This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48092 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules Ii

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 20460.Place the Docket Number F-92- d. Request for Data AGENCY CS2P-FFFFF on your comments. The 3. Universal Standards for Cyanide RCRA Docket is located in room 2616 at a. Wastewaters 40 CFR Parts 148i 260, 261,268 and b. Nonwastewaters the above address, and is open from 9 4. Universal Standards for Petroleum 271 am to 4 pm Monday through Friday, Refining except for Federal holidays. The public [EPA #530-7-03-011, FRL-4725-61 5. Universal Standards Will Not Apply to must make an appointment to review F024 RIN 2050-AD37 docket materials by calling (202) 260- B. Incorporation of Newly Listed Wastes 9327. The public may copy a maximum into Lab Packs and Proposed Changes to Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly of 100 pages from any regulatory Appendices C. Proposed Changes in the LDR Program Identified and Listed Hazardous document at no cost. Additional copies Wastes and Hazardous Soil In Response to the LDR Roundtable cost $.15 per page. 1. Background AGENCY: Environmental Protection FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OONTACT: For 2. Consolidated Treatment Table Agency (EPA). general information, contact the RCRA 3. Simplified LDR Notification Requirements ACTION: Proposed rule. Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll-free) or (703) 412-9810 locally. For technical 4. Demonstrating Acceptable Knowledge of SUMMARY: EPA is proposing treatment information on treatment standards, One's standards for the newly identified a. Background contact the Branch, b. What Constitutes Acceptable organic toxicity characteristic wastes Office of Solid Waste (OS-322W), U.S. Knowledge? (except those managed in Clean Water Environmental Protection Agency, 401 c. When Might Acceptable Knowledge be Act (CWA) systems, CWA-equivalent M Street, SW., Washington, DC. 20460, Used? systems, or Class I Safe Drinking Water (703)308-8434. For technical d. Why Provide Evidence to Support Act (SDWA) injection wells), and information on capacity analyses, Acceptable Knowledge? treatment standards for all newly listed contact the Capacity Branch, Office of e. How Can A TSDF Verify Data Supplied coke by-product and chlorotoluene by a Generator? Solid Waste (OS-321W), (703)308-8440. 5. Advance Notice of Possible Changes to production wastes that must be met For technical information on Hazardous the LDR Program Resulting from the LDR before these wastes are land disposed. Waste , contact the Regulation Roundtable EPA is also proposing to require Development Branch, Office of Solid a. Waste Code Carry Through ignitable characteristic wastes with a Waste (OS-332), (202)260-8551. b. Use of Health-Based Levels Versus Technology-Based Levels in Establishing high total organic carbon (TOC) content L Background and toxic characteristic pesticide Treatment Standards A. Summary of the Statutory Requirements c. Inconsistency of Standards wastes, that are being disposed in Class of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste I nonhazardous waste injection wells, to d. Capacity-Related Issues Amendments e. Generator Knowledge either be injected into a well that is B. Pollution Prevention Benefits f. Constituents subject to a no-migration determination, C. Relationship of Developing LDR . Detection Limits or be treated to meet the LDR treatment Treatment Standards to Levels Being Waste Analysis Plans (WAPs) standards prior to injection, These Considered in I. Paperwork treatment standards and the dilution Identification Rule j. Complexity of the Regulations II. Summary of Proposed Rule prohibitions for high TOC ignitables and IV. Treatment Standards for Toxicity A. Improvements to Existing LDR Program Characteristic Waste pesticides are being proposed in order B. Treatment Standards for Toxic to comply with a proposed consent A. The Third Third Court Decision, The •Characteristic Wastes Emergency Interim Final Rule, and Their decree with the Environmental Defense C. Prohibition of Dilution of High TO Applicability to TC Wastes Fund. This proposal also contains Ignitable and of TC Pesticide Wastes 1. Background alternative standards for soil Injected into Class I Deep Wells 2. Applicability of This Approach to TC contaminated with prohibited D. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed Wastes and Hazardous Soil Covered by hazardous wastes that will encourage Wastes This Proposed Rule use of noncombustion treatment E.Soil Contaminated with Hazardous 3. Future Response to Issues Remanded by Waste the Court technologies in treating hazardous soil. F. Compliance Monitoring and Notification In addition, EPA is proposing several 4. Request for Comment on Petition from G.Solicitation of Comment Regarding Chemical Manufacturer's Association revisions to previously promulgated Exclusion of Hazardous Debris Regarding Deep Well Injection of treatment standards and requirements in H. Modifications to Hazardous Waste Ignitable and Corrosive Characteristic order to simplify the implementation of Recycling Regulations Wastes the land disposal restriction rules, Ill. Improvements to the Existing Land B. Background including setting "universal treatment Disposal Restrictions Program 1. Legal and Policy Background standards". Finally, EPA is proposing to A. Proposed Universal Treatment 2. Background on Toxicity Characteristic modify the hazardous waste recycling Standards C. Treatment Standards for New TC regulations which will allow 1. Universal Standards for Organic Organic Constituents Hazardous Constituents 1. General Approach for Establishing streamlined regulatory decisions to be a. Nonwastewaters Concentration-based Treatment made regarding the regulation of certain b. Wastewaters Standards types of recycling activities. c. Comments on the-Advance Notice of a. Nonwastewaters DATES: Comments and data must be Proposed Rulemaking b. Wastewaters submitted on or before November 15, d. Other Revisions to Existing Treatment 2. Radioactive Mixed Waste 1993. Standards D. Treatment Standards for TC Pesticide 2. Universal Standards for Metal Wastes (D012-D017) ADDRESSES: The public must send an Hazardous Constituents 1. Newly Identified Pesticide original and two copies of their written a. Nonwastewaters Nonwastewaters comments to EPA RCRA Docket (OS- b. Wastewaters 2. Pesticide Wastewaters 305), U.S. Environmental Protection c. Comments on the Advance Notice of E. Proposed Exemptions for De Minimis Agency, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC Proposed Rulemaking Losses of TC Wastes and for TC

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48092 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48093

Laboratory Wastes Discharged to CWA c. Soil Contaminated With Newly Listed 1. Waste generation Wastewater Treatment and Identified Wastes Which Have a. Hazardous soil V. Deep Well Injection Issues Proposed Treatment Standards b. Hazardous debris A. Prohibition of Dilution of High TOC 2. RCRA Corrective Action 2. Current management practices Ignitable and of TC Pesticide Wastes 3. Voluntary RCRA Cleanups 3. Available capacity and capacity Injected into Class I Deep Wells 4. Phase I LDR Rule: Hazardous Debris' implications B. Request for Comment on Petition from 5. CERCLA as amended by SARA a. Hazardous soil Chemical Manufacturer's Association 6. Soil Contaminated by Underground b. Hazardous debris Regarding Deep Well Injection of Storage Tanks XIII. State Authority Ignitable and Corrosive Characteristic 7. Other Petroleum Contaminated Soil A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized Wastes 8. Radioactive Mixed Wastes States VI. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed a. Definition of Mixed Wastes b. RCRA Requirements B. Effect on State Authorization Wastes XIV. Regulatory Requirements A. Treatment Standards for Coke By- 9. Special Provisions for Soil Containing -Product Production Wastes Asbestos A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to 1. Proposed Treatment Standards H. Related EPA Activities on Contaminated Executive Order 12291 2. Potential Future Revisions to Treatment Media 1. Methodology Section Standards for Existing Coking Wastes 1. Contaminated Media Cluster a. Cost Methodology K087, K060, and K035 2. Weathered Sludges b. Economic Impact Methodology B. Treatment Standards for Chlorotoluenes 3. EPA Lead Strategy c. Benefits Methodology VII. Treatment Standards for Hazardous Soils 4. Bioremediation 2. Results Section A. Introduction VIII. Compliance Monitoring and Notification a. Cost Results B. Applicability, Regulatory Status of A. Compliance Monitoring b. Economic Impact Results Treated Soils, and Definitions B. LDR Notification c. Benefit Estimate 1. Applicability 1. Constituents To Be Included on the LDR 3. Regulatory Impact Analysis- 2. Regulatory Status of Treated Soils Notification Underground Injection Wastes 3. "Contained-in" Determinations 2. Management in Subtitle C-Regulated B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 4. Definitions Facilities C. Paperwork Reduction Act a. Hazardous Soil 3. Potential Management of Appendix A to the Preamble: Description of b. Constituents Subject to Treatment Decharacterized Wastes at a Subtitle D Hazardous Soil Treatment Technologies c. Illegal Contamination of Soil Facility and Performance Standards d. Nonanalyzable Constituents IX. Further Solicitation of Comment C. Proposed Approaches for Establishing Regarding Exclusion of Hazardous Debris I. Background that has been Treated by Immobilization Treatment Standards for Hazardous Soils A. Summary of the Statutory 1. Technology-Based Treatment Standards Technologies A. Background Requirements of the 1984 Hazardous for Hazardous Soils and Solid Waste Amendments a. Range of Standards With A "Ceiling" B. Roundtable Discussion One Order of Magnitude Above the C. EPA Investigations D. Conclusions The Hazardous and Solid Waste Universal Standard, Provided 90% X. Modifications Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Treatment Occurs to Hazardous Waste Recycling Regulations Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), b. Range of Standards With A "Ceiling" A. Introduction One Order of Magnitude Above the enacted on November 8, 1984, largely B. Modification of the Existing "Closed- prohibit the land disposal of untreated Universal Standard Loop" Recycling Exclusion and Related c. Achieving 90% Treatment With No hazardous wastes. Once a hazardous "Ceiling" Case-Specific Variance 1. Existing "Closed-Loop" Recycling waste is prohibited from land disposal, 2. Explanation of Numeric Treatment Exclusion and Related Variance the statute provides only two options: Standards for Hazardous Soils 2. K069 Wastes Recycled Back into the Meet the treatment standard for the 3. Treatment Standards for Residues from Secondary Process waste prior to land disposal, or dispose Soil Treatment 3. Storage Prior to Recycling of the waste in a land 4. Treatability Variances disposal unit that XI. Implementation Issues has been found to satisfy the statutory D. Contained-in Determinations XII. Capacity Determinations E. Soil Treatment Database no migration test. The treatment A. Capacity Analysis Results Summary standards EPA establishes 1. Treatment Technologies B. Analysis of Available Capacity may be 2. Development of the Database C. Surface Disposed Newly Identified and expressed as either levels or methods, 3. Analysis of the Database Listed Wastes and must substantially diminish the a. Consideration of Innovative 1. Required Capacity for Newly Identified toxicity of the waste or substantially Technologies TC Organics (DO18-D043) reduce the likelihood of migration of b. Rationale for Not Using the 2. Required Capacity for Other Newly hazardous constituents from the waste "Traditional" BDAT Approach to Listed Organic Wastes so that short-term and long-term threats Develop Hazardous Soil Treatment a. Surface Disposed Coke By-Product Standards to human health and the environment Wastes are minimized. RCRA section c. Graphical Analysis of Data b. Surface Disposed Chlorinated Toluene d. Transfer of Proposed Universal Wastes 3004(m)(1). A no migration unit is one Standards to Constituents without Data 3. Newly Identified TC Wastes That Were from which there will be no migration 4. Request for Additional Data and Not Previously Hazardous by the Old EP of hazardous constituents for as long as Comment Leaching Procedure the waste remains hazardous. RCRA F. Sampling and Analysis Protocols-Grab D. Required and Available Capacity for sections 3004(d), (e), (g)(5). For vs. Composite Samples Newly Identified Wastes Mixed with purposes of the restrictions, land G. Relationship to Other Regulations and Radioactive Components disposal includes any placement of Programs E. Required and Available Capacity for hazardous waste in a , surface 1. RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions High TOC Ignitable, TC Pesticide, and Program Newly Listed Wastes Injected into Class impoundment, waste pile, injection a. Existing LDR Treatment Standards IDeep Wells well, land treatment facility, salt dome b. Soil Contaminated With Newly Listed F. Required and Available Capacity fr formation, salt bed formation, or Wastes Which Have Final Treatment Hazardous Soil and Debris Contalinated underground mine or cave. RCRA Standards with Newly Listed and Identified Wastes section 3004(k).

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48093 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48094 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

The land disposal restrictions are establish a schedule for adopting reduction activities are appropriate as effective upon promulgation. RCRA prohibitions and treatment standards for the Best Demonstrated Available section 3004(h)(1). However, the newly identified and listed wastes. (EDF Technology (BDAT) for the wastes Administrator may grant a national v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-0598, D.D.C.) included in today's proposed rule. capacity variance from the immediate Treatment standards proposed for the The Agency has previously outlined effective date and establish a later TC wastes (including TC soils) managed the legal basis for waste minimization effective date (not to exceed two years) in non-CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non- and source reduction as a potential type based on the earliest date on which Class I SDWA well systems, and newly of LDR treatment standard, to be adequate alternative treatment, listed coke by-product and available as an optional choice for recovery, or disposal capacity which chlorotoluene production wastes are persons managing prohibited wastes. protects human health and the covered by this consent decree. The (See 56 FR 55162 (Oct. 24, 1991) and environment will be available. RCRA final treatment standards must be Supplemental Information Report pp. section 3004(h2). The Administrator promulgated by July 1994. 30-31 prepared for the Notice of Data may also grant a case-by-case extension None of the modifications to the Availability (January 19, 1993).) Briefly, of the effective date for up to one year, existing land disposal restrictions rules RCRA section 3004(m) requires the renewable once for up to one additional proposed today are required by the EDF Agency to establish treatment standards year, when an applicant successfully settlement. However, the Agency so that short-term and long-term threats makes certain demonstrations. RCRA believes it important to review its to human health and the environment section 30C4(h)(3). See 55 FR 22526 regulations on a periodic basis and are minimized. Waste minimization and (June 1, 1990) for a more detailed make changes, as appropriate, where source reduction potentially meet these discussion on national capacity such will improve or update our criteria. They are a type of treatment, variances and case-by-case extensions. technical knowledge or improve or namely "a method, technique, or In addition, Congress prohibited simplify the implementation of the process * * * designed to change the storage of any waste which is prohibited program. In today's notice, EPA is physical, chemical, or biological from land disposal unless such storage proposing to modify the existing character or composition of any is solely for the purpose of the treatment standards for soil hazardous waste so as to neutralize such accumulation of such quantities of contaminated with prohibited waste or so as to render such waste hazardous waste as are necessary to hazardous waste(s), is proposing to nonhazardous, safer for transport, facilitate proper recovery, treatment or develop a set of treatment standards amenable for recovery, amenable for disposal. RCRA section 3004(j). For (called universal standards) that would storage, or reduced in volume." RCRA storage up to one year, EPA bears the apply to most hazardous wastes, is section 1004(34). Put another way, burden of proving that such storage was proposing changes to the requirements wastes ultimately generated will be less not solely for the purpose of for land disposal of lab packs containing hazardous or reduced in volume by a accumulation of quantities necessary to prohibited hazardous wastes, and is process designed to change the facilitate proper recovery, treatment or proposing to modify the paperwork composition of the hazardous waste disposal. 40 CFR 268.50(b). For storage requirements so as to simplify the being generated. Arguably, these process beyond one year, the burden of proof implementation of the regulations. changes could apply to activities prior shifts to the generator or owner/operator B. Pollution Prevention Benefits to the generation of the hazardous of a treatment, storage or disposal waste. Waste minimization and source facility to demonstrate that such storage EPA's progress over the years in reduction techniques also potentially was solely for the purpose.of improving environmental quality further the ultimate statutory criteria of accumulatikn of quantities necessary to through its media-specific pollution minimizing threats to human health and facilitate proper recovery, treatment or control programs has been substantial. the environment. The endorsement of disposal. 40 CFR 268.50(c). The Over the past two decades, standard waste minimization and source provision applies, of course, only to industrial practice for pollution control reduction in the statute (see RCRA storage which is not also defined in concentrated to a large extent on "end section 1003(6)) is a direct indication section 3004(k) as land disposal. of pipe" treatment or land disposal of that these techniques further the EPA was required to promulgate land hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. statute's protectiveness objectives. See disposal prohibitions and treatment However, EPA realizes that there are S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. 17 standards by May 8, 1990 for all wastes limits to how much environmental setting out the concept of a preferred that were either listed or identified as improvement can be achieved under waste management hierarchy in hazardous at the time of the 1984 these programs which emphasize describing LDR requirements. It should amendments, a task EPA completed management after pollutants have been also be noted that the D.C. Circuit has within the statutory timeframes. RCRA generated. EPA believes that eliminating recently stated that one of the objectives sections 3004(d), (e), and (g). EPA is also or reducing discharges and/or emissions of the section 3004 (in) treatment required to promulgate prohibitions and to the environment through the standards is to reduce the mass loading treatment standards for wastes implementation of cost-effective source of hazardous constituents, Chemical identified or listed as hazardous after reduction and environmentally sound Waste Managementv. EPA, 976 F. 2d at the date of the 1984 amendments within recycling practices can provide 23-6, and this goal is perhaps best six months after the listing or additional environmental served by waste minimization and identification takes effect. RCRA section improvements. Examples of treatment source reduction techniques. 3004(g)(4). The Agency did not meet standards proposed today that are based This is not to say that there are no this latter statutory deadline. As a on the performance of a recovery drawbacks to including these result, a suit was filed by the technology are the universal standards techniques as a type of section 3004(m) Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to for metals, which are based on the standard. The Agency would need to compel agency action. In response to the performance of high temperature metal assess such factors as how these suit, EPA filed with the District Court a recovery (HTMR). The Agency is techniques affect: Pioduction decisions; proposed consent decree (not yet requasting comment on whether other waste management costs and other ratified by the Court) that would recovery technologies or source market efficiencies; development of new

