11, 1985 (50 FR 14216), April 30, 1985 (50 FR 18370), July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702),
August 20, 1985 (50 FR 33541), November 29, 1985 (50 FR 49164), May 2, 1986 (51 FR
16422), July 11, 1986 (51 FR 25350), July 14, 1986 (51 FR 25422), August 15, 1986 (51
FR 29430), August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28556), November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572), November
19, 1986 (51 FR 41900), April 13, 1987 (52 FR 11819), June 4, 1987 (52 FR 21010), June
5, 1987 (52 FR 21306), July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25760), July 9, 1987 (52 FR 25942),
28 DAOCON9.9 - 12M6/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
November 18, 1987 (52 FR 44314), December 1, 1987 (52 FR 45788), December 10, 1987
(52 FR 46946), July 19, 1988 (53 FR 27164), August 17, 1988 (53 FR 31138), September
2, 1988 (53 FR 34079), September 28, 1988 (53 FR 37912), October 11, 1988 (53 FR
39720), August 14, 1989 (54 FR 33376), September 6, 1989 (54 FR 36967), March 29,
1990 (55 FR 11798), May 9, 1990 (55 FR 19262), June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22520), and June
21, 1990 (55 FR 25454).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Pate of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
[Where a State provides for interim status for facilities, analysis of the State's authority
should be included here. Model language is presented in Section B below.]
B. State statutes and regulations provide for interim status and include interim
status standards for hazardous waste management facilities covered by 40 CFR Part 265
as indicated in Consolidated Checklist C6 (formerly Checklist IV B) which includes the
changes made by Revision Checklists 1, 3, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 E, 17 F, 17 H, 19, 24,
25, 27, 28, 30, 34, 36, 39, 43, 44 C, 48, 50, 52, 54, 64, 74, 78, and 79. Specific
requirements are as follows: ; "
(1) State statutes and regulations authorize owners and operators of hazardous
waste management facilities which would qualify for interim status under the
federal program to remain in operation until a final decision is made on the
permit application;
(2) State law and regulations authorize continued operation of hazardous waste
management facilities provided that owners and operators of such facilities
comply with standards at least as stringent as EPA's interim status standards
at 40 CFR Part 265; and
(3) State law and regulations assure that any facility qualifying for State interim
status continues to qualify for Federal interim status.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(e); 40 CFR Part 265 as amended on January 28, 1983
(48 FR 3977), November 22, 1983 (48 FR 52718), November 21, 1984 (49 FR 46094),
January 4, 1985 (50 FR 614), January 14, 1985 (50 FR 1978), April 23, 1985 (50 FR
16044), April 30, 1985 (50 FR 18370), July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702), November 29, 1985
(50 FR 49164), November 19, 1986 (51 FR 41900), May 2, 1986 (51 FR 16422), May 28,
1986 (51 FR 19176), July 11, 1986 (51 FR 25350), July 14, 1986 (51 FR 25422), August
15, 1986 (51 FR 29430), August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28556), November 7, 1986 (51 FR
40572), March 19, 1987 (52 FR 8704), July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25760), November 18, 1987
(52 FR 44314), December 1, 1987 (52 FR 45788), July 19, 1988 (53 FR 27164), August
17, 1988 (53 FR 31138), September 2, 1988 (53 FR 34079), September 28, 1988 (53 FR
37912), August 14, 1989 (54 FR 33376), March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11798), June 1, 1990 (55
FR 22520), and June 21, 1990 (55 FR 25454).
C. Specific provisions amending 40 CFR Parts 264, 265 and 266 since January
1, 1983 which are included in State statutes and requirements are listed below. Also
included are specific State statutes and regulations regarding 1) third party direct action
29 DAQCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
against insurers or guarantor of an owner/operator's financial responsibilities under certain
circumstances, 2) criminal penalties for waste fuel and used oil fuel requirement violators,
and 3) exceptions to burning and blending of hazardous waste as specified in RCRA
§§3004(q)(2)(A) & 3004(r)(2) & (3). These latter provisions are not addressed by a
Revision Checklist.
(1) State statutes and requirements provide for the requirements regarding the
biennial report, unmanifested waste report and additional reporting as
indicated in Revision Checklist 1 and included in Consolidated Checklists C5
and C6. As also indicated in these same checklists, facilities must also
submit groundwater monitoring data annually to the State Director as
specified in 40 CFR 265.94.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004; 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 as amended January 28,
1983 (48 FR 3977).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
* *
(2) State statutes and regulations contain requirements in which interim status ;
standards apply to facilities identified in 40 CFR 265.1(b) and as specified in
265.1 (a) as indicated in Revision Checklists 3 and 10 and included in
Consolidated Checklist C6.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004; 40 CFR Part 265 as amended November 22, 1983 (48
FR 52718) and November 21, 1984 (49 FR 46095).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(3) State statutes and regulations define hazardous waste and impose
management standards so as to control all the hazardous waste controlled
under 40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265 and 266 as indicated in Revision
Checklists 13 and 37 and included in Consolidated Checklists C5, C6 and
C7.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001, 3004; 40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265 and 266 as
amended January 4, 1985 (50 FR 614), April 11, 1985 (50 FR 14216), August 20, 1985
(50 FR 33541), and June 5, 1987 (52 FR 21306),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
30 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14'
SPA 9
(4) State statutes and regulations contain special management standards for
facilities managing dioxin wastes and prohibitions applicable to permitted and
interim status facilities as provided in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 and
indicated in Revision Checklist 14, These requirements are also included in
Consolidated Checklists C5 and C6.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004; 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 as amended January 14,
1985 (50 FR 1978).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(5) State statutes and regulations require that closure and post-closure
requirements and special requirements for containers apply to interim status
landfills as indicated in Revision Checklist 15 and included in Consolidated
Checklist C6.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004; 40 CFR 265.310 and 265.315 as amended April 23, 1985
(50 FR 16044). - -
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(6) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow a variance to the two-foot freeboard requirement for surface
impoundments, allow a variance for placement of ignitable or reactive wastes
in surface impoundments and clarify the allowable treatment mechanisms at
land treatment units as indicated in Revision Checklist 15 and included in
Consolidated Checklist C6.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004; 40 CFR 265.222, 265.229, and 265.272 as amended
April 23, 1985 (50 FR 16044).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(7) State statutes and regulations require the use of a paint filter test to
determine the absence or presence of free liquids in either a containerized or
bulk waste as indicated in Revision Checklists 16, 17 F and 25 and included
in Consolidated Checklists C5, C6 and C9.