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48094 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Regi" I VoL 58. No. 176 1 Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48095 technologies concentrations of example, land disposal restrictions have EPA is currently working on a hazardous constituents in the remaining previously identified highly rulemaking that will define harzardoes residues; and, implementation concentrated wastes that must be treated constituent concentration leve~s below diffiulties noted in the Supplemental by recovery technologies. Are there which a waste is no longer considered Information Report in making a decision contaminant levels for TC organics "hazardous." Discussions concerning to specfy source reduction and waste above which recovery should be these levels are taking place in the minimization as a treatment standard. In required? With regard to non- context of the recently chartered Federal addition, the Agency may also need to combustion technologies, the Agency Advisory Committee, on the Hazardous consider the applicability of the will attempt to encourage their use in Waste Identification Rule (HWIR). The techniques to facilities which differ in the LDR program, to the extent that Committee chose to initially discuss processes used, size, age, and other performance of such technologies satisfy how to provide greater flexibility for the factors. the requirements of section 3004(ml. remediation of contamination at To better understand these tradeoffs. hazardous waste sites. It has also begun C. Relationship of Developing tDR the Agency salicited comments in the Treatment Standardsto Levels Being discussions by focusing on Supplemental Information Report (pp. concentrations below which Corrsfderedin Hazardous Waste waste 30-31) on allowing source reductiont mixtures and treatment residuals would waste minimization as an optional site- IdentificationRule no longer be subject to, the hazardous specific means of satisfying the LDR A recurring debate throughot EPA's waste regulations ("exit" criteria), while treatment standard. EPA is continuing development of the land disposal also discussing whether there is a to evaluate those comments, and restrictions has been whether the RCRA regulatory approach to relatively requests further comment on this issue. section 3004(m) treatment standards quickly bring under regulation clearly n May 18.1993, the EPA should be technology-based (i.e. based hazardous waste not now controlled by Administrator announced new steps to on performance of a treatment the hazardous waste regulations (an protect public health and the technology) or risk-based (i.e. basqd on "entry" ralel. To help address the environment by encouraging reduction assessment of risks to human health and uncertainties of assessing multiple in the amount of hazardous wastes the environment posed by the waste). exposure pathways, the Agency also has generated in this country and By law, the treatment standards are to initiated research to examine exposure strengthening federal controls governing result in destruction, removal, or of humans and the environment to hazardous waste incinerators and other immobilization of hazardous hazardous constituents through a large combustion devices. One of those steps constituents in the waste "so that short- number and variety of pathways. involved calling for a national review of term and long-term threats to human Because current technology-based the relative roles of waste combustion health and the environment are standards (like those in today's and waste reduction in hazardous waste minimized." Section 3004(m). In proposal) impose substaniial costs, EPA management. The Agency is using making this determination, the Agency has asked the Committee to consider today's proposed rule to solicit is directed to take into account the ways to, reduce the costs of managing comment on the role of combustion and "long-term uncertainties associated with wastes and reniediating sites under waste reduction in establishing BDAT. land disposal." Sections 3004 (d)1l(A), RCRA. In addition, EPA will specifically In particular, today's proposed rule (e)(1)(A) and (g)(5)(A). Technology- ask the Committee to consider by the specifies a series of new treatment based standards achieve the objective of end of December, whether risk-based standards that must be met before minimizing threats by eliminating as exit criteria could also serve as hazardous wastes'are land disposed. much of the uncertainty associated with minimize threat levels to potentially cap These standards, which in many cases disposal of hazardous waste as possible, treatment standards for the land are based on combustion performance, and were upheld as legally permissible disposal restrictions. If the Committee specify numerical limits which allow for this reason. Hazardous-Waste recommends that the risk-based exit the use of any treatment technology, and Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d criteria approach being developed could thereby recognizes the appropriateness 355.361-64 (D.C. Cir. 989, cert. serve as caps on BDAT treatment of alternatives to combustion. The denied 111 S. Ct. 139 (1990k see also 55 standards, EPA will prepare a Agency specifically solicits comment FR at 6642 (February 26, 1990). supplemental notice to the current and data on whether other treatment However, the court also held that proposal or otherwise expeditiously technologies, especially recycling treatment standards cannot be propose such an approach as a technologies, can achieve these limits. If established "beyond the point at which complement to the current technology- not, the Agency seeks comment and there is no'threat' to man or nature," id. based standards. data on whether the levels should be at 362. modified so as to allow and encourage EPA has indicated that its ultimate II. Summary of Proposed Rule the use of non-combustion treatment policy prefiec is to establish risk- On October 24, 1991, EPA published technologies. As an example, the based levels that represent minimize an advance notice of proposed proposed standards for hazardous soils threat levels and so cap the extent of rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit identify options which allow slightly hazardous waste tetment. 55 FR at comment on many aspects of what is higher levels of contaminants to remain 6641. The difficulties involved in this included in today's proposed rule. in the treated soil so that innovative, . task, however, are formidable and very Comments and data received in non-combustion technologies may be controversial. The technical issues response to the ANPRM have been used. In keeping with the call for a include assessing exposure pathways incorporated into this package. national review of the relative role of other than migration to ground water, combustion, the Agency is solicitfin taking environmental risk into account, A. improvements to Fxisting LDR comment on whether there are other aM developing adequate toxiclogicW Program actions that should be taken to achieve informawim for the hazardous The land disposal restrictions (LDR) a reduction in waste generAien, an constituents controlled by the program has been in place for over increase in recycle/reuse, or greater use hazardous waste program- 55 FRat seven years. Because the Agency was of non-combustion technooges. For 6642. involved with promulgating treatment

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48095 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48096 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

standards in time to meet statutory Water Act. The Agency is continuing to these alternative treatment standards for deadlines, the program was not develop a response to the court ruling. hazardous soil based on performance of developed under optimum conditions. As part of that response, EPA is today technologies more appropriate for soil As a result, implementation of the LDR proposing to prohibit dilution of two treatment. In order to comply with the program may be quite complex. The types of characteristic wastes disposed LDR's, hazardous soil would have to be Agency is considering a number of in Class I wells: High TOC ignitable treated either to meet the standards for changes that could be made to the LDR liquids (DO01) and halogenated the hazardous waste contaminating the program to simplify its implementation, pesticide wastes that exhibit the toxicity soil, or the alternative treatment without sacrificing protection of human characteristic (D012-D017). The Agency standards proposed in this notice. health and the environment. In is proposing this prohibition because in The Agency is proposing three particular, the Agency is proposing in each of the two cases, treatment is the different approaches to develop this notice to replace the existing preferred management option; the alternative technology-based treatment constituent-specific/waste-specific organics in D001 high TOC liquids can standards for soils. Under these standards for many hazardous wastes be reused, and D012-D017 pesticide approaches, the universal treatment with a common set of treatment wastes contain particularly toxic standards (discussed in section III.A of standards, referred to throughout this constituents. The Agency is therefore this preamble) are proposed for soil as proposal as universal standards. Today's proposing to require that these wastes "base" standards. Each approach allows notice also proposes to simplify the be treated before injection in a Class I for treatment to levels above the requirements for lab packs containing well, or that they be injected into a no- universal standards and differ primarily hazardous wastes, and to eliminate migration well. in the extent of treatment required. Under the first approach, the Agency some of the data items required on LDR D. Treatment Standardsfor Newly notifications. Additionally, a clarifying is proposing a range of standards with chart of paperwork requirements and a Listed Wastes a "ceiling" one order of magnitude discussion of what constitutes EPA has promulgated a number of above the universal standard, provided "acceptable knowledge of the waste" are hazardous waste listings since the 90% treatment of each constituent included. enactment of HSWA in 1984, referred to subject to treatment is achieved. The as "newly listed wastes" under the LDR second approach is a variation of the B. Treatment Standardsfor Toxic program. This proposed rule describes first, in that the Agency is proposing a CharacteristicWastes the treatment and/or recycling range of standards with a "ceiling" one On March 29, 1990, EPA promulgated technologies identified as BDAT for order of magnitude above the universal additional organic constituents and several of these newly listed wastes, and standard; however, there is no levels at which a waste is considered proposes treatment standards based on requirement that 90% reduction occur. hazardous based on the characteristic of these BDATs. Newly listed wastes The third approach proposes an toxicity (55 FR 11798). Because these included in today's proposal are K141- unlimited range of values above the wastes were identified as hazardous K145, K147-K148, and K149-K151 universal standard provided 90% after the enactment date of HSWA in (coke by-product production wastes and treatment is attained (i.e., there would 1984, they are referred to under the LDR chlorotoluene wastes) (see 40 CFR be no "ceiling" value) unless 90% program as "newly identified wastes". 261.32.) treatment would treat the waste to a Included are wastes identified with the level below the universal treatment codes D018 through E. Soil Contaminated with Hazardous D043 based on the Waste standards. If such a level would be toxicity characteristic leaching achieved through 90% treatment, the procedure (TCLP), i.e., TC wastes. EPA This notice also proposes new universal treatment standards would be is proposing treatment standards for alternative treatment standards for met. each of these constituents as part of hazardous constituents when they are The Agency is proposing that these today's rule. In addition, because wastes contaminating soil (i.e., hazardous soil). approaches would apply to all exhibiting the toxicity characteristic can The Agency is proposing these hazardous soils regardless of the type of also contain treatable levels of other alternatives in order to consider a full contaminating hazardous waste. That Is hazardous constituents, EPA is also range of innovative technologies that are to say, the proposed approaches would proposing treatment standards for such available to treat such hazardous soil. In apply to soils contaminated with listed constituents, as well as rules on testing particular, under the current regulations hazardous wastes, soils displaying the and monitoring such constituents. and the "contained-in" policy, soil toxicity characteristic, and soils These treatment standards and rules are contaminated with hazardous waste is displaying the characteristic of necessary to implement the court's regulated to the same degree as the ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. opinion in contaminating hazardous waste itself, Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2, 17- until such contamination can be F. Compliance Monitoring and 8 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert denied U.S. separated from the soil matrix so that it Notification (April 26, 1993). no longer "contains" hazardous In the May 24, 1993 interim final rule constituents. The numerical treatment (58 FR 29872), the Agency adopted an C. Prohibition of Dilutionof High TOC standards for many of these hazardous approach that allowed facilities Ignitable and of TC Pesticide Wastes wastes when they are not found in the handling ignitable or corrosive waste to Injected into Class I Deep Wells soil matrix is based on the performance' monitor for additional hazardous In its September 25, 1992 ruling on of , a technology not constituents "reasonably expected to be the Third Third LDR Rule, the D.C. uniformly appropriate for hazardous present". The determination of Circuit Court remanded the Agency's soil, because of the low concentrations "reasonably expected to be present" determination in that rule that allowed of hazardous constituents often found in could be based on knowledge of the raw dilution to remove characteristics of soil. Rather, other technologies may be materials, process, and potential hazardous waste that are injected into more appropriate for the treatment of reaction products, or the results of a Class I nonhazardous deep injection lightly contaminated hazardous soils. one-time analysis for the entire list of wells regulated by the Safe Drinking The Agency, therefore, is proposing constituents subject to treatment. The

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48096 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 4807

Agency noted that this approach would The proposed modifications are discussed later in this section of the not necessarly be taken in the future based, in part, on two relatively recent preamble. EPA requests comment on when the remanded rules were Court opinions (American Petroleum whether the universal treatment addressed. The Agency is therefore Institute v. EPA, 906 F. 2d 726 (D.C. Cin standards should also apply to F024. taking comments in today's proposed 1990) (API) and American Mining EPA also requests comment on whether rule on options for modifing this Congressv. EPA, 97 F.2d 1179 (D.C. there are other wastes or grovps of waste approach. Cir. 1990) (AMC II)) which indicate that for which the universal treatment EPA is also soliciting comment on theAgency has some discretion to standards should not apply. how to limit monitoring for these consider the manner in which a The primary goal of establishing constituents subject to treatment in TC secondary material is managed in universal standards is to provide wastes and hazardous soil in subtitle C- determining RCRA jurisdiction i.e., technically consistent and equitable regulated facilities, in subtitle D RCRA jurisdiction may be determained, standards that simplif owner/operator facilities, and at CERCLI or RCRA at least in part, by consideration of compliance, as well as enforcement and remediation sites. whether the material is part of the waste compliance monitoring efforts. Another management problem, as indicated by potential advantage is that the universal G. Soliitationof Comments Regarding the potential for the material to pose a standards would provider the regulated Exclusion of HazardousDebris hazard to human health and the community with consistent constituent- In this proposal, the Agency is environment when recycled). by-constituent concentration goals for soliciting data to demonstrate whether which the facility can direct waste Ilm. Improvements to the Existing Land minimization investigatims. immobilized hazardous debris (if treated Disposal Restrictions Program properly) should be excluded from Furthermore, universal standards could subtitle C control. This proposal A. Proposed nivmersal Treatment serve as a performane benchmark for describes a number of activities related Standards developingakernaive treatment technologies. to this issue which the Agency Facilities that treat and land dispose undertook after the promulgation of the The univessal standards will be hazardous wastes typically must comply particularly helpful in treating and land disposal restrictions for hazardous with the LDR treatment standards that debris on August 18, 1992. measuring compliance when several have been established for many different listed wastes have been mixed together H. Modificationsto HazaMdous Waste listed and characteristic hazardous that contain the same constituent of Recycling Regulations waste codes. In some cases,. a concern, but under the prosent system constituent regulated under the is. have different concentration limits. The Agency also proposing treatment standard for one waste may Wastes that are amenable to treatment modifications to the curre regplatory also be a constituent regulated under the by the same technologies are often framework to the definition of solid treatment standard for another waste. appropdiately commingled prior to waste that, if pomulgated, would These two treatment standards may be treatment and recovery. Since under modify the regulation of hazardous different concentration levels. Such universal standards the constituent of waste recycling by providing differences in concentration limits for concern would have the same streamlined mechanisms that would the same constituent may cause concentration limit no matter what encourage environmentally protective confusion to the regulated community listed waste code it is in, the need to recycling of specific wastestreams. The and to enforcement personnel. determine and achieve different Agency is Loking at the definition of Inan effort to simplify and stramline concentration limits would be solid waste in. abroader sense, ard the LDR.program, the Agency eliminated. The development of plans toconsider broader changes ata investigated the possihility of universal standards is not intended, later date- Today's modifications will, establishing a concentration limit for however, to modify current restrictions however, allow environmentally each constituent that would be its on the commingling of incompatible beneficial recycling operations to treatment standard, regardless, of the wastes, impermissible switching of continue without the regulatory hazardous waste in which it was treatability groups, or impermissible impediments imposed by full RCRA presen This concept of establishing dilution. The Agency is not reopening subtitle C requirements, In tum this consistent concentration limits on a these issues for comment. will alow EPA mid the states to constituent-by-constituent basis is being Universal treatment standards would streamline their efforts and better facus referred to as establishing "riversal- als provide EPA with a michanism to on operations that are part of tl e treatment standards. streamline the development of treatment nation's waste disposal problem, rather Universal treatment stan ds arm standards for future hazardous waste than on those that are not, while the being proposed in this notice for organic listings. In most cases, it could be Agency continues to leek at the overall and metal constituets,--one, set for assumed that the constituents in newly' definition. Wastewaters and a different set for listed wastes would be subject to the, These modifications will broaden the nonwastewaters-4hat would replace universal standards. Facilities could § Zt.2(e)(1)ii) "ciosed-loop" recycling most existing limits in previously then challenge these' assmnrptions (if exclusion om the. definition ol solid promulgated treatment standards for warranted) during the rulemhking for waste such that the residues of a listed hazardous wastes. These the waste listing. EPA solicits comment secondary process (in addition to proposed universa standards would not on the advantages and disadvantages of residues of a primary process, as apply, however, to wastes for which the developing universal treatment currently allowed) are enluded from Agency has previously promulgated standar, s being a solid waste if they am reinserted treatment standards expressed as & EPA is proposing universat standards into the process withmt prior required method of treatment (see 40 for over 200 constituents. This accounts reclamation (and also similarly broaden CFR 268.42). for all of the orgnics and metals that the rebated .52.30fb) variance fr EPA is also proposing that the can be analyzed consistently in materials that are reclaimed p ior to universal treafmnt standards wold not treatment residuals and that have been reinsertion). apply to FG24, for reasons that are regulated in previously-promulgated