31 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004, 3005; 40 CFR Parts 264, 265, and 270 as amended
April 30, 1985 (50 FR 18370), July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702), and May 28, 1986 (51 FR
19176).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(8) State statutes and regulations require that the permittee, no less often than
annually, certify in the operating record 1) the existence of a program to
minimize the amount and toxicity of the generated wastes and 2) that the
proposed method of treatment, storage, or disposal minimizes present and
future threat to human health and the environment as indicated in Revision
Checklist 17 D and included in Consolidated Checklist C5.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004, 3005(h); 40 CFR 264.70 and 264.73 as amended July
15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption . ;
Remarks of the Attorney General
(9) State statutes and regulations prohibit the land disposal of hazardous waste
prohibited under 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 as indicated in Revision
Checklist 17 E and included in Consolidated Checklists C5 and C6. Land
disposal includes, but is not limited to, placement in landfills, surface
impoundments, waste piles, deep injection wells, land treatment facilities, salt
dome and bed formations and underground mines or caves. Deep injection
well means a well used for the underground injection of hazardous wastes
other than a well to which §7010(a) of RCRA applies.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004(b)-(q); 40 CFR 264.18, and 265.18 as amended July 15,
1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(10) Effective on November 8, 1984 State statutes and regulations prohibit the
placement of any non-containerized or bulk liquid hazardous waste in any
salt dome or salt bed formation, any underground mine or cave except as
provided in §264.18(c) and §265,18(c) as indicated in Revision Checklist 17
E and included in Consolidated Checklists C5 and C6. Furthermore, State
statutes and regulations prohibit the placement of any other hazardous waste
in such formations until a permit is issued.
32 DAQCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14'
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(b); 40 CFR 264.18 and 265.18 as amended July 15, 1985
(50 FR 28702); 40 CFR 264.600 et seq.. December 10, 1987 (52 FR 46946).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(11) State statutes and regulations contain the following requirements regarding
liquids in landfills as indicated in Revision Checklists 17 F and 25.
(a) Effective May 8, 1985, there is a ban on the placement of bulk or
non-containerized liquid hazardous waste or hazardous waste
containing free liquids in any landfill pursuant to 40 CFR 264.314 and
265.314 as amended July 15, 1985 and May 28, 1986.
(b) Effective November 8, 1985, there is a ban on the placement of non-
hazardous liquids in landfills unless the owner or operator satisfies the
criteria set forth in 40 CFR 264.314(e), 265.314(e), as amended July
15, 1985 and May 28, 1986.
(c) Bulk or non-containerized liquid wastes or wastes containing free
liquids may be placed in a landfill prior to May 8, 1985, only if the
requirements of 40 CFR 264.314(a) and 265.314(a) are met.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(c); 40 CFR 264.314, 265.314 and 270.21 (h) as amended
July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702) and May 28, 1986 (51 FR 19176).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(12) State statutes and regulations prohibit the use of waste oil or other materials
contaminated with hazardous wastes (except ignitabte wastes) as a dust
suppressant as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 G and as included in
Consolidated Checklist C7.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(1); 40 CFR 266.23 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(13) State statutes and regulations require that new units, expansions, and
replacements of interim status waste piles meet the requirements for a single
liner and leachate collection system in regulations applicable to permitted
waste piles as indicated in the Revision Checklist 17 H and included in
Consolidated Checklist C6.
33 OAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3015(a); CFR 265.254.
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(14) State statutes and regulations require that:
(a) New units, expansions, and replacement units at interim status
landfills and surface impoundments and permitted landfills and surface
impoundments meet the requirements for double liners and leachate
collection systems applicable to new permitted landfills and surface
impoundments in 40 CFR 264.221 and 264.301 and in 40 CFR
265.221 and 265.301 as indicated in Revision Checklists 17 H and 77
and Included in Consolidated Checklists C5 and €6.
(b) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Facilities which comply.
in good faith need not retrofit at permit issuance unless the liner is . ;
leaking as provided in §§264.221, 264.301, 265.221 and 265.301 as
indicated in Revision Checklist 17 H and included in Consolidated
Checklist C6.
(c) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Variances from the
above requirements are optional. However, the availability of such
variances is restricted as provided in §§264.221, 264.301, 265.221
and 265.301 as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 H and included in
Consolidated Checklists C5 and C6.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3015{b); 40 CFR 264.221, 264.301, 265.221 and 265.301 as
amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702) and May 9, 1990 (55 FR 19262).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(15) State statutes and regulations provide that the §3004 groundwater monitoring
requirements applicable to surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment
units and landfills shall apply whether or not such units are located above
the seasonal high water table, have two liners and a leachate collection
system or have liners that are periodically inspected, as indicated in Revision
Checklist 17 I and included in Consolidated Checklist C5.
34 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO, 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004{p); 40 CFR 264.222, 264.252, 264.253, and 264,302 as
amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).3
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(16) fOPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
may allow variances from the ground-water monitoring requirements as
provided in §3004{p). However, those variances must be restricted as
provided in RCRA §3004(p) as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 I and
included in Consolidated Checklist C5.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(p); 40 CFR 264.90(b) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
• »
(17) State statutes and regulations provide the following requirements:
(a) The burning of fuel containing hazardous waste in a cement kiln is
prohibited except as specified in 40 CFR 266.31 and Revision
Checklist 17 J and included in Consolidated Checklist C7.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(q); 40 CFR 266,31 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(b) Fuels containing hazardous waste and all persons who produce,
distribute and market fuel containing hazardous wastes must be
regulated as indicated in Revision Checklists 17 J and 17 K and
included in Consolidated Checklist C7.
3 Note these sections of code were reserved by Revision Checklist 17 I. The cited
sections of 40 CFR Part 264 contained a series of exemptions from Subpart F
groundwater protection requirements.
35 OAQCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3Q04(q)-(s); 40 CFR 266.31, 266.34 as amended July 15,
1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(18) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
provide exceptions to the burning and blending of hazardous waste as
specified in §§3004(q)(2)(A) and 3004(r)(2) and (3).
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004(q)(2)(A) and 3004(r)(2) & (3).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(19) State statutes and regulations contain the following corrective action . \
requirements as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 L:
(a) Corrective action is required for releases of hazardous waste or
constituents from any solid waste management unit at a facility
seeking a permit, regardless of when the waste was placed in the
unit, in ail permits issued after November 8, 1984.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 264,90 and 264.101 as amended July 15,
1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(b) Corrective action is required beyond a facility's boundary, in
accordance with RCRA §3004(v). (States now may impose these
requirements through a permit or a corrective action order. Once
EPA promulgates the regulations required by RCRA §3004(v), States
will need authority to impose corrective action in a permit following the
RCRA §3004(v) regulations.)
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(v)(1).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of. Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(c) Corrective action is required beyond a facility's boundary in
accordance with RCRA §3004(v) for all landfills, surface
36 DAQCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
impoundments and waste pile units (including any new units,
replacements of existing units or lateral expansions of existing units)
which receive hazardous waste after July 26, 1982.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(v)(2).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(d) There is evidence of financial responsibility for the completion of
corrective action on- and off-site.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004{a)(6); (u); 40 CFR 264,90 and 264.101 as amended July
15, 1985 (50 FjR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(20) State statutes and regulations require landfills, surface impoundments, land
treatment units, and waste piles that received waste after July 26, 1982 and
which qualify for interim status to comply with the groundwater monitoring,
unsaturated zone monitoring, and corrective action requirements applicable to
new units at the time of permitting as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 L
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(i); 40 CFR 264.90(a) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(21) State statutes and regulations contain special management standards for
generators, transporters, marketers and burners of hazardous waste and
used oil burned for energy, recovery in boilers, and industrial furnaces, as
provided in 40 CFR 264.340, 265.340, 266.30-35 and 266.40-45 as indicated
in Revision Checklist 19 and included in Consolidated Checklists C5, C6 and
C7.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001, 3004, 3014(a); 40 CFR Parts 264, 265 and 266 as
amended November 29, 1985 (50 FR 49164), November 19, 1986 (51 FR 41900), and
April 13, 1987 (52 FR 11819).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
37 OAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
(22) State statutes and regulations provide the authority to obtain criminal
penalties for violations of the waste fuel and used oil fuel requirements, as
provided in 40 CFR 266.40-45.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3006(h), 3008(d), 3014; 40 CFR 271.16.
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(23) State statutes and regulations require compliance with closure/post-closure
and financial responsibility requirements applicable to owners and operators
of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities, as indicated in
Revision Checklists 24, 36, and 45 and included in Consolidated Checklists
C5 and C6.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 as amended May -
2, 1986 (51 FR 16422), March 19, 1987 (52 FR 8704), and December 10, 1987 (52 FR •
46946).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(24) fOPTIONAL; This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow qualified companies that treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste to
use a corporate guarantee to satisfy liability assurance requirements as
indicated in Revision Checklists 27 and 43 and included in Consolidated
Checklists C5 and C6.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3004, and 3005; 40 CFR 264.147, 264.151, and
265.147 as amended July 11, 1986 (51 FR 25350) and November 18, 1987 (52 FR
44314).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(25) State statutes and regulations require owners/operators of facilities that
generate, treat or store hazardous waste in tank systems to comply with tank
system standards equivalent to those indicated in Revision Checklists 28 and
52 and included in Consolidated Checklists C5 and C6.
38 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002, 3001-3007, 3010, 3014, 3017-3019 and 7004; 40
CFR Parts 264 and 265 as amended July 14, 1986 (51 FR 25422), August 15, 1986 (51
FR 29430), and September 2, 1988 (53 FR 34079).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(26) State statutes and regulations require facilities who generate waste to provide
information in their biennial reports regarding efforts taken to minimize the
amount and toxicity of wastes and the results of such efforts as specified in
40 CFR 264.75(h)-(j) and 265.75(h)-(j). These requirements are indicated in
Revision Checklist 30 and included in Consolidated Checklists C5 and C6,
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004; 40 CFR 264.75 and 265.75 as amended August 8, 1986
(51 FR 28556).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(27) State statutes and regulations provide hazardous waste facility requirements
regarding land disposal restrictions as indicated in Revision Checklists 34, 39,
50, 66, and 78 and included in Consolidated Checklists C5, C6 and C7.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Parts 264, 265 and 266 as
amended on November 7, 1986 {51 FR 40572), June 4, 1987 (52 FR 21010), July 8, 1987
(52 FR 25760), August 17, 1988 (53 FR 31138), September 6, 1989 (54 FR 36967), and
June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22520).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(28) State statutes and regulations provide that with regard to ground-water
monitoring, all land based hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities analyze for a specified core list (Part 264, Appendix IX) of chemicals
plus those chemicals specified by the Regional Administrator on a site-
specific basis as indicated in Revision Checklist 40 and included in
Consolidated Checklists C5 and C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002(a), 3001, 3004, and 3005; 40 CFR Parts 264.98,
264.99 and Appendix IX of Part 264, and 270.14 as amended July 9, 1987 (52 FR 25942).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
39 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
(29) State statutes and regulations require that owners and operators of
hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (including permit-
by-rule facilities subject to 264,101) institute corrective action beyond the
facility boundary to protect human health and the environment, unless the
owner/operator is denied access to adjacent lands despite the
owner/operator's best efforts, as indicated in Revision Checklist 44 B and
included in Consolidated Checklist C5.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(v); 40 CFR 264.100(e) and 264.101 (c) as amended
December 1, 1987 (52 FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(30) State statutes and regulations do not exempt underground injection wells
from interim status requirements if the only permit issued for these wells was
a permit issued under either the Safe Drinking Water Act or the Underground
Injection Control Program, as indicated in Revision Checklist 44 C and - \
included in Consolidated Checklist C9,
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 265.1(c)(2) as amended December 1, 1987 .
(52 FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(31) State statutes and regulations require that the following be recorded, as it
becomes available, and maintained in the operating record until facility
closure, as indicated in Revision Checklist 45: monitoring, testing or analytical
data and corrective action where required by Subpart F and §§264.226,
264.253, 264.254, 264.276, 264.278, 264.280, 264.303, 264.309, 264.347,
and 264.602. These requirements are also included in Consolidated
Checklist C5.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 264.73(b) as amended December 10,
1987 (52 FR 46946).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(32) State statutes and regulations require that miscellaneous units comply with
Subpart F regulations regarding releases from solid waste management units
when necessary to comply with §264.601 through 264.603 as indicated in
Revision Checklist 45 and included in Consolidated Checklist C5.