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48097 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48098 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules treatment standards. The Agency is Phenolics and Derivatives, standard. (See the background proposing that the generator or owner[ Nonchlorinated Phenolics, Phthalates, document for universal standards for operator would not have to analyze for Oxygenated Hydrocarbons, Polynuclear more information on the development of all constituents in the BDAT list (See Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Aromatic these standards.) the BDAT list at "Guidebook for Quality Hydrocarbons, Organo-Sulfur In the Third Third rulemaking, the Assurance/Quality Control Procedures Pesticides, and Organo-Nitrogen Agency received comment that some of for Submission of Data for the Land Compounds. the treatment standards being Disposal Restrictions Program," July 3, The Agency examined all treatment promulgated at that time were too low 1991, p. 8-15 in the docket for this data available for each treatability to detect. In response, after reviewing rule.) Rather, it would only be necessary group. Because the constituents within the submitted data, the Agency decided to analyze for those regulated each treatability group are generally as an interim measure that if constituents in the listed wastes that are treated by the same technology, patterns incineration (the technology on which being treated. of similar treatment levels exist within the standards in question were based) each group. In some cases, however, was used to achieve a "non-detect" 1. Universal Standards for Organic there are constituents in the group that Hazardous Constituents level, and if that "non-detect" level was are either hard to treat or hard to detect. within an order of magnitude of the a. Nonwastewaters. The majority of These are the constituents that tend to promulgated standard, it was the existing nonwastewater treatment have higher treatment standards. The considered to be in compliance with the standards for organics have been data used to establish the treatment treatment standard (see 40 CFR established based on data from some levels were reviewed and the process 268.43(c).) Because EPA is proposing form of thermal destruction, typically refined, to ensure that the data that was that those treatment standards incineration. This is due to the Agency's used was the most appropriate for each promulgated in the Third Third rule be decision to establish methods of constituent. Treatment performance revised based on the universal treatment instead of risk-based levels data for wastes for which universal standards, the Agency is soliciting and the ability of thermal devices to standards will not apply were removed comment on the continued-need for destroy organics to levels at or near the from consideration. (See later section on such a policy. An alternative would be detection limit (as measured in the ash). waste codes for which universal if the facility measures compliance with In fact, incineration has been standards will not apply.) the universal standards and detects at determined to be BDAT for most of-the The treatment performance data were least one constituent at or below the wastes containing organics (i.e., most of further examined to determine trends within each treatability group. These universal standard within each the treatment standards for organic treatability group, then any non-detects hazardous constituents are based on the trends might have included transfers of standards within performance of incineration.) data from specific constituents, similar above the universal Nevertheless, the Agency believes that of that treatability group would be treatment standards, and use considered to be in compliance. In such other treatment technologies, including performance data from the same treatment test. In general, the treatment cases, waste analysis plans could be lower cost innovative technologies, can modified to reflect monitoring for also meet these standards. In fact, the standards for the constituents within a Agency has data on the treatment of treatability group were comparable in certain constituents within each these constituents by innovative magnitude. Numbers higher than the treatability group that do not have technologies (technologies other than majority of treatment standards detection level problems. incineration, such as solvent extraction, normally indicated a waste harder to b. Wastewaters. The proposed thermal desorption) that support the treat or analyze. universal standards for wastewaters are levels being proposed today. However, Universal standards were chosen on a taken primarily from the treatment the Agency specifically solicits constituent-by-constituent basis and are standards promulgated for F039--multi- comment as to what extent innovative included in a table later in this section. source leachate, and are included in a technologies can meet the standards The derivation of these standards is table later in this section. These existing proposed today. based on a number of factors. The treatment standards for organic In establishing treatment standards in Agency first considered performance constituents in wastewaters were based the First, Second and Third Third data (i.e., the matrix spike recovery data on a variety of conventional wastewater rulemakings, the Agency had varying and detection limit) transferred from the treatment technologies. Information amounts of treatment data; many of the same constituent. If this was not about these treatment standards can be existing nonwastewater treatment possible, the Agency considered found in the background document in standards were established based on the performance data (i.e., the matrix spike the RCRA docket. transfer of thermal treatment data from recovery data) from a constituent in the c. Comments on the Advance Notice similar waste. Because the number of same treatability group. The Agency of ProposedRulemaking. Most organic constituents in existing also preferred to use a matrix spike commenters to the Advance Notice of treatment standards is so large, EPA recovery value based on actual recovery Proposed Rulemaking supported the arranged them into thirteen treatability rather than an average value. In establishment of universal standards for groups based on similarities in addition, the detection limit data for the organic wastes. However, several chemistry, structure, usage, ease of constituent were reviewed to see if the disagreed with the approach. In treatability, detection limits, and waste detection limit was reasonable and if it particular, several commenters were generation patterns (many of these could be reasonably expected to be concerned that they would have to groups are based on treatability groups achieved-that is, after the universal analyze the entire BDAT list for each used to establish treatment standards in standard was determined for a waste to measure compliance with the previous rulemakings.) These constituent, the value was compared to universal standards. As indicated earlier treatability groups are Chlorinated the detection limits used in the in this section, a treater would only Volatiles, Organo-Bromines, development of the existing treatment have to analyze for those constituents Chlorobenzenes, PCBs and Dioxins; standards to see if other waste codes regulated in the listed wastes being Chlorinated Pesticides, Chlorinated could be treated to meet the universal treated.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48098 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48099

Several commenters supported the data indicate that, depending on the PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT idea of universal treatment standards for concentration of the constituent, other STANDARDS FOR ORGANICS simplicity, but thought that these technologies, including innovative [Nonwastewaters] numbers should be health-based and not technologies (i.e., solvent extraction, below the TC levels. EPA's historic thermal desorption) can achieve the Maximum for position, echoed by the D.C. Circuit in proposed universal treatment standards anysample grab HWTCv. EPA, 886 F.2d 355, 362 (D.C. in the wide variety of nonwastewater constituent Cir. 1989) cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 139 matrices. The Agency specifically Regulated total com- (1990), is that characteristic levels for solicits comment on this point. position (mg/ toxic wastes do not minimize the threats d. Other Revisions to Existing kg). these wastes may pose. EPA is Treatment Standards. The Agency is considering whether to establish risk- today soliciting comment on whether Acetone ...... 160 based levels as part of the Hazardous we should regulate individual aroclors, Acetophenone ...... 9.7 Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) or total PCBs. EPA is proposing as Acenaphthalene ...... 3.4 alternatives two different sets of Acenapthene ...... 3.4 currently being developed. Depending 2-Acetylaminofluorene ...... 140 on how this effort evolves and based on standards for both wastewater and Aldrin ...... 0.066 available data, these levels may be nonwastewater forms of PCBs. In one Aniline ...... 14 equal, lower, or higher than LDR set, the treatment standard is a single Anthracene ...... 3.4 treatment levels. number representing the sum of all Aroclor 1016 ...... 0.92 A few commenters argued that they individual aroclor concentrations. In the Aroclor 1221 ...... 0.92 did not like the idea of universal ' other set, each aroclor has its individual Aroclor 1232 ...... 0.92 treatment standards for organics. One treatment standard. Total PCBs, which Aroclor 1242 ...... 0.92 commenter stated that in order for EPA include seven aroclors, represent Aroclor 1248 ...... 0.92 hundreds of isomers of polychlorinated Aroclor 1254 ...... 1.8 to establish universal standards, the Aroclor 1260 ...... 1.8 Agency would have to adopt the highest biphenyls. This approach would be Acrylonitrile ...... 84 treatment standard for any constituent consistent with the regulations of other alpha-BHC ...... 0.066 to ensure that all wastes can be treated EPA offices, such as those promulgated beta-BHC ...... 0.066 to conform with the standard. The pursuant to the Toxic Substance Control delta-BHC ...... 0.066 commenter argued that there is a range Act (TSCA). This approach would also gamma-BHC ...... 0.066 of variation among specific standards eliminate any analytical difficulties in Benzal chloride ...... 6.0 for identical organic constituents in quantifying each of the individual Benzene ...... 10 different wastes. The commenter aroclors. The current regulations Benz(a)anthracene ...... 3.4 indicated that the main reasons for these addressing individual aroclors require a Benzo(a)pyrene ...... 3.4 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ...... 1 6.8 differences are the wide variety of pattern recognition of the gas Benzo(k)fluoranthene ...... 1 6.8 matrices treated. chromatograph, which is often difficult Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ...... 1.8 The Agency does not believe that the to differentiate. Furthermore, regulation Bis-(2-ethythexyl) phthalate .... 28 variety in organic treatment standards is of individual aroclors may be difficult Bromodichloromethane ...... 15 the result of treating different matrices. for wastes subject to degradation or Bromomethane (methyl bro- The variety results chiefly from different treatment. EPA would recommend SW- mide) ...... 15 detection limits used in developing the 846 methods 8080 or 8081 (which use 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether .. 15 standards. For example, analytical a gas chromatograph/electron capture n-Butanol ...... 2.6 laboratories have different levels of detector) for measurement of total PCBs. Butyl benzyl phthalate ...... 28 accuracy for reporting detection limits, The Agency is proposing to regulate 2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol .. 2.5 the sum of several constituents for Carbon disulfide ...... 4.81 and most of the organic treatment Carbon tetrachloride ...... 6.0 standards are based on detection limits. xylenes in both wastewaters and Chlordane ...... 0.26 Furthermore, when developing nonwastewaters. The three xylenes p-Chloroaniline ...... 16 universal standards, the Agency included on the BDAT list of hazardous Chlorobenzene ...... 6.0 reviewed all treatment data to assure constituents are ortho-, meta-, and para- Chlorodibromomethane ...... 15 that the standard could be met by well- xylene. These constituents are proposed Chloroethane ...... 6.0 operated, well-designed treatment units to be regulated as a sum in the universal bis-(2-Chloroethoxy) methane 7.2 appropriate for these types of wastes. standards because meta- and para- bis-(2-Chloroethyl) ether ...... 6.0 Several commenters stated that isomers co-elute in gas chromatograph bis-(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether .. 7.2 universal treatment standards were not analysis. Two methods exist in SW-846 p-Chloro-m-cresol ...... 14 supported by available treatment data Chloroform ...... 6.0 for the measurement of total xylenes: Chloromethane ...... 30 for organics. The Agency disagrees with 8020 and 8240. Method 8020 detects 2-Chloronaphthalene ...... 5.6 this comment. In fact, the organic xylenes using a photoionization detector 2-Chlorophenol ...... 5.7 universal standards were developed and 8240 uses a mass spectrometer. 3-Chloropropene ...... 30 using only available treatment data. Total xylenes concentration is Chrysene ...... 3.4 In summary, EPA believes it is determined from the addition of the Cresol(m- and p-) ...... 3.2 appropriate to develop universal ortho-xylene concentration and the o-Cresol ...... 5.6 treatment standards and that for meta-para-xylene concentration. Cyclohexanone ...... 0.75 nonwastewaters to base the standards Additionally, EPA is proposing to Dibenz(a,h)-anthracene ...... 8.2 on incineration because it is a matrix- regulate two pairs of analytically 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 15 independent technology that reduces problematic constituents, 1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide) ...... 15 the amount of material ultimately sent benzo(b) fluoranthene/ Dibromomethane ...... 15 to land disposal and it destroys the benzo(k)fluoranthene and m-Dichlorobenzene ...... 6.0 organic hazardous constituents. diphenylamine/diphenylnitrosamine o-Dichlorobenzene ...... 6.0 However, the proposed levels would not with a single wastewater and p-Dichlorobenzene ...... 6.0 be technology forcing since available nonwastewater number for each pair 1,1-Dichloroethane ...... 6.0

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48099 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48100 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR ORGANics-Con- STANDARDS FOR ORGANICS-COfl- STANDARDS FOR ORGAws--Con- tinued tinued tinued INorwastewatervs (Nonwa ew"aters] [Nonwaslewaters Maximum Sor Maximum for Maximum for anysanmi grab anygatb anysample grab Regulated constituent Regulated constituent Regulated constituent totalcon- Moal corn- $Old cown postion (mg/ position (mg/ ______kg) ______kg) ______kg) I 1 2-Dichloroethane ...... 6.0 Methoxychlr ...... 0.18 Total PCBs ...... 10 2,4-Dichlorophenol ...... 14 3-Methylchloantene ...... 16 This standard represents ft sum of the 2,6-Dichlorophenol ...... 14 4,4-Methylene bis-(2- concentraions for each of this pair of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic chloroaniline) 30 constituents. acid ...... 10 Methylene Chloride ...... 30 2This standard represents Ie sum of the o,p'-DDD ...... 0.087 Meth" ety ketone ...... 36 concentrations for each of ths par of pjY-DDD ...... 0.087 Methyl isobutyl ketone 33 constituents. 3This standard o,p'-DDE ...... 0.087 Methyl mettacrylate ...... 160 represents the sum of the p,p'- DE ...... 0.087 4.6 concentrations of m-xylene, o-xyen, and p- Methyl Parathion ...... xylene. op'-DDT ...... 0.087 Naphthalene ...... 5.6 pjY-DDT ...... 0.087 o-Nitroaniline ...... 14 Dichlorodifluoromethane ...... 72 p-Nitroaniline ...... 28 PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREAIMENT 1,1-Dichloroethylene ...... 6.0 Nitrobenzene ...... 14 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene . 30 STANDARDS FOR ORGANICS 5-Nitro-o-totuidine ...... 1,2-Dichloropropane ...... 18 28 (Waskmawers] ...... cis-1,3-Dichlropropene ...... 18 o-Nitroptienol 13 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ...... 18 rN hnol ...... 29 Maxunum for any Dieldrin ...... 0.13 N-Nitr.mine ...... 28 24 hr. composite Diethyl phthalate ...... 28 N-Niroso.n-buy*nine ... 17 Regulated constituents 2,4-Dimethyl phenol ...... 14 N-Nltrosomethylethylarnine _ 2,3 Dimethyl phthalate ...... 28 N-Nitrosomorpholine ...... 2.3 1,4-Dinitrobenzene ...... 2 3 N-Nitrotsopoefidine ...... 35 4,6-Dinitro-o-a'eso ...... 160 N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 35 Acetone 0.28 2,4-Dinitrophenol ...... 160 Parathion ...... 4.6 Acenaphthalene 0.059 ...... 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ...... 140 Pentachlorobenzene 10 Acenaphthene 0.059 2,6-Dinitrotoluene ...... 28 Pentachlorodibenzo-furans 0.001 Acetonitr#le ...... 0.17 .Di-n-butyl phthalate ...... 28 Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 0.001 Acrolein ...... 0.29 Di-n-octyl phthalate ...... 28 Pentachloroethane ...... 6 Acetophenone ...... 0.010 Di-n-Iropylnitrosoamine ...... 14 Pentachloronitrobenzene ...... 4.8 2-Acetylarninolluorene 0.059 1,4-Dioxane ...... 170 ...... 7.4 Acrylonitrde. 0.24 Pentactoophenol .. Diphenylamine ...... 113 Phenacetin ...... 16 Aldin ...... 0.021 Diphenylnitrosamine ...... 113 Phenarthrene ...... 5.6 4-Aminobiphenyl ...... 0.13 Disulfoton ...... 6.2 Phenol...... 6.2 Aniline ...... 0.81 Anthracene ... 0.059 Endosulfan ...... 0.066 ... . 4.6 Phorate ..... Aramite ...... 0.36 Endosulfan II ...... 0.13 Phthalic anhydride ...... 28 Endosultan sulfate ...... 0.13 Aroclor 1016 ...... 0.013 Propanenitrle. 360 Aroclor 1221 ...... 0.014 Endrin ...... 0.13 Pronanie ...... 1.5 Aroclor 1232 ...... 0.013 Endrin aldehyde ...... 0.13 Pyre a ...... 82 Ethyl acetate ...... 33 Aroclor 1242 ...... 0.017 Pyridine...... 16 Aroclor 1248 ...... 0.013 Ethyl benzene ...... 10 Safrole 22 Ethyl ether ...... 160 Aroclor 1254 0.014- Silvex (2,4,5-TP) ...... 7.9 Aroclor 1260 ...... 0.014 Ethyl methacrylate ...... 160 2,4,5-T ...... 7.9 15 alpha-BHC ...... G."014 Famnphur ...... 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene ... 14 Fluoranthene 3.4 beta-BHC ...... 0.00014 ...... Tetrachlorodlibenzo-furans ...... Fluorene ...... 3.4 0.001 delta-BHC ...... 0.O23 Tetrachtorodibenzo-p-doxins . Heptachlor ...... 0.066 0.001 gamma-BlHC 0.0017 Heptachlor epoxide ...... 0.066 1.1,12-Teachloroethane.... 6.0 Benzal chloride ...... 0.055 Hexachl obenzene ...... 10 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ...... 6.0 Benzene ...... 0.14 Hexachlorobutadiene ...... 5.6 Tetrachloroethylene ...... 6.0 Benz(a)anthracene ...... 0.059 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene . 2.4 2,3,4,6-Tetrachorophenol.. 7.4 Benzo(a)pyrene ...... 0.061 Hexachlorodibenzo-furans ...... 0.001 Toluene ...... 10 Benzo(b)fhoranthene ...... 10.11 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins. 0.001 Toxaphene ...... 2.6 Benzo(g,hi)perylene ...... 0.0055 Hexachloroethane 30 1,2,4-Tdchlorobenzene ...... 19 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 10.11 Hexachloropropene 30 1,1,1-Trictloroethane 6.0 Bromodichloromethane . 0.35 ldeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ...... 3.4 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 6.0 Bromomethane ...... 0.11 iodonmethane ...... 65 Trichioroethylene 6.0 4-8romophenyl phenyl Isobutanol ...... 170 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 7.4 0.055 Isodrin ...... 0.066 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ...... 7.4 n-Butyl alcohol ...... 5.6 Isosarole ...... 2.6 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ...... 30 Butyl benzyl phthalate. 0.017 Kepone.... 0.13 1,1,2-Trichloro-1 2,2- 2-sec-Butyl-4,6- Methacrylonitrile 84 tnfluoroethane 30 dinitrophenol ...... 0.066 Methanol. 0.75 Vinyl chloride ...... 6.0 Carbon tetracNoride ...... 0.057 Methapyrilene 1.5 XyWr*s) 330 Carbon disulfide. 0.014

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48100 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48101

PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR ORGANIcS--Con- STANDARDS FOR ORGANIcS-Con- STANDARDS FOR ORGANIcS-Con- tinued tinued tinued [Wastewaters] [Wastewaters] [Wastewaters] Maximum for any Maximum for any Maximum for any 24 hr. composite 24 hr. composite 24 hr. composite Regulated constituents Regulated constituents Regulated constituents total composition total composition totdl composition (mg11) (mgA) (mg) Chlordane ...... 0.0033 2,4-Dinitrophenol ...... 0.12 N-Nitrosomorpholine ...... 0.40 p-Chloroaniline ...... 0.46 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ...... 0.32 N-Nitrosopiperidine ...... 0.013 Chlorobenzene ...... 0.057 2,6-Dinitrotoluene ...... 0.55 N-Nitrosopyrrolidine ...... 0.013 Chlorobenzilate ...... 0.10 Di-n-octyl phthalate ...... 0.017 Parathion ...... 0.014 2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene ... 0.057 Di-n-propylnitrosoamine .. 0.40 Pentachlorobenzene ...... 0.055 Chlorodibromomethane ... 0.057 Diphenylamine ...... 20.92 Pentachlorodibenzo- Chloroethane ...... 0.27 1,2-Diphenyl hydrazine ... 0.087 furans ...... 0.000035 bis-(2-Chloroethoxy) Diphenylnitrosoamine ...... 20.92 Pentachlorodibenzo-p- methane ...... 0.036 1,4-Dioxane ...... 0.12 dioxins ...... 0.000063 bis-(2-Chloroethyl) ether 0.033 Disulfoton ...... 0.017 Pentachloronitrobenzene 0.055 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether 0.062 Endosulfan I ...... 0.023 Pentachlorophenol ...... 0.089 Chloroform ...... 0.046 Endosulfan II ...... 0.029 Phenacetin ...... 0.081 bis-(2-Chloroisopropyl) Endosulfan suffate ...... 0.029 Phenanthrene ...... 0.059 ether ...... 0.055 Endrin ...... 0.0028 Phenol ...... 0.039 p-Chloro-m-cresol ...... 0.018 Endrin aldehyde ...... 0.025 Phorate ...... 0.021 Chloromethane (methyl Ethyl acetate ...... 0.34 Phthalic anhydride ...... 0.055 chloride) ...... 0.19 Ethyl benzene ...... 0.057 Pronamide ...... 0.093 2-Chloronaphthalene ...... 0.055 Ethyl ether ...... 0.12 Propanenitrile ...... 0.24 2-Chlorophenol ...... 0.044 bis-(2-Ethylhexyl) phthal- Pyrene ...... 0.067 3-Chloropropene ...... 0.036 ate ...... 0.28 Pyridine ...... 0.014 Chrysene ...... 0.059 Ethyl methacrylate ...... 0.14 Safrole ...... 0.081 o-Cresol ...... 0.11 Ethylene oxide ...... 0.12 Silvex (2,4,5-TP) ...... 0.72 Cresol (m- and p- iso- Famphur ...... 0.017 2,4,5-T ...... 0.72 mers) ...... 0.77 Fluoranthene ...... 0.068 1,2,4,5- Cyclohexanone ...... 0.36 Fluorene ...... 0.059 Tetrachlorobenzene ..... 0.055 1 ,2-Dibromo-3- Heptachlor ...... 0.0012 Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans 0.000063 chloropropane ...... 0.11 Heptachlor epoxide ...... 0.016 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p- 1,2-Dibromoethane ...... 0.028 Hexachlorobenzene ...... 0.055 dioxins ...... 0.000063 Dibromomethane ...... 0.11 Hexachlorobutadiene ...... 0.055 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.057 2,4- Hexachlorodibenzo-furans 0.000063 1,1.2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.057 Dichlorophenoxyacetic Hexachlorodibenzo-p- Tetrachloroethene ...... 0.056 acid ...... 0.72 dioxins ...... 0.000063 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 0.030 o,p'-DDD ...... 0.023 Hexachloroethane ...... 0.055 Toluene ...... 0.080 p.p'-DDD ...... 0.023 Hexachloropropene ...... 0.035- Toxaphene ...... 0.0095 o,p'-DDE ...... 0.031 Indeno(1,2,3.-c,d)pyrene. 0.0055 Tribromomethane p,p'-DDE ...... 0.031 lodomethane ...... 0.19 (bromoform) ...... 0.63 o,p'-DDT ...... 0.0039 Isobutyl alcohol ...... 5.6 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ... 0.055 p,p'-DDT ...... 0.0039 Isodrin ...... 0.021 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ...... 0.054 Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene ...... 0.061 Isosafrole ...... 0.081 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ...... 0.054 Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene. 0.055 Kepone ...... 0.0011 Trichloroethene ...... 0.054 tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl) Methacrylonitrile ...... 0.24 Trichloromonofluorometh- phosphate ...... 0.11 Methanol ...... 5.6 ane ...... 0.020 m-Dichlorobenzene ...... 0.036 Methapyrilene ...... 0.081 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ...... o-Dichlorobenzene 0.18 ...... 0.088 Methoxychlor ...... 0.25 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ...... 0.035 p-Dichlorobenzene ...... 0.090 3-Methylchloanthrene ...... 0.0055 Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,2,3-Trichloropropane .... 0.85 . 0.23 4,4-Methylene-bis-(2- 81,11,2-Trichloro-1,2,2- 1,1-Dichloroethane ...... 0.059 chloroaniline) ...... 0.50 1,2-Dichloroethane ...... trifluoroethane ...... 0.057 021 Methylene chloride ...... 0.089 Vinyl chloride ...... 0.27 1,1-Dichloroethylene ...... 0.025 Methyl ethyl ketone ...... 0.28 Xylene(s) ...... trans-1 2-Dichloroethene. 30.32 0.054 Methyl isobutyl ketone .... 0.14 Total PCBs ...... 0.1 2,4-Dichlorophenol ...... 0.044 Methyl methacrylate ...... 0.14 2,6-Dichlorophenol ...... 0.044 Methyl methansulfonate .. 0.018, 1 This standard represents the sum of the 1,2-Dichloropropane ...... 0.85 Methyl Parathion ...... 0.014 concentrations for each of this pair of cis-1,3-Dichloropropene .. 0.036 Naphthalene ...... constituents. 0.059 2This standard trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.036 2-Naphthylamine ...... 0.52 represents the sum of the Dieldrin ...... 0.017 p-Nitroaniline ...... concentrations for each of this pair of 0.028 constituents. Diethyl phthalate ...... 0.20 Nitrobenzene ...... 0.068 p- 3This standard represents the sum of the 5-Nitro-o-toluidine ...... 0.32 concentrations of m-xylene, o-xylene, and p- Dimethylaminoazoben- p-Nitrophenol ...... 0.12 xylene. zene ...... 0.13 N-Nitrosodiethylamine ..... 0.40 2,4-Dimethyl phenol...... 0.036 N-Nitrosodimethylamine .. 0.40 2. Universal Standards for Metal Dimethyl phthalate ...... 0.047 N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine 0.40 Hazardous Constituents Di-n-butyl phthalate ...... 0.057 N- 1,4-Dinitrobenzene ...... 0.32 Nitrosomethylethylami- EPA is also proposing both 4,6-Dinitrocresol ...... 0.28 ne ...... wastewater and nonwastewater

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48101 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48102 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules universal treatment standards for all 14 to recover 95% of chromium from recycling is favored as the best BDAT list metal constituents. The wastes will recover 95% of the treatment for any waste, whenever Agency believes it appropriate to chromium in a spent material refractory feasible.) As always, when the Agency develop universal treatment standards brick and 95% of the chromium in a develops concentration-based treatment for all 14 metals because it is common wastewater treatment sludge. standards, the use of other technologies pracice to mix metal wastes during If recovery is not feasible because the to achieve those standards is not th wastewater and nonwastewater metal content in the material is low or precluded. treatment. Since universal standards the material contains constituents that With respect to the other BDAT list would apply to all listed wastes, all 14 may adversely affect the product, then metal, arsenic, EPA is proposing to base metals have the potential to be in the the generator could investigate ways to the arsenic treatment standard on slag treatment residuals and effluents. generate wastes that are amenable to vitrification. Currently, most arsenic is Further evaluation of characteristic recovery (e.g., segregation), or to not reclaimed from waste materials, but metal wastes to determine the substitute materials that are suitable for is imported into the United States from applicability of universal standards will recovery for the unrecoverable materials other countries. The Agency knows of be made in future LDR rulemakings. that eventually become wastes. Also, one facility that has plans to recover These universal metal standards combinations of hydrometallurgical and arsenic from waste in the near future. would replace the existing listed metal pyrometallurgical recovery processes Until these recovery processes for treatment standards. However, just as may he suitable for some wastes arsenic can be evaluated, EPA is for the organic universal standards, the concentrated with different metals. proposing to base the arsenic treatment generator or ownerloperator would not Because many hazardous wastes contain standard on the treatment performance have to analyze for the entire BDAT list a variety of metal constituents, it often of slag vitrification. of constituents when measuring takes a series of separation and b. Wastewaters. The proposed compliance; only those constituents that concentration steps before a material is universal metals standards for are regulated constituents in the listed generated that is suitable for primary or wastewaters are based on chemical waste would have to be analyzed. secondary smelting operations. precipitation as BDAT. These treatment a. Nonwastewaters.Since.metals As a last resort (see S. Rep. No. 284 standards are presented in a table at the cannot be destroyed, treatment options at 17), technologies such as stabilization end of this section. The wastewater are limited, and typically include and chemical conversion to less treatment standards were developed by technologies that can either recover the leachable metal compounds should be evaluating many different wastewaters. metal or incorporate the metal in a used to treat metal-containing wastes. For the most part, chemical stable matrix resistant to leaching. The The Agency realizes that recovery of precipitation is a matrix independent Agency believes that the "best" metals from all wastes is not practical. technology. In fact, many treatment for metals is recovery, where Therefore, at some level of metal hydrometallurgical recovery processes feasible, especially when the waste concentration (EPA believes this level to recover metals from a wide variety of material contains high concentrations of be approximately one percent total wastewaters by adjusting the wastewater metals. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 284, 98th BDAT list metals), recovery efforts with chemicals so that metals can be Cong. 1st Sess. 17. It is encouraging to typically cease, and the remaining selectively solubilized and precipitated. see the regulated community metals can instead be incorporated into Simple pretreatment steps such as increasingly evaluating both a stable, leach-resistant matrix'for safe equalization, skimming, and settling or pyrometallurgical and disposal. filtration may be needed before hydrometallurgical recovery processes EPA is, therefore, proposing to precipitating reagents are added to the as treatment options. develop universal treatment standards, wastewater to facilitate effective Pyrometallurgical technologies (often for 13 of the BDAT list metals based on treatment. Also, depending on the referred to by EPA as high temperature the performance of high temperature initial concentration of metal metals recovery or HTMR) use heat to metals recovery (HTMR) or stabilization. constituents in the wastewater, the separate metals and other constituents (The treatment standards are presented operating conditions such as retention based on differences in constituent in a table at the end of this section.) time and mixing may need to be oxidation potential, melting point, While the Agency's available data adjusted. Hence, EPA believes that the vapor pressure and/or miscibility when indicate that these standards can be proposed universal treatment standards melted. Hydrometallurgical achieved by either HTMR or are achievable for all RCRA listed technologies separate metals and other stabilization, the Agency solicits data on wastewaters. constituents based on differences in whether any specific waste matrices The Agency notes that the universal constituent solubilities and will not be able to achieve these standards for metal wastewaters are electrochemical properties in aqueous universal treatment standards. different from both the 1987 and 1993 solutions (or in some cases, such as The Agency believes that the choice effluent guidelines standards solvent extraction, organic solutions). of technology will likely depend on the established under the Clean Water Act. Both of these technologies appear to concentration of the metals present in The Agency solicits comments on be matrix independent, especially the the waste. At low concentrations, whether the Clean Water Act standards pyrometallurgical processes (i.e., stabilization may be the preferred for Metal Finishing Point Source HTMR). That is, these systems treatment technology. As the metal Category would provide a more consistently achieve the same level of concentration increases, stabilization appropriate set of universal wastewater treatment performance regardless of the may be difficult and increase volumes to standards. influent matrix compositions. Often, such a degree as to make that form of c. Comments on the Advance Notice pretreatment steps such as crushing and treatment undesirable. At high of ProposedRulemaking. Most pelletizing may be necessary, but the concentrations, recovery will be the commenters to the Advance Notice of amount of metal recovered is generally preferred method of treatment because it Proposed Rulemaking supported the consistent for each matrix, depending reduces the amount of waste destined establishment of universal treatment on the design of the recovery process. for land disposal and recovers valuable standards for metal bearing wastes. For instance, a HTMR process designed resources. (Environmentally sound However, several disagreed with the