40 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14'
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 264.90(d) as amended December 10, 1987
(52 FR 46946).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(33) State statutes and regulations require environmental performance standards;
monitoring, testing, analytical data, inspection, response and reporting
procedures; and post-closure care for miscellaneous units as indicated in
Revision Checklist 45 and included in Consolidated Checklist C5.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 264.600, 264.601, 264.602, and
264.603 as amended December 10, 1987 (52 FR 46946).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(34) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
include changes to facility requirements regarding permit modifications relative
to the requirements specified in 264.54, 264.112(c), 264.118(a), 265.112(c)
and 265.118(d) as indicated in Revision Checklist 54 and included in
Consolidated Checklists C5 and C6.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004, 3005; 40 CFR 264.54, 264.112(c), 264.118(d),
265.112(c) and 265.118(d) as amended September 28, 1988 (53 FR 37912).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(35) State statutes and regulations specify statistical methods, sampling
procedures, and performance standards that can be used in groundwater
monitoring procedures to detect groundwater contamination at permitted
hazardous waste facilities as indicated in Revision Checklist 55 and included
in Consolidated Checklist C5.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002(a), 3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 264.91, 264.92,
264.97, 264.98 and 264.99 as amended October 11, 1988 (53 FR 39720).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
41 OAQCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
(36) State statutes and regulations allow direct action by third parties against the
insurer or guarantor of an owner/operator's financial responsibilities if an
owner/operator is in bankruptcy reorganization or arrangement or where (with
reasonable diligence) jurisdiction in any State or Federal Court cannot be
obtained over an owner/operator likely to be solvent at time of judgment.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(t).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(37) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow owners and operators of landfills, surface impoundments, or land
treatment units, under limited circumstances, to remain open after the final
receipt of hazardous wastes in order to receive non-hazardous wastes in that
unit as indicated in Revision Checklist 64 and included in Consolidated
Checklists C5 and C6.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006,.2002(a), 3004, 3005, and 3006; 40 CFR 264.13, ' •
264.112, 264.113, 264.142, 265.13, 265.112, 265.113, and 265.142 as amended August •
14, 1989 (54 FR 33376),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(38) State statutes and regulations provide hazardous waste facility requirements
regarding the Toxicity Characteristics provisions as indicated in Revision
Checklist 74 and included in Consolidated Checklists C5 and C6,
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004, 3005; 40 CFR 264.301, 265.221, and 265.273 as
amended March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11798).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(39) State statutes and regulations require new and existing hazardous waste
treatment, storage or disposal facilities to control organic air emissions from
process vents and equipment leaks as indicated in Revision Checklist 79 and
included in Consolidated Checklists C5 and C6.
42 OAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002, 3004, 3005, 3010, 3014, and 7004; 40 CFR Parts
264 and 265 as amended June 21, 1990 (55 FR 25454),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
VI. LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002(a), 3001, 3004
A. State statutes and regulations restrict the land disposal of hazardous wastes
as specified in 40 CFR Part 268 and indicated in Consolidated Checklist C8 which includes
the provisions of Revision Checklists 34, 39, 50, 62, 63, 66, 74, and 78.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Part 268 as amended November
7, 1986 (51 FR 40572), June 4, 1987 (52 FR 21010), July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25760), October
27, 1987 (52 FR 41295), August 17, 1988 (53 FR 31138), February 27, 1989 (54 FR
8264), May 2, 1989 (54 FR 18836), June 23, 1989 (54 FR 26594), September 6, 1989 (54.
FR 36967), June 13, 1990 (55 FR 23935), March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11798), and June 1, " '
1990 (55 FR 22520).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. Specific provisions affecting 40 CFR Part 268 which are included in State
statutes and regulations are listed below:
(1) State statutes and regulations provide for the restrictions of the land disposal
of certain spent solvents and dioxin-containing hazardous wastes as indicated
in Revision Checklists 34, 39 and 50 and included in Consolidated Checklist
C8.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Part 268 as amended on
November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572), June 4, 1987 (52 FR 21010), July 8, 1987 (52 FR
25760), and August 17, 1988 (53 FR 31138).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(2) State statutes and regulations for restricting the disposal of certain California
list wastes, including liquid hazardous waste containing potychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) above specified concentrations, and hazardous waste
containing halogenated organic compounds (HOCs) above specified
43 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
> >*«'**
-------
SPA 9
concentrations as indicated in Revision Checklists 39, 50, and 66 and
included in Consolidated Checklist C8.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Part 268 as amended on July 8,
1987 (52 FR 25760), October 27, 1987 (52 FR 41295), and August 17, 1988 (53 FR
31138), and September 6, 1989 (54 FR 36967).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(3) State statutes and regulations for specific treatment standards and effective
dates for certain wastes from the "First Third" of the schedule of restricted
wastes listed in 40 CFR 268.10 as well as land disposal restrictions for those
First Third wastes for which a treatment standard is not established as
indicated in Revision Checklists 50, 62, and 66 and included in Consolidated
Checklist C8,
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004 (d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Part 268 as amended on August-
17, 1988 (53 FR 31138), February 27, 1989 (54 FR 8264) and May 2, 1989 (54 FR
18836), September 6, 1989 (54 FR 36967), and June 13, 1990 (55 FR 23935).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(4) State statutes and regulations for certain treatment standards and prohibition
effective dates for certain Second Third wastes and for imposing the "soft
hammer" provisions of 40 CFR 268.8 on Second Third wastes for which the
Agency is not establishing treatment standards as indicated in Revision
Checklist 63 and included in Consolidated Checklist C8.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Part 268 as amended June 23,
1989 (54 FR 26594).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(5) State statutes and standards for treatment standards and effective dates for
certain First Third "soft hammer" wastes* as well as for certain wastes
"Soft hammer" wastes are those wastes for which EPA did not promulgate treatment
standards by their respective effective dates. These wastes could continue to be
disposed of in a landfill or surface impoundment until May 8, 1990 if certain
demonstrations were made and the technology requirements of RCRA §3004(o)
were met. Other types of land disposal (e.g., underground injection) were not
44 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
QSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
originally contained in the Third Third of the Schedule as indicated in
Revision Checklist 63 and included in Consolidated Checklist C8.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Part 268 as amended June 23,
1989 (54 FR 26594).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(6) State statutes and regulations provide specific treatment standards and
effective dates for the "Third Third" wastes, "soft hammer" First and Second
Third wastes4, five newly listed wastes, four wastes that fall into the F002
and FOQ5 (spent solvent) waste codes, F025, mixed radioactive/hazardous
wastes, characteristic wastes, and multi-source leachate, as well as establish
revised treatment standards for petroieum refining hazardous wastes (K048-
K052) as indicated in Revision Checklist 78 and Consolidated Checklist C8.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001 and 3004 (d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR 268 as amended June
1, 1990 (55 FR 22520).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(7) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
provide for alternate treatment standards for lab packs meeting certain cn'teria
as indicated in Revision Checklist 78 and Consolidated Checklist C8,
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR 264.316(f), 265.316(f), 268.7(a)(7),
268.7(a)(8), 268.42(c), 268.42(c)(1)-(4), and 268 Appendices IV and V, as amended June 1,
1990 (55 FR 22520).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
VII. REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3005, 7004; 40 CFR 271.13 and 271.14 as amended April i,
1983 (48 FR 14146), June 30, 1983 (48 FR 30113), and September 22, 1986 (51 FR
33712).
similarly restricted. On May 6, 1990, wastes for which EPA had not established
treatment standards became prohibited from all types of land disposal. This latter
requirement is referered to as the "hard hammer" provision and ended the soft
hammer provisions which were in effect prior to May 6, 1990.
45 DAQCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
A. State statutes and regulations provide permit requirements consistent with the
specifications of 271.13 and 271.14 as indicated in Consolidated Checklist C9 {formerly
Checklist V) which includes the amendments of Revision Checklists 1, 2, 6, 11, 14, 17 D,
17 F, 17 L, 17 M, 17 N, 17 O, 17 P, 17 Q, 17 S, 23, 24, 28, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 44 A, 44
C, 44 D, 44 E, 44 F, 44 G, 45, 48, 52, 54, 59, 60, 61, 64, 70, 78, and 79.
[Where there are no State regulations covering one or more of the procedural requirements
designated in Consolidated Checklist C9, and the State has agreed in the MOA to follow
equivalent requirements, the Attorney General's Statement must provide a discussion of the
State's authority (1) to enter into such an agreement and (2) to carry out the agreement.
This discussion should include an explanation of why (under any State administrative
procedure act) the particular requirements the State has agreed to follow in the issuance of
all hazardous waste permits need not be in the form of rules. Also, States need not use a
two-part permit application process. The State application process must, however, require
Information in sufficient detail to satisfy the requirements of §§270.13 through 270.29.]
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3005, 7004; 40 CFR Parts 124 and 270 as amended January
28, 1983 (48 FR 3977), April 1, 1983 (48 FR 14146), June 30, 1983 (48 FR 30113),
September 1, 1983 (48 FR 39611), April 24, 1984 (49 FR 17716), December 4, 1984 (49 •
FR 47390), January 14, 1985 (50 FR 1978), July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702), March 24, 1986*
(51 FR 10146), May 2, 1986 (51 FR 16422), July 14, 1986 (51 FR 25422), August 15, "
1986 (51 FR 29430), November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572), March 16, 1987 (52 FR 8072),
June 22, 1987 (52 FR 23447), September 9, 1987 (52 FR 33936), July 8, 1987 (52 FR
25760), July 9, 1987 (52 FR 25942), December 1, 1987 (52 FR 45788), December 10,
1987 (52 FR 46946), July 19, 1988 (53 FR 27164), July 26, 1988 (53 FR 28118),
September 2, 1988 (53 FR 34079), September 26, 1988 (53 FR 37396), September 28,
1988 (53 FR 37912), October 24, 1988 (53 FR 41649), January 4, 1989 (54 FR 246),
January 9, 1989 (54 FR 615), January 30, 1989 (54 FR 4286), March 7, 1989 (54 FR
9596), August 14, 1989 (54 FR 33376), June 1, 1990 (55 IFR 22520), and June 21, 1990
(55 FR 25454).
B. Specific provisions amending 40 CFR Parts 124 and 270 since January 1,
1983 that are included in State statutes and requirements as indicated below. Also
included are requirements for surface impoundments regarding RCRA 3005(j)(6)(A),
3005(j)(2)-(9) and 3005(j)(11). These latter requirements are not covered by a checklist.
(1) State statutes and regulations requiring 1) the Director to prepare on a
biennial basis summary information on the quantities and types of hazardous
waste generated, transported, treated, stored and disposed during the
preceding odd numbered year, and 2) that the biennial report must be
submitted as specified in the permit and must cover facility activities during
odd-numbered calendar years. These requirements are indicated in Revision
Checklist 1 and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3002, 3004; 40 CFR 270.5 and 270.30 as amended January
28, 1983 (48 FR 3977).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
46 DAOCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
(2) State statutes and regulations require the permittee to take steps to minimize
releases to the environment in accordance with 40 CFR Part 270.30(d) as
indicated in Revision Checklist 2 and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c); 40 CFR Part 270 as amended September 1, 1983 (48
f_R 39611),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(3) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement,] Facility owners or operators
are given the opportunity to cure deficient Part A applications in accordance
with 40 CFR 270.70(b) before failing to qualify for interim status as indicated
in Revision Checklist 6 and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005; 40 CFR Part 270 as amended April 24, 1984 (49 FR •
17716).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(4) State statutes and regulations incorporating corrections to the EPA manual
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods" as
indicated by Revision Checklists 11 and 35 and included in Consolidated
Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3001; 40 CFR 270.6{a) as amended December 4, 1984
(49 FR 47390) and March 16, 1987 (52 FR 8072).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(5) State statutes and regulations require special permitting standards for
facilities managing dioxin wastes as indicated in Revision Checklist 14 and
included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001, 3005; 40 CFR 270.14, 270.16, 270.18, and 270.21 as
amended January 14, 1985 (50 FR 1978),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
47 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
(6) State statutes and regulations 1) address record retention, 2) treat as having
interim status those existing facilities that become subject to RCRA due to a
statutory or regulatory change, and 3) restrict interim status from any facilities
previously denied a hazardous waste permit or that had their authority to
operate a facility under RCRA terminated as indicated in Revision Checklist
17 D and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005; 40 CFR 270.30Q')(2) and 270.70(a) & (c) as amended
July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(7) State statutes and regulations require that if bulk or non-containerized waste
or wastes containing free liquids is to be landfllled prior to May 8, 1985, an
explanation of how the requirements of 264.314(a) will be complied with will .
be submitted with the Part B information as indicated in Revision Checklist. ;
17 F and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004, 3005; 40 CFR 270.21 (h) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(8) State statutes and regulations require that in regard to permits by rules UIC
and NPDES permits issued after November 8, 1984, must comply with the
requirements specified in 264.101 as specified in Revision Checklist 17 L and
included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004; 40 CFR 270.60 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(9) fOPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow a facility (1) to construct an approved TSCA facility for burning PCBs
without first obtaining a RCRA permit and (2) to subsequently apply for a
RCRA permit in accordance with Revision Checklist 17 M and included in
Consolidated Checklist C9.