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48102 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48103 approach. In particular, one commenter stabilization. EPA reviewed the data and interfering with treatment (such as argued that establishing only one concluded that most metal wastes can complexing agents), operating standard for each metal constituent be stabilized to the levels proposed as conditions such as Ph and retention would cause a problem because it nonwastewater universal treatment times, amount and type of precipitating would not account for the variety of standards. Some concentrated reagents added, and any other waste matrices, and the differences in chromium waste streams were treated to information needed to assist the Agency the ability of stabilization to treat levels slightly above the universal in evaluating the wastewater treatment different matrices. The commenter standards; however, the Agency believes process. suggested that EPA develop a separate HTMR to be a more appropriate set of treatment standards for the treatment technology for concentrated PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT following seven different metal-bearing metal wastes. This is especially true of STANDARDS FOR METALS waste subcategories: (1) Wastewater wastes with high levels of chromium [No alwaes treatment residues, (2) direct process which are technically very responsive to wastes, (3) biological and organic HTMR and have considerable economic Mawium for containing residues, (4) direct process value relative to other common metals. dusts and solids, (5) soils and sludges Moreover, since the inception of the Regulated Constituent from remediation projects, (6) Land Disposal Restrictions, EPA has incineration residues, and (7) waste observed that treatment facilities alter treatment residues (i.e., brines), slags, process design -and/or operating Antimony ...... 2.1 and refractories. parameters to achieve the levels Arsenic ...... 5.0 EPA is not adopting the approach established as treatment standards. Barium ...... 7,6 suggested by the commenter. As stated Consequently, the Agency believes that Beryllium ...... 0.014 previously, HTMR and stabilization are there exists a certain degree of flexibility Cadmium ...... (tg being proposed as BDAT for metal- with most treatment technologies. (In Chromium (Total) ...... 033 containing nonwastewaters. Because addition, national and site-specific Lead ...... 037 HTMR is not matrix dependent, and, variances Mercury ...... 0.009 from the treatment standards Nickel ...... &G where the metal concentrations are remain an option, (See § 268.44).) Selenium ..... ____ 0-46 appropriate, stabilization is able to In summary, EPA believes it is Silver ...... 0.30 achieve those levels, treatment appropriate to base BDAT for the Thallium ...... _.0...... _. 078 standards for different matrices are not universal metal standards on HTMR Vanadium ...... 023 necessary. While it may be possible to because it is a matrix independent Zinc ...... 5.3 set lower treatment standards for certain technology that reduces the amount of of the subcategories, one of the major material ultimately sent for land PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT reasons for establishing universal disposal. Also, because these standards STANDARDS FOR METALS treatment standards is to streamline the could also be achieved by stabilization, p/eastewaers LDR program. Establishing different the proposed levels would not be subcategories could be just as complex technology forcing (i.e., data indicate as the current system. In addition, that stabilization can achieve the MaXIMWA for Regulated Constituent nle questions on how to distinguish proposed universal treatment standards composite between different subcategories would for a wide variety of nonwastewater sample (mgf) require development of a multitude of matrices.) regulatory definitions. Available data d. Request for data. The Agency Antmony. 1.9 indicate that each of the suggested waste requests data and comment on whether Arsenic ...... 1A there are any especially difficult to treat Barium ...... 1.2 subcategories can be treated to comply, Beryllium with the universal metal standards. wastes that cannot achieve the proposed ...... universal Cadmium ...... (20 One commenter argued that in order treatment standards. For Chromium (Total) . 0.37 for EPA to establish universal standards, nonwastewaters, information provided Lead ...... 0.28 the Agency would have to adopt the should include characterization data on Mercury ...... 0.15 highest standard for any constituent to the untreated wastes, such as total metal Nickel ...... 0.56 ensure that all wastes can be treated to content, TCLP leachate concentrations, Selenium 0.82 conform with the standard. The and technical explanations of why the Silver...... 029 commenter argued that there is variation waste material is inappropriate for Thallium ...... 1.4 among the specific treatment standards recovery or ineffectively stabilized. Vanadium 0.042 for identical metal constituents in Stabilization information should Zinc ...... 1.0 different wastes and treatment groups. include type of binder, both weight and 3. Universal Standards for Cyanide The commenter indicated that the main volume binder-to-waste ratios, whether reasons for the differences are the wide premixing with less concentrated wastes Both wastewater and nonwastewater variety of matrices treated, along with is used to make the waste more universal treatment standards are being the limitations of stabilization. amenable to stabilization, and TCLP proposed for cyanide in today's rule. The Agency does not believe that the results for the 14 metals. Information The Agency believes it is appropriate to variety of treatment standards is solely describing the treatment performance of regulate cyanide because cyanide is the result of treating different matrices. stabilization (or other technologies) commonly found in many listed metal- For example, analytical laboratories should also be submitted. containing and organic-containing have different levels of accuracy for For wastewaters, information should wastes. Furthermore, it is common reporting detection limits, and many of include total metal concentrations practice to mix wastes during both the metal treatment standards are based (preferably for all 14 metal present) in wastewater and noinwastewater on detection limits. the influent and effluent. Information treatment. In developing universal Several commenters submitted data should also address any other standards for cyanide, the Agency on the treatability of metal wastes using constituents in the waste that may be reviewed the existing treatment

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48103 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48104 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules standards for cyanide as well as the data standard as provided in the Metal LDR treatment standards and thus, do that were used in developing those Finishing standards, 40 CFR 433.14(b). not apply to all LDR cyanide limits- standards; some of the standards b. Nonwastewaters. In developing that is, EPA's existing data-base include levels for total and amenable universal standards for cyanide in contains treatability results using cyanide, while others only regulate total nonwastewaters, the Agency examined various sample sizes/distillation times. cyanide. three options: A standard based on total This basically ensures that we cannot The existing wastewater standards are and amenable cyanide concentrations, a group and compare these data as though based primarily on the performance of standard based on TCLP concentrations, they were all based on the same alkaline chlorination. Wet air oxidation and a standard that specifies treatment analytical method. is another treatment technology methods. Although EPA is proposing A third issue that EPA is considering supporting treatment standards for today adoption of the first option, is that much of the treatability variance acrylonitrile wastewaters (i.e., K011, comments are solicited on all three activity has been associated with total K013, and K014). With regard to options. These three options are cyanide concentrations. There have nonwastewater forms, several of the discussed below. In addition, the been two variances approved allowing existing standards are based on Agency solicits comment on the significantly higher levels (see 56 FR incineration (i.e., K048-K052, F037, appropriateness of withdrawing the 12351, March 25, 1991) and three other F038, and F010) while several are based cyanide treatability variances in the 40 treatability variance requests indicating on treatment of the wastewater to CFR 268.44, if EPA decides to that the 1.8 mg/kg level of total cyanide destroy the cyanide prior to generation promulgate the leach or the specified in F039 is unachievable. Again, the of the nonwastewater residual by method option. Also, the Agency analytical test methods or the presence technologies such as alkaline solicits data on any technology of iron-cyanide complexes appear to chlorination (i.e., F006 and F019) and advances in treating iron cyanide play some role in these treatability electrolytic oxidation followed by wastewaters that would justify variance petitions. alkaline chlorination (i.e., Fil and withdrawing these variances, if EPA In spite of these issues, EPA believes F012). Several of the existing standards promulgates the concentration option. that it is technically feasible to develop were established based on transfers of i. A Concentration-BasedStandard. In a concentration based standard treatment data from the treatment of a examining the total concentration provided analytical variabilities and option, the Agency examined several treatment of complex cyanides are taken similar waste. issues that would affect the into account. Electroplating wastes, the The types of wastes in which cyanide development of a universal aluminum coil conversion wastes, the has been regulated under the BDAT concentration-based number. First, there heat treating wastes, and the metal program include: Electroplating (D003 is a wide range of existing BDAT cyanide P- wastecodes all have high reactive cyanides, F006); aluminum coil treatment standards for nonwastewater levels of cyanide in the untreated waste conversion (Foig); heat treating (F010, forms of cyanide, ranging from 1.8 to and/or have cyanide in a matrix (such FOil, F012); metal cyanides (P013, 590 mg/kg (total cyanide) and 9.1 to 30 as an iron-cyanide complex) that is P021, P029, P030, P063, P074, P098, mg/kg (amenable cyanide). EPA difficult to treat. In the June 23, 1989 P099. P104, P106, P121); multi-source established these different treatment preamble (54 FR 26608), the Agency leachate (F039); pigments (K005, K007); levels after concluding that the available agreed with commentors that high petroleum (K048, K049, K050, K051, treatment data supported the concentrations of iron in the cyanide K052, F037, F038); coking (K060); and establishment of separate treatability wastes (when present as iron-cyanide organo-nitrogen (K104). Cyanide is also groups as a direct result of waste complexes) appear to effect the level of a regulated constituent in acrylonitrile characteristics affecting treatment cyanide destruction that is achievable.) wastes (K011, K013, K014) which are performance. For example, iron levels, Based on the most difficult to treat not included under universal standards the presence of organics, or the presence nonwastewaters, the Agency is (see earlier discussion in this section of of complex iron-cyanides can affect the proposing universal treatment standards today's preamble.) treatability of cyanide wastes. In of 590 mg/kg for total cyanide and 30 a. Wastewaters. In developing the addition, EPA found that some wastes, mg/kg for amenable cyanide (as cyanide universal standards, the Agency as generated, already contained low measured by Method 9010 or 9012). examined the existing data and noticed levels of cyanide in the waste. EPA is also proposing that a 10 gram certain patterns. In particular, it appears Second, the analytical method for sample and 1 hour and 15 minute that regardless of process waste type, measuring cyanide in nonwastewaters distillation time be used for the purpose the wastewaters could generally be allows significant variabilities in the of complying with these universal treated to levels on the order of 1.9 resulting concentrations of total and standards. mg/l for total cyanide. Thus, the Agency amenable cyanides. The specified Other wastes such as multi-source is proposing for universal standards a methods, SW 846/Method 9010 and leachate, pigments, petroleum, coking, total cyanide limit of 1.9 mg/l for 9012, do not specify sample size or ink solvents and organo-nitrogen wastes wastewaters. This level is widely used distillation time. By varying these two generally have very little cyanide in the in wastewater discharge regulations- factors, reported cyanide concentrations untreated waste to begin with, have namely those for the Metal Finishing may differ by a factor of more than 100. cyanide along with organic constituents Industry and the Organic Chemicals, In the Third Third BDAT rulemaking, which are routinely incinerated, or have Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Industry. the Agency avoided these kind of cyanide in a free form which is easier The Agency has also established for the variabilities by specifying a 10 gram to treat by conventional treatment Metal Finishing Industry, an alternative sample and a 1 hour and 15 minute methods. For these nonwastewaters, the standard of 0.86 mg/l for amenable distillation time in order to comply with Agency is soliciting comment on cyanide. As such, EPA solicits comment LDRs applicable to nonwastewater whether these other wastes need to be on the need to regulate wastewaters for forms of D003, F006, and F019. regulated at a level below the universal both total and amenable cyanide, or However, the 10 gram sample size and treatment standard, namely, at 30 mg/kg whether the amenable cyanide level 1 hour and 15 minute distillation time for total cyanide and 1.8 for amenable should be an alternative to the total have not been specified in setting other cyanide.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48104 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48105

At this time, the Agency believes that incineration; concentrations of cyanide permits may simply switch cyanides establishing a lower limit to address in untreated wastes ranged from 3,400 from wastewaters to sludges in a wastes that contain little to no cyanide mg/kg to 5,240 mg/kg and in treated cyanide-metal complex form or into a is unnecessary; that control of organic residues ranged from 95 to 210 mg/kg thiocyanate form for the purpose of constituents which are routinely total cyanide and from 38 to 140 mg/kg complying with their water effluent incinerated provides adequate control, amenable cyanide. limitations. These matrices may leach and that inorganic wastes with cyanide An alternative to these levels is an from the landfill, migrate to surface in a free form are adequately controlled amenable cyanide level of 36 mg/l based waters, or oxidize when exposed to by the amenable cyanide limit of 30 mg/ on a modified TCLP. The modified sunlight and thus, release free cyanides kg. However, the Agency specifically TCLP is based on a deionized water into the environment. EPA thus believes solicits comments on these points. leach as opposed to an acid leach. This that treatment standards for cyanides ii. A Leachable Based Standard. The proposed water leach level is based on must be based on residues from the leach option involves specifying a residues resulting from the calcination destruction of cyanides prior to any concentration standard based on the of spent potliners via a Reynolds stabilization or ultimate disposal. TCLP or some other leaching procedure. process. The Reynolds process carries However, the Agency is soliciting For previous LDRs, the Agency has out the calcination of K088 in a rotary comment on whether there are cyanide selected a total concentration standard kiln that operates at similar temperature wastes that are more appropriately to best reflect the capabilities of and residence time conditions to those immobilized. Any commentors destruction technologies. In rare of EPA's incineration test study. In submitting such data should include instances, where there are analytical contrast to EPA's incineration study, proper justification for why the cyanide difficulties, the Agency has elected to Reynolds' process adds up to 35% sand in these wastes cannot be destroyed regulate wastes based on a TCLP and 35% limestone to the calcination of (which is the Agency's preference). concentration, even though the basis for K088 (I088 may comprise up to 30% of Although 3004(m) of RSWA gives BDAT was a destruction technology. For the total feed charged to the calciner.) regulatory discretion to EPA on whether cyanide, EPA is faced with a chemical Like EPA's incineration study, to set treatment standards that that has analytical difficulties and can Reynolds' calcination process shows substantially reduce the mobility or be effectively destroyed by certain that substantial destruction of cyanide toxicity of hazardous constituents prior technologies. Basing the standard on the values can be achieved by thermal to land disposal, the legislative history TCLP concentration, however, avoids processes (in Reynolds' demonstration also emphasizes the Congressional the analytical difficulties and still study, cyanide values in the untreated concern that cyanides should be treated provides the treater with the flexibility K088 wastes ranged from 18.1 mg/kg to by destruction technologies prior to of using a variety of destruction 1,110 mg/kg for total cyanide and from disposal: Idlestruction of total cyanides technologies to comply with the 2.6 mg/kg to 1,110 mg/kg for amenable should be required as a precondition to standard. cyanide and in treated K088 residues land disposal." 130 Cong. Rec. S 9179 After examining the treatment data for levels of both cyanide species were (daily ed. July 25, 1984) (Statement of TCLP levels, the Agency solicits below the detection level of 10 mg/kg. Senator Chaffee explaining the comments on the following TCLP Taking into account any dilution amendment which became section cyanide limits: 16 mg/I for total cyanide resulting from the addition of lime and 3004(m).) and 3.5 mg/I for amenable cyanide. Each sand, these treated values are more CyanoKem's stabilization data concentration based standard is based likely to be in the range of 30 mg/kg.) submittal may support development of on two data points from a data set of Other performance data measuring a treatment standard of 10 mg/I of three data points (an outlier test on cyanide concentrations in leachate amenable cyanide, as measured in an TCLP levels for the amenable and total extracts include CyanoKem's extract of an alkaline leach of cyanide rejected one data point.) These stabilization of alkaline chlorinated chemically stabilized cyanide wastes. cyanide limits are based on cyanide cyanide wastes, EPA's stabilization These cyanide wastes were previously levels measured in residues from EPA's study of cyanide wastes from the treated by alkaline chlorination and rotary kiln incineration test study of aluminum coil industry, and subsequently treated by stabilization. EPA Hazardous Waste No. K088. These stabilization data submitted by CyanoKem's data are based on monthly hazardous wastes are associated with commentors to EPA's second and third composite samples. CyanoKem points spent carbon electrodes (spent pot third rulemakings of cyanide wastes. out, however, that the amenable liners) generated by the aluminum EPA has placed all these stabilization leachate cyanide level can be enforced industry. EPA Hazardous Waste No. data in the administrative record of with the collection of grab samples. K088 wastes are contaminated with today's proposal. (See memorandum to CyanoKem's data also indicate that a sodium aluminum fluoride salts, trace Administrative Record on Available broad variety of cyanide wastes with metals, and heavy concentrations of free Stabilization Data on Cyanide Wastes.) untreated total cyanide concentrations and iron complex cyanides. Except for CyanoKem's data, these up to 500,000 mg/kg, including complex EPA subsequently stabilized these stabilization studies lack information on cyanides, were treated by alkaline K088 incineration residues in order to whether any pretreatment step for the chlorination (to levels below 400 ppm- treat leachable fluoride values. None of destruction of the cyanide occurred total cyanide, as measured by Method the stabilized wastes show, however, prior to stabilization. Of course, a 9010) followed by chemical any improvement for the leachability of majority of the RCRA-cyanide wastes stabilization. The wastes treated by amenable and total cyanide levels. To are likely to be sludges resulting from CyanoKem include: D003, F006-F012, the contrary, some of the stabilized the treatment of cyanide/metal-bearing P013,P021, P029, P030. P098, P106, K088-incineration wastes show an wastewaters discharged to POTWs or to and P121. CyanoKem also indicated that increase of TCLP levels for amenable outfalls under NPDES permits; however, the addition of solidification/ and total cyanide. Still, EPA's study these wastewater treatment sludges may stabilization agents such as fly ash or shows that K088 underwent significant not have been generated from cyanide cement does not result in any further destruction of total and amenable destruction technologies. Some facilities treatment of cyanide in the final (the cyanide values by rotary kiln discharging under NPDES or POTW alkaline chlorinated) sludge. EPA

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48105 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48106 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules requests comments on the feasibility of process (an oxidation process for simply converting the cyanide to basing a leachate standard based on treating rinse waters from zinc or cyanate, ferrous or ferric cyanide these CyanoKem data including the cadmium metal finishing operations), complexes. In light of the legislative adoption of its leaching procedure. The and potassium permanganate alone may history of HSWA, EPA believes Agency also requests comments on only oxidize amenable cyanides to (cyanide) destruction technologies will whether amenable, total, or both total cyanates or thiocyanates and thus, serve better the requirements of and amenable cyanide should be further oxidation treatment is necessary 3004(m). regulated under the universal standards. to destroy cyanides. These technologies In general, the Agency would prefer to iii. Specifying Treatment Methods. do not appear to destroy iron-cyanide specify a numerical standard, so that The final option is to specify methods. complexes. For instance, sulfur dioxide/ treaters may be free to use other EPA is soliciting comments on requiring air oxidation leaves behind iron cyanide technologies to destroy the cyanide and the use of incineration, alkaline complexes reduced in a ferrous state achieve the standard. Due to the chlorination, or electrolytic oxidation that-are removed from solution by complexity of the issues involved in followed by alkaline chlorination, and precipitation of ferro-cyanide treating cyanide, the Agency is wet air oxidation to treat cyanide. EPA complexes. EPA solicits comments that including this option to provide believes these technologies have been demonstrate how these chemical commentors a complete range of options demonstrated to treat wastes with high oxidation technologies can destroy iron- to consider. concentrations of free cyanides (over cyanide complex wastes and not just 100,000 ppm) or complex iron cyanides shift iron-cyanide complexes from one PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT (the most difficult to treat of all the media to another. STANDARD FOR CYANIDE cyanide species.) Incineration, UV/ozonation [Wastewaters] As part of the First, Second, and (catalyzed), and a proprietary improved Third Third rulemakings, EPA alkaline chlorination process appear to Maximum for examined a broad range of oxidation more effectively treat complex cyanides any single technologies that enable the destruction including iron cyanides-the most Regulated constituent composite of cyanides in a diverse universe of resistant to oxidation treatment of the sample (mg/I) wastewater and nonwastewater forms of cyanide-metal complexes. EPA'has data Cyanide (Total) ...... 1.9 hazardous wastes. Chemical oxidation demonstrating its applicability to the technologies enable the destruction of following cyanide wastes: K086, F010, dissolved cyanides in aqueous K048-K052, F037, F038, K011, K013, PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT solutions, such as wastewaters from K014, K104, K106, F006, F010, and STANDARDS FOR CYANIDE* plating and finishing operations, or of F019. [Nonwastewaters] inorganic sludges from these operations. EPA also has data on the treatment of Chemical oxidation technologies aluminum spent potliners by Maximum for examined by EPA include: incineration and calcination any single (1) Electrical oxidation, (2) Regulated constituent composite technologies. These incineration and sample (mg/ hypochlorite or chlorine oxidation calcination data show that cyanide kg) (alkaline chlorination), (3) complexes and amenable cyanides can permanganate, ozone, or Sulfur dioxide/ be treated to a total cyanide level below Cyanide (Total) ...... 590 air (Inco process) oxidation, (4) wet air 210 mg/kg. (See above discussion Cyanide (Amenable) ...... 30 oxidation, (5) high temperature supporting the alternative universal Note: *Cyanide nonwastewaters are (cyanide) hydrolysis, and (6) UV/ leachable levels for cyanides.) analyzed using SW-846 Method 9010 or Ozonolysis. Wet Air Oxidation (WAO) is another 9012, sample size 10 grams, distillation time, One, or combinations, of these cyanide destruction technology one hour and 15 minutes. technologies can reduce the examined by EPA. It is, in fact, the basis 4. Universal Standards for Petroleum concentration of cyanides in the wastes. of treatment standards for K011, K013, Refining Wastes Incineration, peroxide treatment, and K014 (acrylonitrile) wastewaters alkaline chlorination, or electric (See 55 FR 22584, June 1, 1990). WAO In the Third Third final rule (55 FR oxidation followed by alkaline can reduce the concentration of organics 22520, June 1, 1990) the Agency chlorination, high temperature and cyanides in wastewaters (that examined treatment data from hydrolysis, or UV/ozonolysis appear to contain less than 1% Total Suspended noncombustion technologies as a basis effectively destroy amenable cyanides, Solids and less than 5% Total Organic for BDAT for certain petroleum refining cyanide-metal complexes (to varying Content.) Effluent wastewaters often listed wastes-K048-52. In the LDR degrees), or chelating agents. EPA has undergo additional treatment by other Phase I final rule (57 FR 37194, August data in today's docket showing that high technologies such as biological 18, 1992), the Agency extended those concentrations of amenable cyanides treatment to further reduce organic limits to other petroleum refining (over 100,000 ppm) can be treated levels in the wastewaters. Similarly, wastes-F037-38. The universal effectively by high temperature subsequent treatment of nonwastewater standards for organics, however, are hydrolysis or electric oxidation to levels forms is often provided in order to based on combustion. The proposal to below 500 ppm when followed by comply with applicable LDRs for cover these wastes under the universal alkaline chlorination or other oxidation organics and metals. EPA thus believes standards is based on the expectation technologies. There are also data that it is technically feasible to include that the noncombustion technologies showing that complex cyanides, WAO among those cyanide destruction considered during the development of including iron-cyanides, can be treated technologies being considered under the the K048-52 standards (viz. 3- or 5- effectively by combinations of alkaline option of prescribed technologies. phase solvent extraction) can also chlorination and some oxidation These treatment standards for achieve the universal standards. The technologies. wastewaters and nonwastewaters must background document for the F037-38 It appears that the use of sulfur be achieved by destruction, not by standards lists in Appendix B twenty dioxide/air oxidation, the Kastone stabilization or immobilization or by treatability tests used to develop the

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48106 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48107

K048-52 standards. Eleven of these tests The Agency believes that if F024 ANPRM, EPA solicited comment on fully complied with the universal wastes are properly incinerated, and the consolidating appendix V into appendix treatment standards. Appendix C of the treatment standards for the nine IV. Comments received were favorable same document identifies 28 other test regulated organic constituents are met, in that such a change would simplify runs using noncombustion technologies. then dioxins and furans, as well as all compliance with the procedures. All of these tests fully complied with of the other hazardous constituents in The Agency is proposing to replace universal standards. the waste will be substantially the two appendices with a list of During the later development of the destroyed. In light of this issue, the excluded wastes. The existing F037-38 standards, comments were Agency is retaining the existing alternative treatment standard for lab submitted that thermal desorption could Ireatment standards for F024 and is not packs would be retrained: Incineration achieve much lower levels than those applying the universal treatment (40 CFR 268.42(c)(3)) followed by used for K048-52; lower, in fact, than standards to this waste. treatment of characteristic metals the universal treatment standards B. Incorporationof Newly Listed Wastes (excluding mercury (40 CFR proposed in today's rule. Based on the 268.42(c)(4).) Considering that two information that noncombustion into Lab Packs and Proposed Changes to Appendices organo-mercury wastes, P065 and technologies can also achieve the P092, are allowed in lab packs, the universal standards when treating On June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22629), EPA Agency solicits comments on whether petroleum refining wastes, the Agency promulgated alternative treatment incinerator residues should also be is proposing to include K048-52 and standards for lab packs under 40 CFR required to comply with the D009 F037-38 petroleum refining wastes 268.42(c) that specified methods of mercury standards. under the universal standards. treatment that could be used prior to Because the number of prohibition The Agency is aware that the industry land disposal. EPA promulgated these waste codes is small, the regulated is using combustion and thermal alternative standards to provide relief to community will be able to'quickly desorption, both of which should be treaters from having to monitor determine if a waste is excluded from capable of meeting the universal compliance with numeric treatment the alternative lab pack treatment standards. Comments are solicited on standards for many different wastes that standard. The proposed list of excluded whether the industry has invested in could be included in the lab pack. The waste codes is shown in table D-1, other technology that cannot meet the alternative treatment standards applied below. universal standards. In particular, to two categories of lab packs as information on the type of treatment, specified in Appendix IV TABLE D-1 .- LIST OF WASTE CODES performance data, and an explanation as (organometallic) and Appendix V to why operational factors could not be (organic) to part 268. In the January, TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LAB adjusted to comply with the universal 1991, correction notice and again in the PACKS standards, are solicited. To the extent May 30, 1991, Advance Notice of data demonstrates that petroleum Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 24453), D009, F019, K003, K004, K005, K006, K062, refining wastes treated by appropriate the Agency requested comment on K071, K100, K106, P010, P011, P012, noncombustion technologies can potential improvements to the existing P076, P078, U134, U151. achieve slightly higher levels than those alternative treatment standards for proposed for universal standards, the Appendix IV and Appendix V. In The waste proposed for exclusion are Agency may choose to revise the particular, the Agency solicited the same as those currently excluded, universal standards. opinions on whether a regulatory with the following exceptions. K071, a As a general matter for all hazardous definition of organometallics was mercury waste that was inadvertently wastes, the Agency solicits comments necessary, or whether other regulatory listed on appendix IV, will now be and data on whether slight adjustments requirements should be developed to excluded. The Agency's action to the universal standards would prevent potential misuse of the existing regarding K071 is consistent with the encourage the further use of appendix IV lab pack requirements. exclusion of all other inorganic mercury noncombustion technologies and still As noted in the May, 1991 ANPRM, wastes. Another difference with the represent BDAT. EPA's original intent in establishing current exclusion list is that six these two appendices was to simplify cyanide-containing wastes-F007, F008, 5. Universal Standards Will Not Apply the regulations related to lab packs F009, F011, F012, and K007 will be to F024 needed incineration followed by allowed in lab packs. EPA believes that F024 is being excluded from the chemical stabilization of the ash cyanide will be effectively destroyed by universal treatment standards. (Appendix IV), from those lab packs combustion. Treatment standards for F024 needing only incineration (Appendix EPA is also proposing that the constituents, including polychlorinated V). However, under 40 CFR 268.42(c)(4), following newly listed wastes (i.e., all dioxins and polychlorinated furans, the residue from incineration of both wastes listed or identified since were promulgated in the Second Third types of lab packs must be treated to November 1984) be eligible for the rule (54 FR 26615, June 23, 1989). The address any hazardous characteristic for alternative treatment standards for lab standards were revised in the Third the TC metals, i.e., D004-D008, D010, packs: The newly listed wastes for Third rule (55 FR 22580, June 1, 1990). and D011. (DO09 mercury wastes are not which treatment standards were These concentration-based treatment included in this list because mercury- promulgated in the LDR Phase I rule (57 standards for F024 are lower than the bearing wastes are excluded from the FR 37194, August 18, 1992), and the universal standards for the regulated alternative lab pack treatment standard.) newly listed and TC wastes for which F024 constituents. The revised - As such, there is no practical difference treatment standards are being proposed standards did not include any specific between the treatment required for the in today's rule. concentration-based treatment standards two types of lab packs. The Agency EPA requests comments on all aspects for dioxins or furans, but did require believes that combing the appendices of today's alternative lab pack proposal, that the F024 waste be treated by into appendix IV will simplify including the usefulness of the incineration. procedures. In the May 30, 1991 proposed standards at treatment,

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48107 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48108 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 1 Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules storage. and disposal facilities, and discussed the issues, identified the most 268.41-268.43) was too complex and whether a list of excluded wastes is important issues associated with each burdensome to use. necessary, given the alternative of using topic and provided additional detail or When the LDR program began, the limits on emissions from combustion potential solutions. The small groups Agency believed it was useful to cearly units and metal limits on the solid then reconvened in general session to delineate in 'the regulation the residuals. For example, inorganic report back the group's differences between numerical mercury wastes are excluded from lab recommendations. (The complete treatment standards as measured in packs. The reason for excluding these proceedings for the roundtable are leachate from the Toxicity CharacteRistic wastes is that they are not effectively included in the RCRA docket numbered Leaching Procedure (table CCWE at treated by combustion; and furthermore F-92-CD2F-S0144.) 268.43) from standards measured mercury, which is a volatile metal, may The participants identified the through a total waste analysis (table cause emission concerns. Alternatively, following major issues relative to the CCW at 268.42). Furthermore, it was EPA could rely on existing mercury LDR treatment standards: useful to clarify that the specified standards for Boilers and Industrial " Wastecode-carry through. methods of treatment (tables 2 and 3 at Furnaces and omnibus limits for " Use of health-based versus 268.43) differed from numerical hazardous waste incinerators to address technology-based numbers as the standards in that numerical standards emission concerns; and a mercury limit standard, " can be met through the use of any could be placed on the solid residual by e Defining the point at which wastes technology, whereas specified methods adding D009 to the list of metal limits enter or exit the LDR "system", must be used to treat the waste. When in § 268.42(c)(4) to ensure effective a Inconsistency of individual specified methods are used, there is no treatment of the solid residual. standards for constituents across waste need to measure the treatment residue codes, for compliance purposes. C. Proposed Changesin the LDR " Capacity for treatment, However, now that the program has Program in Response to the LDR * Storage of waste for greater than one been in place for a number of years and Roundtable year, almost all hazardous wastes are subject to treatment standards, the Agency 1. Background • Existing treatment standards for hazardous soil, agrees that the regulations can be The Office of Solid Waste convened a " Standards modifications, and simplified. First, the Agency believes roundtable meeting on January 12-14, " The need for user-friendly guidance the program has been in place long 1993, to discuss the LDR program. The on treatment standards. enough so that the regulated community purpose of the roundtable was to hear The participants identified the generally understands the system. Thus, from persons experienced in following major issues relative to LDR it may not be necessary to make such implementing the LDR program on what monitoring obvious delineations. Second, there is was working well, what was not e Providing clarification for the use of considerable overlap between the tables. working well, and what could be done generator knowledge, For instance, a listed waste may contain to improve the program. These " Constituent monitoring, both organic constituents and metals. discussions were a forum for sharing " Revisions to the Toxicity Treatment standards for the organic concerns and information in a Characteristic Leaching Procedure constituents appear in § 268.43, where a constructive and candid manner, rather (TCLP), cross reference to § 268.41 appears that than to reach consensus or serve as * Detection limits, refers the reader to the treatment formal negotiations. * Waste analysis plans, and standards for the metals. A few wastes In the spirit of quality improvement, * Guidance and training. have treatment standards appearing in EPA's goal is to make the LDR program Although views on the LDR program all three places. The consolidated table more efficient and easier to implement. varied, feedback from the participants provides all necessary information in an The roundtable was part of a indicated that coming together to easier-to-read format. The Agency notes comprehensive LDR implementation discuss these issues was very that the new table does not contain the study. EPA developed the LDR program worthwhile. EPA is today proposing to proposed universal treatment standards, under stringent deadlines; thus the incorporate some of the instead relying on the standards implementation study presents an recommendations made by roundtable currently found in the three existing opportunity to assess its effectiveness participants, as discussed below. For tables. If the consolidated table and the and implementation. The Agency is example, the Agency is proposing to universal standards are both finalized, using the information gained from this consolidate the three existing treatment the table will contain the universal study, beginning with the January standard tables and to simplify the standards. roundtable, to improve the existing LDR notification requirements, as discussed Therefore, EPA is proposing in program and to guide its future below. In addition, as discussed in today's rule a table which combines the direction. section III.A., the Agency is also information found in § 268.41 Table Roundtable participants were waste preparing to develop a uniform set of CCWE.-Constituent Concentrations in generators, treaters and disposers, universal treatment standards. For other Waste Extract, § 288.42 Table 2.- public interest groups, state issues raised at the roundtable, the Technology-Based Standards by RCRA environmental agencies, other Federal Agency is continuing to develop Waste Code, and § 268.43 Table CCW.- agencies, and EPA headquarters and improvements to the LDR program. Constituent Concentrations in Wastes. The Agency is proposing to call the regional personnel. Major issues were 2. Consolidated Treatment Table identified in advance by roundtable table "Treatment Standards for participants and the discussions focused Several 3f the groups present at the Hazardous Waste" and place it at on these topics: Treatment standards, LDR roundtable expressed an interest in § 268.40 along with much of the text monitoring, and administrative and having a consolidated treatment found currently in §§ 268.41, 268.42, paperwork requirements. standard table in the regulations. and 268.43. Section 268.42 would To facilitate discussion, five small Participants stated that the existing continue to be used to describe the groups were created. The small groups system of three tables (see 40 CFR technology ,odes, regulate California

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48108 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48109

list PCBs and HOCs, set out exemptions manifest form. Since it is not possible at manifest number associated with the from the required methods, and provide this time to combine the manifest with shipment, the constituents in the waste for procedures for equivalency the notification form, and since the for certain D001 and D002 wastes for determinations. The Agency requests Agency believes that the LDR which treatment standards for the comments on the usefulness of the notifications are necessary to document underlying hazardous constituents must consolidated table. cradle-to-grave hazardous waste be met (see 58 FR 29860, May 24, 1993), management, 3. Simplified LDR Notification the Agency explored ways and the specific hazardous constituents Requirements to simplify the information required on in EPA Hazardous Wastes Nos. F001- the notification form. The Agency F005, and F039 for which treatment is Comments on the § 268.7 notification proposes to omit the requirement at required. Today's proposal would not requirements at the LDR roundtable § 268.7(a)(1)(ii) and at § 268.9(d)(1) that ranged from eliminating notification alter the certification requirements at the notification include treatment § 268.7. altogether to modifying or deleting data standards or references to those items on the notification form. It was standards. Participants at the LDR roundtable also suggested that the LDR notification Such a simplification makes also requested a summary of all the LDR form be combined with the manifest. particular sense in conjunction with paperwork requirements. The Agency is The manifest form is currently being consolidating the treatment standard therefore proposing that such a table be revised through a regulatory negotiation tables. Therefore, the Agency is included as an appendix to part 268. process; as part of the process, the group proposing that the only information The Agency requests comment on the discussed the possibility of combining required to be included in the notification simplification and summary the manifest and the notification form. notification will be the EPA Hazardous table shown below. Also, comment and Due to a number of factors, the group Waste Number, whether the waste is a examples are requested on whether a decided not to consider combining the nonwastewater or wastewater, waste flow chart might be more useful than LDR notification requirements with the analysis data where available, the the summary table.