48 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(a); 40 CFR 270.10{f)(3) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment ...and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(10) State statutes and regulations require review of land disposal permits every
five years and modification of such permits as necessary to assure
compliance with the requirements in Parts 124, 260 through 266, and 270, as
indicated in Revision Checklist 17 N and included in Consolidated Checklist
C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c)(3); 40 CFR 270.41, 270.50 as amended July 15, 1985
(50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(11) State statutes and regulations require permits to contain any conditions
necessary to protect human health and the environment in addition to any
conditions required by regulations as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 O
and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c)(3); 40 CFR 270.32(b) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(12) State statutes and regulations require that:
(a) For land disposal facilities granted interim status prior to 11/8/84,
interim status terminates 11/8/85 unless a Part B application and
certification of compliance with applicable groundwater monitoring and
financial responsibility requirements are submitted by 11/8/85, as
indicated in Revision Checklist 17 P and included in Consolidated
Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(e); 40 CFR 270.73(c) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
49 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
(b) For land disposal facilities in existence on the effective date of
statutory or regulatory changes under this Act that render the facility
subject to the requirement to have a permit and which is granted
interim status, interim status terminates 12 months after the date the
facility first becomes subject to such permit requirement unless a Part
B application and certification of compliance with applicable
groundwater monitoring and financial responsibility requirements are
submitted by that date as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 P and
included in Consolidated Checklist C9,
Federal Authority; RCRA §3005(e); 40 CFR 270.73(d) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Pate of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(c) Interim status terminates for incinerator facilities by 11/8/89 unless the.
owner/operator submits a Part B application by 11/8/86 as indicated, in
Revision Checklist 17 P and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c)(2)(C); 40 CFR 270.73(e) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(d) Interim status terminates for any facility other than a land disposal or
an incineration facility by 11/8/92 unless the owner/operator submits a
Part B application by 11/8/88 as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 P
and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c)(2)(C); 40 CFR 270.73(f) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(13) (OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow facilities to qualify for interim status if they (1) are in existence on the
effective date of statutory or regulatory changes that render the facility
subject to the requirement to have a permit and (2) comply with §270.70(a)
as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 P and included in Consolidated
Checklist C9,
50 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(e); 40 CFR 270.70(a) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(14) State statutes and regulations provide that facilities may not qualify for
interim status under the State's analogue to Section 3005(e) if they were
previously denied a Section 3005(c) permit or if authority to operate the
facility has been terminated as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 P and
Consolidated Checklist C9. (Also see Subsection VII B6.)
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c)(3); 40 CFR 270.70(c) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(15) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow the issuance of a one-year research, development, and demonstration
permit (renewable 3 times) for any hazardous waste treatment facility which
proposes an innovative and experimental hazardous waste treatment
technology or process not yet regulated as indicated in Revision Checklist
17 Q and included in Consolidated Checklist C9. If adopted, however, the
State must require the facility to meet RCRA's financial responsibility and
public participation requirements and retain authority to terminate
experimental activity if necessary to protect health or the environment.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(g); 40 CFR 270.65 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702)
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(16) State statutes and regulations require:
(a) Surface impoundments in existence on November 8, 1984 [or
subsequently becoming subject to RCRA pursuant to §3005(j)(6)(A) or
(B)] to comply with the double liner, leachate collection, and
groundwater monitoring requirements applicable to new units by
November 8, 1988 [or the date specified in §3005(j)(6)(A) or (B)] or to
stop treating, receiving, or storing hazardous waste, unless the surface
impoundment qualifies for a special exemption under §3005(j).
51 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
'* t> /$•
-------
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(j)(6)(A).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(b) Surface impoundments to comply with the double liner, leachate
collection and ground-water monitoring requirements if the Agency
allows a hazardous waste prohibited from land disposal under
§3004(d), (e) or (g) to be placed in such impoundments.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(j)(11).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(c) fOPTlQNAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and
regulations may allow variances from the above requirements as .' *
provided in RCRA §3005(j)(2-9) and (13). However, the availability -
of such variances must be restricted as provided in RCRA §3005(j).
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(j)(2-9).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(17) State statutes and regulations require permit applicants for landfills or surface
impoundments to submit exposure information as indicated In Revision
Checklist 17 S and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3019(a); 40 CFR 270.10(j) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws andRegulations; Pate of. Enactment and .Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(18) State statutes and regulations require that generators, generating greater than
100 kg but less than 1000 kg of hazardous waste in a calendar month, who
treat, store or dispose of these wastes on-site must submit their Part A
application no later than March 24, 1987, as indicated in Revision Checklist
23 and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
52 DAGCON9.9 - 12'16/91
-------
OSWER DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (d); 40 CFR Part 270 as amended March 24, 1986 (51 F_R
10146).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(19) State statutes and regulations require the following as indicated in Revision
Checklist 24 and included in Consolidated Checklist C9. (Also see
Subsection VII B{35) and (36).)
(a) Documentation in the Part B application that the notice in the deed
required under §264,119 has been filed for facilities with hazardous
waste disposal units closed prior to the submission of the application.
(b) Demonstration of financial assurance must be included with the
submission of the Part B application, or at least 60 days prior to the
initial receipt of hazardous waste, whichever is later.
- »
(c) When there is a change in ownership or control of a facility, the new
owner or operator must demonstrate financial assurance within six
months of the ownership transfer. The old owner or operator is
responsible for financial assurance obligations if the new owner or
operator fails to meet his obligations.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005; 40 CFR 270.14(b)(14), (15) & (16), 270.42(d) and
270.72(a)(4) as amended May 2, 1986 (51 FR 16422),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(20) State statutes and regulations require general and specific Part B information
requirements as indicated in Revision Checklist 28 and included in
Consolidated Checklist C9, Additionally, as indicated in these checklists,
changes, made solely to comply with 265.193 for tanks and containers during
interim status, do not constitute reconstruction as specified in 270.72(e).
(Also see Subsection VII B (35) and (36)).
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005; 40 CFR 270.14, 270.16 and 270,72 as amended July 14,
1986 (51 FR 25422) and August 15, 1986 (51 FR 29430).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(21) State statutes and regulations make the following requirements: 1) a copy of
the notice of approval must be submitted in the Part B application for
53 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
disposal facilities subject to a case-by-case extension under 268.5 or a
petition has been approved under 268.6, and 2) allow, as a minor permit
modification, treatment of hazardous wastes not previously specified in the
permit under four specified situations. These requirements are indicated in
Revision Checklist 34 and Included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Part 270 as amended November
7, 1986 (51 FR 40572).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(22) State statutes and regulations provide for additional information and
engineering feasibility plan requirements regarding groundwater contamination
detected at the time of Part B permit application as indicated in Checklist 38
and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004, 3005; 40 CFR 270.14 as amended June 22, 1987 (52
FR 23447) and September 9, 1987 (52 FR 33936). . ;
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General -
(23) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow owners or operators to use the minor modification process for changes
made to treat or store restricted wastes in tanks or containers to comply with
the 40 CFR Part 268 land disposal restrictions provided the requirements of
270.42(0) and (p) are met as indicated in Revision Checklist 39 and included
in Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR 270,42(o) & (p) as amended July
8, 1987 (52 FR 25760).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(24) State statutes and regulations provide for changes during interim status to
treat or store in containers or tanks hazardous waste subject to land disposal
restrictions when specified conditions are met as indicated in Revision
Checklist 39 and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
54 DAQCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR 270.72(e) as amended July 8,
1987 (52 FR 25760).