TABLE 1.-RECORD-KEEPING, NOTIFICATION, AND/OR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Entity Scenaro = Frequency Recipient of notification Record-keeping, notification, and/or certification II Irequirements

I. Generator ...... A. Waste does not Each shipment ...... Treatment or storage Notice must be in writing and include: meet applicable treat- facility. " EPA hazardous waste number ment standards or " Constituents of concern for certain wastes exceeds applicable " Treatability group prohibition levels " Waste analysis-data (where available). [§268.7(a)(1)]. B. Waste can be dis- Each shipment ...... Land disposal facility ... Notice and certification statement that waste posed of without fur- meets applicable treatment standards or ap- ther treatment (meets plicable prohibition levels. applicable treatment Notice must include: standards or does " EPA hazardous waste number not exceed prohibi- " Constituents of concern for certain wastes tion levels upon gen- " Treatability group eration) * Manifest number [§ 268.7(a)(2)]. " Waste analysis data (where available) Certification statement required under §266.7(a)(2)(ii) that waste complies with treatment standards and prohibitions. C. Waste is subject to Each shipment ...... Receiving facility ...... Notice must include: exemption from a " Statement that waste is not prohibited from prohibition on the land disposal type of land disposal * EPA hazardous waste number utilized for the waste, " Constituents of concern for certain wastes such as a case-by- • Treatability group case extension under " Manifest number §268.5, an exemp- " Waste analysis data (where available) tion under §268.6, or " Date the waste is subject to the prohibitions. a nationwide capacity variance 1§ 268.7(a)(3)]. D. Waste is in tanks or Minimum of 30 days EPA Regional Adminis- Generator must develop, keep onsite, and foi- containers regulated prior to treatment trator (or his des- low a written waste analysis plan describing under 40 CFR activity. ignated representa- procedures used to comply with the treat- 262.34 (accumulated tive) or authorized ment standards. waste) and being State. Delivery must If waste is shipped offsite, generator also must treated in such con- be verified. comply with notification requirement of tainers to meet appli- § 268.7(a)(2). cable treatment standards [§ 268.7(a)(4)].

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48109 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48110 Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 1 Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.-RECORD-KEEPING, NOTIFICATION, ANDIOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS-Continued

Entity Scenario Frequency cipt oRecord-keeping, notification, and/or certification I I RI requirements E. Where generator is Each shipment ...... Treatment facility ...... Notice in accordance with §268.7(a)(1), (a)(5), managing a lab pack and (a)(6), where applicable. containing certain Certification in accordance with §268.7(a)(8) or wastes and wishes to § 268.7(a)(9), respectively. use an alternative treatment standard [§ 268.7(a)(8) or (a)(9)]. F. Small quantity gen- Initial Shipment ...... Treatment facility ...... Must comply with applicable notification and erators with tolling certification requirements in §268.7(a). agreements [pursu- Generator also must retain copy of the notifica- ant to 40 CFR tion and certification together with tolling 262.20(c)] agreement onsite for at least 3 years after [§268.7(a)(10)1. termination or expiration of agreement. G. Generator has de- N/A ...... I Generator's file ...... All supporting data must be retained onsite in termined waste is re- generator's files. stricted based solely on his knowledge of the waste [§ 268.7(a)(5)]. H. Generator has deter- N/A ...... I Generator's file ...... All waste analysis data must be retained onsite mined waste is re- in generator's files. stricted based. on testing waste or an extract [§268.7(a)(5). I. Generator has deter- One-time ...... I Generator's file ...... File a one-time notice stating such generation, mined that waste is subsequent exclusion from the definition or excluded from the exemption from Subtitle C, and the disposi- definition of hazard- tion of waste. ous or solid waste or exempt from Subtitle C regulation [§ 268.7(a)(6)]. J. Other record-keeping N/A ...... Generator's file ...... Generator must retain a copy of all notices, requirements certifications, demonstrations, waste analysis [§268.7(a)(7)]. data, and other documentation produced pur- suant to §268.7 onsite for at least 5 years from the date that the waste was last sent to onsite or offsite treatment, storage, or dis- posal. This period is automatically extended during enforcement actions or as requested by the Administrator. II.Treatment Fa- A. Waste shipped from. Each shipment ...... I Land disposal facility ... Notice must include: cility. treatment facility to * EPA hazardous waste number land disposal facility • Constituents of concern [§268.7(b)(4). ('o)(5)]. * Treatability group * Prohibition levels * Manifest number * Waste analysis data (where available) Certification as set out in §268.7(b)(5)(i), (ii) and (iii) stating that the waste or treatment residue has been treated in compliance with applicable performance standards and prohi- bitions. B. Waste treatment res- Each shipment ...... Receiving facility ...... Treatment, storage, or disposal facility must idue from a treatment comply with all notice and certification re- or storage facility will quirements applicable to generators. be further managed at a different treat- ment or storage facil- ity J§ 268.7(b)(6)].

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48110 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48111

TABLE 1 .-- RECORD-KEEPING, NOTIFICATION, AND/OR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS-Continued

Scenario Frequency Recipient of notification Record-keeping, notification, andor cetification Entity requirements C. Where wastes are Each shipment ...... Regional Administrator No notification to receiving facility required pur- recyclable matedals (or his delegated rep- suant to §268.7(b)(4). used In a manner resentative). Certification as described In _§268.7(bHS) and constituting disposal notice with information listed In §268.7(b)(4), subject to §26620(b) except manifest number. [§268.7(b)(7)l. Recycling facility must keep records of the name and location of each entity receiving hazardous waste-derived products. III. Land Disposal A. Wastes taken to ...... Maintain copies of notice and certifications Facility, land disposal facility specified in §268.7(a) and (b) and §268.8, if _ 1§268.7(c)]. applicable.

4. Demonstrating Acceptable Knowledge solicits comment on other types of 9 Other site-specific/process-specific of One's Waste information that would come under the factors. Under the LDR program, generators definition of process knowledge. The Agency requests comment on may characterize their waste based EPA lists certain hazardous wastes in other appropriate situations in which either on knowledge of the waste or on 40 CFR part 261. For example, the K- acceptable knowledge is appropriate. analytical data. On the other hand, listed wastes (e.g., K001 wastes, defined d. Why Provide Evidence to Support treatment, storage, and disposal as bottom sediment sludge from the Acceptable Knowledge? For facilities (TSDFs) must periodically test treatment of wastewaters'from wood enforcement purposes, EPA seeks their wastes, according to the frequency preserving processes that use creosote evidence that demonstrates that the specified in the Waste Analysis plan and/or pentachlorophenol) are listed by information relied upon is sufficient to (WAP); at other times, they may use the specific process that generated the identify the waste accurately and knowledge to characterize their waste. waste (rather than by the characteristic completely. Such evidence (e.g., Several participants at the LDR of the waste that is generated.) knowledge of the process that generated Roundtable expressed the need for Therefore, with many listed wastes the waste) is essential for identifying guidance as to what constitutes ("K", "P", and "U") the application of constituents that must meet LDR acceptable knowledge when acceptable knowledge is appropriate standards. characterizing waste. because the waste characteristics are e. How Can A TSDF Verify Data a. Background.The general and generally consistent and well known Supplied by a Generator?There are specific waste characterization from facility to facility. In the case considerations that a TSDF should be requirements can be met using several where a generator sends waste off-site aware of when relying upon acceptable methods or combinations of methods. for treatment, storage, or disposal, the knowledge to manage wastes. First, if Wherever feasible, the preferred method TSDF may rely on process knowledge the TSDF relies in part on information to meet the waste characterization supplied by the generator as a basis for supplied by a generator, the TSDF must requirement is to conduct sampling and the TSDF's waste characterization. (See become thoroughly familiar with the laboratory analysis because this data in § 264.13.) generator's processes to verify the most cases provides the most definitive Some facilities have records of integrity of the data. This can be information on constituent analysis performed before the effective accomplished by: (1) Conducting facility concentration levels in waste compared date of RCRA regulations. While visits of generators, (2) obtaining split to LDR treatment standards. However, seemingly attractive because of the sampling for confirmatory analysis, generators and TSDFs also can meet potential savings associated with using and/or (3) gathering other information. waste characterization requirements by existing information (such as published Second, if the TSDF uses process applying "acceptable knowledge." data), the facility must ensure that this descriptions and documented studies as Acceptable knowledge can be used to information accurately characterizes acceptable knowledge, the data should meet all or part of the waste applicable wastes. be scrutinized carefully as to whether.. characterization requirements. c. When Might Acceptable Knowledge e There are any differences between b. What ConstitutesAcceptable Be Used? Generators and TSDFs may the process in the study and the process Knowledge? Acceptable knowledge is use acceptable knowledge alone or In used by the generator. broadly defined to include "process conjunction with sampling and * The studies used are applicable. knowledge" and the facility's records of laboratory analysis. There are situations These issues are of concern, for analysis performed before the effective where it is appropriate to apply example, because EPA revised the date of RCRA regulations, or a acceptable knowledge, for example, criteria that qualify a waste as a combination of these with actual when: hazardous waste due to meeting the chemical analysis of the waste. e The hazardous constituents in toxicity characteristic. Not only were "Process knowledge" could constitute wastes from specific processes are well the number and type of constituents that acceptable knowledge when detailed documented, such as with the K-listed could deem a waste hazardous modified information on the wastes is obtained wastes mentioned previously. but also the test for identifying these from existing published or documented * Wastes are discarded unused constituents was amended (i.e., the waste analysis data or studies commercial chemical products, reagents Toxicity Characteristic Leaching conducted on hazardous wastes or chemicals of known physical and, Procedure (TCLP) replaced the generated by processes similar to that chemical constituents. Several of these Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test (EP which generated the waste. EPA also fall into the "P" and "U" categories. TOX Test).)

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48111 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48112 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

Therefore, if a TSDF has been using requesting the document "Summary of treatment capacity for highly- acceptable knowledge, it needs to the Land Disposal Restrictions concentrated mercury waste, and review the waste analysis or waste Evaluation Roundtable" found in the insufficient treatment technologies to characterization data to determine if it docket numbered F-92-CD2F-S0144. address ignitable, corrosive and reactive is managing any solid wastes that are a. Waste code carry through. One of (ICR) wastes. With regard to mercury now hazardous wastes. The TSDF needs the issues concerns the management of wastes, participants suggested EPA to determine whether its existing data is residuals from treating listed wastes. allow the low-level mercury treatment sufficient to identify any new The waste codes for these wastes "carry standard to be applied to high-level constituent concentrations limitation through" to the treatment residual, even mercury wastes. For ICR wastes, the (i.e., demonstrate compliance with LDR when the physical or chemical state of recommendation was to allow requirements). the waste has been modified. The maximum flexibility concerning In addition, where documented Roundtable participants' continued use of deactivation. studies are used as acceptable recommendations included: (1) Furthermore, it was stated that the knowledge, the TSDF should determine Dropping the waste code when the LDR storage for greater than one year will whether the information is based on treatment standards are met-groups occur for certain wastes because no valid sampling and analytical contended that once standards are met treatment capacity exists (e.g., techniques. Also, the ability of for a waste, the waste code should be radioactive mixed wastes, mercury- analytical equipment to detect low dropped from the residual so that bearing wastes not amenable to the concentrations of contaminants has legitimate mixing and other treatment current standards, PCBs, and dioxin- improved over the years, and could occur without retesting; (2) contaminated wastes.) (The 'one-year constituents that once were determined allowing the use of process knowledge limitation' is, of course, a misnomer. to be "nondetectable" may, in fact, be to identify a short list of constituents in Persons storing for over one year merely detectable using the sophisticated residuals for which analysis should be have the burden of showing they are equipment available today. conducted; and (3) developing residual storing waste in order to accumulate Although EPA recognizes that waste codes (as the Agency has done for sufficient quantities to facilitate proper sampling and analysis is not as multi-source leachate.) treatment or disposal. § 268.50(c).) economical or convenient as using b. Use of health-based levels versus Participants also indicated that the one- acceptable knowledge, it does have a technology-based levels in establishing year storage limitation is a disincentive number of advantages. Because accurate treatment standards. A number of the for waste minimization because the cost waste identification is such a critical participants suggested. that the LDRs of disposal decreases as the volume of factor for demonstrating compliance should be revised to allow materials to waste increases, and pollution with RCRA, misidentification can leave the hazardous waste (i.e., RCRA prevention/waste minimization render a facility liable for enforcement subtitle C) system-that is, the LDR programs have created problems actions with respect to permit treatment standards should be based on associated with generating sufficient conditions, LDR requirements, annual risk. Other participants recommended waste for disposal. There is also reporting, and other RCRA that EPA should consider confusion on the part of industry on requirements. In addition, accurate socioeconomic factors and resource what constitutes a good-faith effort to waste analysis is critical for meeting allocations during these risk find treatment capacity. Possible some of the requirements of other evaluations. For further discussion, see solutions voiced included: (1) Guidance regulatory programs such as effluent Section II.H. Furthermore, it was also on what constitutes a good-faith effort to discharges under the Clean Water Act, suggested that the Agency create a de find treatment capacity; (2) streamlining and transportation requirements minimis program to eliminate certain capacity variance procedures; and (3) regulated by the Department of specific categories of small volume waste minimization storage allowances Transportation. wastes from the LDR requirements. (e.g., EPA offering storage for greater 5. Advance Notice of Possible Changes (This last alternative would, of course, than one year as a waste minimization to the LDR Program Resulting From the likely require a statutory change.) incentive for non-permitted facilities.) LDR Roundtable c. Inconsistency of standards. Some e. Generator knowledge. It was stated participants stated that requiring by a number of the participants that As was elaborated above in the characteristic wastes to be treated below generator knowledge with respect to section presenting background on the the characteristic level is inconsistent identifying constituents of concern in LDR Roundtable, EPA intends further with the regulatory standards used for their hazardous waste was often rejected review comments and recommendations hazardous waste identification. by TSDs, requiring testing by generators made during the Roundtable and Remedies included: (1) Capping prior to acceptance of wastes for propose to incorporate them-where treatment with risk-based levels; (2) treatment or disposal. The one appropriate-into future LDR implementing universal standards based recommendation was to institute regulations. Below, some of the main on the least-stringent treatment guidance on what the Agency considers problems and recommendations standard; and (3) having EPA focus on sufficient written documentation to identified by Roundtable participants hazardous compounds in wastes rather support a generator's knowledge of the are briefly discussed. The than on the existing set of waste codes, waste. (The Agency is providing some recommendations are being presented in and establish technology-based guidance on this issue in section 4 this proposed rule to solicit further treatment standards so that each above.) comments that will be considered when compound would have a specific f. Constituents. Conversely, a number developing possible revisions to existing standard regardless of the waste in of the participants stated that the LDR provisions in future rulemakings. which it was found (such "universal Agency requires testing for too many Comment is solicited on each of the standards" are proposed in section III.A constituents, presenting a cost burden to recommendations discussed above. of this preamble.) industry. Because generators are said to More detailed information on the LDR d. Capacity-related issues. know the constituent content of their Roundtable can be obtained by calling Participants cited a-number of capacity- waste, it is unnecessary to test. Potential or writing the RCRA Docket and related concerns, including the lack of solutions to this problem included: (1)

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48112 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48113