Citation of Lawsand Reputations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(25) State statutes and regulations require owners and operators of facilities
seeking permits to provide descriptive information on the solid waste
management units and all available information pertaining to any releases
from the units as indicated in Revision Checklist 44 A and included in
Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 270.14 as amended December 1, 1987 (52
FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date ...of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(26) State statutes and regulations require UIC facility owners/operators to submit
information related to corrective action with their UIC applications as indicated
in Revision Checklist 44 C and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §30Q4(u); 40 CFR 270.60(b)(3) as amended December 1, 1987
(52 FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(27) State statutes and regulations allow the permit granting agency to initiate
modifications to a permit without first receiving a request from the permittee,
in cases where statutory changes or new or amended regulatory standards
or judicial decisions affect the basis of the permit as indicated in Revision
Checklists 44 D and 54 and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c); 40 CFR 270.41 (a)(3) as amended December 1, 1987
(52 FR 45788) and September 28, 1988 (53 FR 37912).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(28) State statutes and regulations require that permittees .must comply with new
requirements imposed by the land disposal restrictions promulgated under
55 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
Part 268 even when there are contrary permit conditions, as indicated in
Revision Checklist 44 E and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3006(g); 40 CFR 270.4(a) as amended December 1, 1987 (52
EB 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(29) State statutes and regulations require information from permit applicants
concerning permit conditions necessary to protect human health and the
environment as indicated in Revision Checklist 44 F and included in
Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(e); 40 CFR 270.10(k) as amended December 1, 1987 (52
FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption . ;
Remarks of the Attorney General
(30) State statutes and regulations require post-closure permits for all landfills,
surface impoundments, waste piles and land treatment units receiving
hazardous waste after July 26, 1982, unless closure by removal as provided
under 270.1(c)(5) and (6) can be demonstrated as indicated in Revision
Checklist 44 G and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(i); 40 CFR 270.1 (c) as amended December 1, 1987 (52
FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(31) State statutes and regulations require that all owners and operators of units
that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste in miscellaneous units must
comply with the general application requirements (including Part A permit
requirements), the Part B general application requirements of §270.14, and
specific Part B information requirements for miscellaneous units as indicated
in Revision Checklists 45 and 59 and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 264.600, 270.14 and 270.23 as
amended December 10, 1987 (52 FR 46946) and January 9, 1989 (54 FR 615).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
56 DAGCON99 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
(32) State statutes and regulations incorporate the revisions to the definition of
"elementary neutralization unit" and "wastewater treatment unit" as indicated
in Revision Checklist 52 and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005; 40 CFR 270.2 as amended September 2, 1988 (53 FR
34079).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date, .of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(33) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
provide owners and operators more flexibility to change specified permit
conditions, to expand public notification and participation opportunities, and to
allow for expedited approval if no public concern exists for a proposed permit
modification. Owner/operator requested permit modifications are categorized
into three classes with administrative procedures for approving modifications \
established in each class. These changes are as indicated in Revision
Checklists 54 and 78 and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005, and 3006; 40 CFR Parts 124 and 270 as
amended September 28, 1988 (53 FR 37912), October 24, 1988 (53 FR 41649), and June
1, 1990 (55 FR 22520).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(34) State statutes and regulations require that existing incinerator facilities must
either conduct a trial bum or submit other information as specified in
270.19(a) or (c) before a permit can be issued for that facility as indicated in
Revision Checklist 60 and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005; 40 CFR Part 270 as amended January 30, 1989 [54 FR
4286).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(35) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow greater flexibility to interim status facilities to make changes during
interim status following Director approval, as indicated in Revision Checklist
61 and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
57 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005, 3006; 40 CFR 270.72 as amended
March 7, 1989 (54 FR 9596).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(36) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
lift the reconstruction limit for changes to certain interim status units 1)
necessary to comply with Federal, State, or local requirements, 2) necessary
to allow continued handling of newly listed or identified hazardous waste, 3)
made in accordance with an approved closure plan, and 4) made pursuant to
a corrective action order as indicated in Revision Checklist 61 and included
in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005, and 3006; 40 CFR 270.72 as amended
March 7, 1989 (54 FR 9596).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(37) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
provide that a permit can be denied for the active life of a facility while a
decision on post-closure permitting is pending as indicated in Revision
Checklist 61 and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005, and 3006; 40 CFR 124.1, 124.15,
124.19, 270.1, 270.10 and 270.29 as amended March 7, 1989 (54 FR 9596),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(38) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
classify as Class 1 certain permit modifications requested by the
owner/operator necessary to enable permitted facilities to comply with the
land disposal restrictions as indicated In Revision Checklist 61 and included
in Consolidated Checklist C9. Specifically these modifications include 1)
adding restricted wastes treated to meet applicable 40 CFR Part 268
treatment standards or adding residues from treating "soft hammer" wastes,
2) adding certain wastewater treatment residues and incinerator ash, 3)
adding new wastes for treatment in tanks or containers under certain limited
conditions, and 4) adding new treatment processes that are necessary to
treat restricted wastes to meet treatment standards as long as the treatment
processes are to take place in tanks or containers.
58 DAQCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER MR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a)» 3004, 3005 and 3006; 40 CFR 270.42 as amended
March 7, 1989 (54 FR 9596).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(39) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
include in the Permit Modification List as a Class 2 modification the
extension of the closure period to allow a landfill, surface impoundment or
land treatment unit to receive nonhazardous wastes after final receipt of
hazardous wastes as indicated in Revision Checklist 64 and included in
Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005; 40 CFR 270.42, Appendix I as amended August 14, 1989
(54 FR 33376).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(40) State statutes and regulations incorporate updates to 40 CFR Part 124 as
indicated in Revision Checklist 70 and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§6901 and 6902; 40 CFR 124.3, 124.5, 124.6, 124.10 and
124.12 as amended April 1, 1983 (48 FR 14146), June 30, 1983 (48 FJR 30113), July 26,
1988 (53 FR 28118), September 26, 1988 (53 FR 37396), and January 4, 1989 (54 FR
246).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(41) State statutes and regulations include changes to the Permit Modification List
necessitated by the Third Third Land Disposal Restrictions as indicated in
Revision Checklist 78 and included in Consolidated Checklist C9.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004(d)-(k) and (m) and 3005; 40 CFR 270.42, Appendix I as
amended June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22520).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(42) State statutes and regulations provide for Part B general content
requirements and specific Part B information requirements for process vents
59 DAGCON9.9 - 12*16/91
-------
SPA 9
and equipment as indicated in Revision Checklist 79 and included in
Consolidated Checklist C9,
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005; 40 CFR 270.14{b), 270.24, and 270.25 as amended June
21, 1990 (55 FR 25454).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
VIH. INSPECTIONS
State law provides authority for officers engaged in compliance evaluation activities to enter
any conveyance, vehicle, facility or premises subject to regulation or in which records
relevant to program operation are kept in order to inspect, monitor, or otherwise investigate
compliance with the State program including compliance with permit terms and conditions
and other program requirements. (States whose law requires a search warrant prior to
entry conform with this requirement.)
Federal Authority: RCRA §3007; 40 CFR 271.15.
Citation of laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
I*- ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES
State statutes and regulations provide the following:
A. Authority to restrain immediately by order or by suit in State court any person
from engaging in any unauthorized activity which is endangering or causing damage to
public health or the environment.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3006; 40 CFR 271.16(a)(1).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. Authority to sue in courts of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threatened
or continuing violation of any program requirement, including permit conditions, without the
necessity of a prior revocation of the permit.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3006; 40 CFR 271.16(a)(2).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Pate of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
60 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
DIR. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
C. Authority to assess or sue to recover in court civil penalties in at least the
amount of $10,000 per day for any program violation.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3006; 40 CFR 271.16(a)(3)(l).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
D. Authority to obtain criminal penalties in at least the amount of $10,000 per
day for each violation, and imprisonment for at least six months against any person who
knowingly transports any hazardous waste to an unpermitted facility; who treats, stores, or
disposes of hazardous waste without a permit; or who makes any false statement or
representation in any application, label, manifest, record, report, permit, or other document
filed, maintained, or used for the purposes of program compliance.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3006; 40 CFR 271.16(a)(3)(ii). . ;
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption ;
Remarks of the Attorney General
X- PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
State laws and regulations provide for public participation in the State enforcement
process by providing either:
A. Authority to allow intervention as of right in any civil or administrative action
to obtain the remedies specified in Section VII A, B and C above by any citizen having an
interest which is or may be adversely affected; or
B. Assurances that the State agency or enforcement authority will:
(1) Investigate and provide written response to all citizen complaints duly
submitted;
(2) Not oppose intervention by any citizen where permissive intervention may be
authorized by statute, rule, or regulations; and
(3) Publish and provide at least 30 days for public comment on any proposed
settlement of a State enforcement action.
Federal Authority: RCRA §7004; 40 CFR 271.16(d).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
61 DAGCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
SPA 9
XL AUTHORITY TO SHARE INFORMATION WITH EPA
State statutes and regulations provide authority for any information obtained or used
in the administration of the State program to be available to EPA upon request without
restriction.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3007(b); 40 CFR 271.17.
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XII. AUTHORITY OVER INDIAN LANDS
[Where a State seeks authority over Indian lands, appropriate analysis of the State's
authority should be included here.]
Federal Authority: 40 CFR 271.7(b).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XIH. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTS
A. State laws and regulations allow the State to make assessment information
available to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (See CERCLA
§104(1).]
Federal Authority: RCRA §3019(b).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XIV. RADIOACTIVE MIXED WASTES
A. State statutes and regulations define solid wastes to include the hazardous
components of radioactive mixed wastes, July 3, 1986 [51 FR 24504], See State Program
Advisory (SPA) #2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1004(27) and 3001 (b).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
62 DAQCON9.9 - 12/16/91
-------
OSWER DIE. NO. 9541.00-14
SPA 9
XV. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
A. State statutes and regulations provide that:
(1) AH records shall be available to the public unless they are exempt from the
disclosure requirements of the Federal FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552;
(2) All nonexempt records will be available to the public upon request regardless
of whether any justification or need for such records has been shown by the
requestor;
(3) The same types of records would be available to the public from the State
as would be available from EPA. [In making this certification, the Attorney
General should be aware of the types of documents EPA generally releases
under the FOIA, subject to claims of business confidentiality: permit
applications; biennial reports from facilities; closure plans; notification of a
facility closure; contingency plan incident reports; delisting petitions; financial
responsibility instruments; ground-water monitoring data (note that exemptions
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(9) of the FOIA applies to such wells as oil and gas, rather *
than to ground-water wells); transporter spill reports; international shipment-
reports; manifest exception, discrepancy and unmanifested waste reports;
facility EPA identification numbers; withdrawal requests; enforcement orders; "
and inspection reports); and,
(4) Information is provided to the public in substantially the same manner as
EPA as indicated in 40 CFR Part 2 and the Revision Checklist in Appendix
N of the State Authorization Manual. fOPTIONAL: Where the State agrees
to implement selected provisions through the use of a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) the Attorney General must certify that: "The State has the
authority to enter into and carry out the MOA provisions and there are no"- -
State statutes (e.g., State Administrative Procedures Acts) which require
notice and comment or promulgation of regulations for the MOA procedures
to be binding.]
(5) [OPTIONAL: The State statutes and regulations protect Confidential
Business Information (CBI) to the same degree as indicated in 40 CFR 2
and the Revision Checklist in Appendix N of the State Authorization Manual.
Note that States do not have to protect CBI to satisfy 3006(f). However, if a
State does extend protection to CBI, then it cannot restrict the release of
information that EPA would require to be disclosed.]
Federal Authority: RCRA §3006(f); 40 CFR §271.17{c),
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
63 DAGCON9.9 - 12M6/91
-------
r, ^ V
SPA 9
XVI. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA)
[If the State uses the MOA to satisfy Federal procedural requirements, the Attorney
General must certify the following;
(1) The State has the authority to enter into the agreement,
(2) The State has the authority to carry out the agreement, and
(3) No applicable State statute (including the State Administrative Procedure Act)
requires that the procedure be promulgated as a rule in order to be binding.]
Seal of Office
Signature
Name (Type or Print)
Title
Date
64 OAGCON99 - 12/16/91
-------
Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
This report was printed specifically for your
order from our collection of more than 2 million
technical reports.
O O
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Your copy is the best possible reproduction available from
our master archive. If you have any questions concerning this document
or any order you placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Services
Department at (703)487-4660.
Always think of NTIS when you want:
• Access to the technical, scientific, and engineering results generated
by the ongoing multibiliion dollar R&D program of the U.S. Government.
• R&D results from Japan, West Germany, Great Britain, and some 20
other countries, most of it reported in English.
NTIS also operates two centers that can provide you with valuable
information:
• The Federal Computer Products Center - offers software and
datafiles produced by Federal agencies.
• The Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology - gives you
access to the best of Federal technologies and laboratory resources.
For more information about NTIS, send for our FREE NTIS Products
and Services Catalog which describes how you can access this U.S. and
foreign Government technology. Call (703)487-4650 or send this
sheet to NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161,
Ask for catalog, PR-827.
Name?
Telephone
- Your Source to U.S. and Foreign Government
Research and Technology.
-------
-------
-------
------- |