Developing short, waste-specific, the number of years that records must constituent present at levels above the indicator constituent lists for testing; (2) be retained. universal constituent-specific treatment initially testing the whole range of j. Complexity of the regulations.Most standards at the point of generation of constituents, then testing again only if of the participants agreed that the the TC waste). the waste stream changes; and (3) preamble language is not consistently This proposed approach is the same having EPA remove dioxins and furans interpreted among government officials as that adopted in the recent interim from the F039 list due to the expense of and that it is necessary to work with final rule, promulgated on May 10, 1993 analysis, while retaining the current both the regulations and the preamble to (published on May 24, 1993, 58 FR standards for these compounds in F020- understand what is required. Discussion 29860) in response to the court's F023 and F026-F027. in the groups pointed to the LDRs being decision in Chemical Waste g. Detection limits. Some participants difficult to understand, largely because Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2 (D.C. maintained that some treatment the Codes of Federal Regulations (CFR) Cir. 1992). That case vacated and standards are set at levels that may be are quickly out of date; the preamble remanded certain Agency regulations below detection limits, creating obvious language contains significant guidance (commonly referred to as the Third compliance difficulties. that is not always implicit in the Third rule) establishing prohibitions Recommendations included: (1) regulatory language; and the treatment and treatment standards for Allowing ranges in detection limits and standards are found in the CFR in characteristic wastes, and also in LDR treatment standards; (2) several tables. Recommendations established rules as to when the establishing LDR standards at levels that included: (1) Developing consolidated prohibitions and standards would not are not below detection limits; (3) use treatment tables (this suggestion is being apply. the practical quantitation limits (PQLs) proposed in this notice, as discussed at This section provides a summary of as the default for matrix difficulties; (4) section C.2 above); (2) having EPA the court's decision, an overview of the refining detection limits over time and develop a bulletin board to keep all interim final rule published on May 24, allow the use of indicator compounds in involved parties informed of policy 1993, and how the Agency proposes to difficult analyses; and (5) allowing the memoranda, scheduled briefings, and apply this approach to the TC wastes. states and regions discretion when new rules; (3) having the Agency make 1. Background dealing with difficult matrices and inspector checklists available to the regulated community and hold Among other things in the Third standards. Third final rule, the Agency h. Waste Anaysis Plans (WAPs). The workshops on compliance; (4) EPA physically reorganizing its regulations promulgated treatment standards and general problem voiced was that prohibitions for hazardous wastes that generators, treaters, disposers, and by incorporating part 268 into the generator and facility requirements exhibited one or more of the following enforcement officials often obtain characteristics: Ignitability, corrosivity, different analytical results for the same (parts 262, 264 and 265); and, (5) having EPA expand preambles to include reactivity, or EP toxicity (40 CFR waste depending on the sampling (eg., an 261.21-261.24). The Agency also grab versus composite samples), and the implementation section, soliciting evaluated the applicability of the LDR statistical or weighting methods comment on implementation dilution prohibition to characteristic employed, necessitating re-testing. information during the development of wastes, including characteristic wastes Potential remedies included: (1) the regulations (this is being ultimately managed in wastewater Developing WAP guidance to, among implemented in this proposed rule in management systems with land disposal other things, minimize redundant section XI.) units (i.e., impoundments or injection testing and over-certification of wastes, W. Treatment Standards for Toxicity wells) which are subject to varying, and solicit comment on whether to Characteristic Waste degrees of regulation under the CWA specify WAP guidance at the time of and SDWA. This was done in an effort promulgation of the rules; (2) having the A. The Third Third Court Decision, the to ensure the successful integration of Agency develop sampling guidance; (3) Emergency Interim FinalRule, and these programs with the LDR using composite sampling over grab Their Applicability to TC Wastes regulations (see generally 55 FR 22653- sampling; (4) establishing mandatory In today's notice, EPA is proposing 59 (June 1, 1990)). Thus, except where quality control procedures; and (5) treatment standards for wastes the Agency specifically identified and having the waste analysis plans rely displaying the toxicity characteristic required that hazardous constituents be more on generator knowledge. (TC wastes) when the TC wastes are treated, the rule indicated in essence i. Paperwork.In general it was felt managed in systems other than: (1) In that characteristic wastes need only be that the paperwork requirements were wastewater treatment systems which treated to remove the characteristic too complicated. Some participants include surface impoundments and before land disposal where land suggested that there is no longer a need whose ultimate discharge is subject to disposal involved placement in surface for the LDR notification, and said'that the Clean Water Act (CWA); (2) in Class impoundments whose ultimate the separate LDR notification hampers I non-hazardous underground injection discharge was subject to regulation inspections. Alternative options wells subject to the Safe Drinking Water under the CWA, or where the waste was included: (1) Including the LDR Act (SDWA) Underground Injection injected into a Class I UIC well. notification on the manifest; (2) revising Control (UIC) program; or, (3) by a zero On September 25, 1992, the United the LDR notification to exempt discharger who, before permanent land States Court of Appeals for the District generators from informing the treater of. disposal of the wastewater, treats the of Columbia Circuit ruled on various the treatment standards applicable to wastewaters in a wastewater treatment petitions for review of this rule. The the waste (EPA is proposing to make system equivalent to that utilized by principal holdings of the case with this change in this preamble at section CWA dischargers. Consistent with the respect to characteristic wastes were 3 above); (3) creating a summary table Third Third Case, the treatment that: (1) EPA may require treatment of notification and certification standards proposed for these wastes under RCRA section 3004(m) to more requirements (included above in Table include standards for "constituents stringent levels than those at which 1); and (4) solicit comment on reducing subject to treatment" (i.e., any regulated wastes are identified as hazardous so

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48113 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48114 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

long as the level defining the waste as effect, and disposal of prohibited wastes untreated influent to wastewater hazardous was above the level at which treated pursuant to that standard is legal treatment systems), or treatment that the threats to human health and the until the standard is amended. facility can show performs as well or environment are minimized, 976 F. 2d In the Agency's opinion, the rules better than these enumerated at 12-14; (2) section 3004(m) requires dealing with centralized wastewater technologies. See § 258.37(a), 58 FR at that treatment standards address both. management involving land disposal 29885 (May 24, 1993). short-term and long-term potential (§§ 268.1(c)(3) and 268.3(b)) were EPA is proposing the same deferred harms posed by hazardous wastes, as remanded, not vacated. (See 976 F.2d at coverage when these units are used to well as removal of the characteristic 7, 19-26 where these rules are discussed treat TC wastes. The Agency believes property, id. at 16, 17, 23; as a and not expressly vacated.) This means that it would be most appropriate to consequence, dilution is permissible as that the only wastes to which the address all issues pertaining to such an exclusive method of treatment only interim final rule applied were those wastewater management operations at for those characteristic wastes that do ignitable and corrosive wastes for which one time. Therefore, it is not addressing not contain hazardous constituents "in the treatment standard was deactivation TC wastes managed in these systems in sufficient concentrations to pose a threat (since the deactivation standard for this rulemaking. They will be addressed to human health or the environment" these wastes was vacated) and which in a later rulemaking, along with issues (i.e., the minimize threat level in section were managed in systems other than that pertain to the wastewater 3004(m)), id. at 16; and, (3) situations CWA, CWA-equivalent, or Class I UIC management facilities excluded from where characteristic hazardous wastes wells regulated under the SDWA. the interim final rule. are diluted, lose their characteristic(s) The treatment standards promulgated The treatment standards being and are then managed in centralized in the interim final rule retained the proposed today for TC wastes would wastewater management land disposal requirement of deactivation to remove apply, however, when these wastes are units (i.e., subtitle D surface the hazardous characteristic; however, injected into other than Class I wells impoundments or injection wells) are the rule also established numerical (e.g., Class V shallow injection wells), legal only if it can be demonstrated that treatment standards for the underlying even if the wastes were rendered hazardous constituents are reduced, hazardous constituents that could be noncharacteristic ("decharacterized") destroyed or immobilized to the same present in the wastes. first. The exception to the dilution extent as they would be pursuant to 2. Applicability of This Approach to TC prohibition of the Third Third Final otherwise-applicable RCRA treatment Wastes and Hazardous Soil Covered by Rule never applied to other than Class standards, id. at 7. This Proposed Rule I nonhazardous injection wells. This As a consequence of these holdings, means that today's proposed the court held that the deactivation The Agency is today proposing the requirements will apply to some treatment standard for ignitable and same approach adopted in the interim injection practices, in particular, those corrosive wastes (which allowed the final rule for determining which involving Class V injection wells. These hazardous characteristic to be removed hazardous constituents in TC wastes typically are wells injecting by any type of treatment, including and hazardous soils to regulate and the nonhazardous wastes above or into dilution) did not fully comport with types of treatment/disposal units underground sources of drinking water. RCRA section 3004(m). This was covered. As with ignitable and corrosive (If, however, the TC wastes injected into because that standard could be achieved wastes, the underlying hazardous non-Class I wells were to be treated by by dilution, and section 3004(m) "* * * constituents must be treated. The CWA-equivalent means before injection, requires that any hazardous waste be Agency believes that to do otherwise the proposed treatment standards would treated in such a way that hazardous would be inconsistent with the court's not apply. This is an example of the constituents be removed from the waste holding that RCRA section 3004(m) type of zero discharger referred to before it enters the environment." 976 F. requires that treatment standards above.) The Agency solicits comments 2d at 24. address both short-term and long-term and data on volumes of TC wastes In response to the court decision, EPA potential harms posed by hazardous managed in Class V injection wells, and issued an emergency interim final rule wastes. on waste management practices with respect to those treatment With respect to the units to be employed prior to injection. standards that were vacated (as opposed regulated, EPA is proposing to defer The TC wastes covered by this rule to remanded) by the court (58 FR 29860, control of the same units not addressed have been, and will continue to be, May 24, 1993). The distinction between by the interim final rule. Under that managed in combustion devices or be vacated and remanded rules is that rule, the new treatment standards do not stabilized. Upon promulgation of a final vacated rules are no longer in effect apply to ignitable or corrosive wastes rule, such facilities must treat the (once the court's mandate issues), managed in wastewater treatment wastes to meet the treatment standard whereas remanded rules remain in force systems whose ultimate discharge is for the TC waste-including standards until the Agency acts to replace them. subject to the CWA, Class I underground for any underlying hazardous This distinction has considerable injection wells subject to the SDWA constituents-prior to land disposal. significance with respect to LDR Underground Injection Control (UIC) treatment standards. If there is no program, and zero dischargers who, 3. Future Response to Issues Remanded treatment standard for a prohibited before final land disposal, treat by the Court waste (for example, as a result of a wastewater with treatment equivalent to The Agency plans to address the vacatur), that waste is prohibited from that utilized by CWA dischargers. CWA- issues having to do with CWA and land disposal, because it has not been equivalent treatment means biological CWA-equivalent wastewater treated to meet the treatment standard treatment for organics, reduction of management systems and injection into established by EPA, and (presumably) is hexavalent chromium, precipitation/ Class I injection wells in future not being disposed in a no-migration sedimentation for metals, alkaline rulemakings. For example: (1) Direct unit. RCRA sections 3004 (d), (e), and chlorination or ferrous sulfate dischargers managing decharacterized (g)(5). A remanded treatment standard, precipitation of cyanide (to the extent wastes in surface impoundments; (2) on the other hand, would remain in these constituents are present in the indirect dischargers managing

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48114 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48115 decharacterized wastes in surface for, and being granted, a no-migration B. Background impoundments; (3) zero dischargers petition that would allow continued (including those injecting into non-Class land disposal of untreated wastes. 1. Legal and Policy Background I injection wells) who perform CWA- Although commenters on the One of the key issues in the Third equivalent treatment before ultimate Supplemental Information Report Third rule was whether characteristic disposal; and (4) persons injecting suggested that EPA could promulgate a wastes must be treated to a lesser extent decharacterized wastes into Class I deep rule that does not require treatment of than listed wastes. This result could injection wells will be subject to the underlying hazardous constituents, come about because, under Agency regulation in the future when the based on a generic finding that injection regulations, characteristic wastes stop Agency addresses remanded issues from is a protective practice, the Agency's being "hazardous wastes" at the point the Third Third Case. See 58 FR at tentative view is that this is not a viable they stop exhibiting the characteristic 29860, May 24, 1993 explaining the option (see Supplemental Information property. § 261.3(b). However, if basis for these categorizations. Report, pp. 25-7). However, the Agency treatment of characteristic wastes must Many of these remanded issues are seeks additional comment on the cease at the point they are no longer significantly more complex than those technical and legal issues raised in hazardous wastes, any underlying dealt with in the interim final rule and Notice of Data Availability and hazardous constituents (hazardous in today's proposed rule. In addition, Supplemental Options Report as they constituents other than those for which the universe of facilities affected by the may pertain to TC wastes. the waste exhibits the characteristic) can remanded portions of the Third Third Probably the most significant issue for go untreated. 55 FR at 22652 (June 1, rule is much broader than that covered CWA wastewater treatment facilities 1990). Moreover, at that time, the Agency in either of these rules, as it will include will be that of determining the viewed the characteristic level (among other things) treatment systems equivalency of CWA treatment systems as higher than the "minimize threat" regulated under the CWA, Class I level required for treatment of with RCRA LDR treatment. Associated hazardous nonhazardous injection wells regulated issues such as whether the court wastes by section 3004(m). under the SDWA, plus zero discharge opinion authorizes controls on leakage id. facilities that engage in treatment that is The Agency consequently took the or volatilization from treatment surface position that Congress did not compel equivalent to that of CWA dischargers. impoundments, or whether sludges Furthermore, the volumes of wastes less treatment for characteristic wastes generated in impoundments must be than for listed wastes (or, put another affected by the remanded rules are treated, much greater than those at issue in this will be particularly way, did not compel non-treatment of regulation and the interim final rule. controversial and will take time to underlying hazardous constituents, Options for addressing these resolve. Comments are solicited on treatment only to characteristic levels, remanded issues with respect to these issues as they pertain to treatment or dilution to meet treatment standards ignitable, corrosive, and reactive of TC wastes. for characteristic wastes.) id. at 22652- characteristic wastes were presented in 4. Request for Comment on Petition 58. The Agency established this the Supplemental Information Report From Chemical Manufacturer's g rinciple by stating that if a waste is prepared for the January 19, 1993 Notice Association Regarding Deep Well az ous at the point it is generated,. of Data Availability (58 FR 4972), Injection of Ignitable and Corrosive the obligation to treat to section 3004(m) available in the RCRA docket. EPA Characteristic Wastes levels attaches at that point, whether or expects that most of the issues not the waste still exhibits a discussed there will also apply to TC In the May 24, 1993 interim final rule characteristic at the point it is disposed. wastes when treatment standards are for ignitable and corrosive wastes id. promulgated. The following discussion managed in other than wastewater Reviewing this rule, the D.C. Circuit summarizes many of the issues raised in treatment systems whose ultimate upheld the point of generation the Supplemental Information Report. discharge is subject to the CWA, in principle; however, it also invalidated It is clear that the court intended for other than Class I underground injection some of the discretion EPA had asserted the Agency to revise the special dilution wells subject to the SDWA UIC program, in whether to apply it. 976 F. 2d at 7, provisions for management in a CWA and by zero dischargers who do not treat 13-14, 23, 25-6. The Agency is, of facility (§ 268.3(b)) and in SDWA Class wastewater with treatment equivalent to course, bound by this opinion, and I injection wells (§ 268.1(c)(3)), because that utilized by CWA dischargers, the today's proposal for TC wastes reflects it specified that dilution alone is not Agency discussed plans for future the Agency's view of what the opinion adequate treatment if an ignitable, rulemakings covering those ignitable requires in establishing treatment corrosive, and reactive waste contains and corrosive wastes disposed in such standards for characteristic wastes. hazardous constituents at levels above units. As part of its response to May 24 Further discussion of the opinion, in those the Agency finds minimize interim final rule, the Chemical particular, when different parts of the threats. This will greatly impact the Manufacturers' Association (CMA) opinion start to apply, is found in the injection of these wastes (and, requested that the Agency develop interim final rule promulgated on May potentially, TC wastes) in Class I treatment standards intended for those 10, 1993 (58 FR 29860, May 24, 1993), nonhazardous deep wells, since there wastes disposed in Class I deep as well as the preceding section of this are few treatment systems currently in injection wells. CMA specifically preamble. place upstream of the that requested the Agency to promulgate Today's rule consequently proposes could treat the underlying hazardous treatment standards for ignitable and treatment standards for TC wastes constituents that are present. Such corrosive wastes managed by deep well which standards are not constrained by facilities seem to have few options for injection that, in view of the unique the characteristic level, that prevent the dealing with the court's decision: circumstances of deep well injection, standard from being achieved by undertaking substantial waste meet the statutory "minimize threats" dilution (albeit issues related to most minimization efforts; installing on-site standard. Consequently, the Agency has types of land-based centralized treatment systems; arranging for off-site placed CMA's petition in the docket and wastewater management are not being transport and treatment; or, applying is soliciting comment on the petition. addressed in this proposal), and which

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48115 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48116 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 1 Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

require treatment of the underlying hazardous constituents, incineration wide diversity of these TC wastes is hazardous constituents. may destroy not only the TC constituent expected to impact EPA's ability to With respect to treatment below but the underlying organic hazardous evaluate source reduction and recycling. characteristic levels, section 3004(m) of constituents present at lower (See also EPA's general solicitation for RCRA states that treatment standards concentrations than the TC information on pollution prevention must substantially diminish the waste's concentration. Comments are solicited opportunities in section I.B. above). toxicity or mobility so that short-term on the need to monitor the residual ash and long-term threats posed by the for compliance with the treatment C. Treatment Standardsfor New TC waste are minimized. See 55 FR at standards for the underlying organic Organic Constituents 22654 (June 1, 1990). EPA has noted hazardous constituents, if the treatment D018-Benzene that the EP/TC limits are levels at which standard for the TC constituent has been DOI 9-Carbon tetrachloride wastes clearly are hazardous. 45 FR met. The Agency solicits specific data D020-Chlordane 33084 (May 19, 1980); 51 FR 21648 that demonstrate that alternative D021-Chlorobenzene (June 13. 1986); See 55 FR 11798 (March monitoring requirements would provide D022--Chloroform D023-o-Cresol 27, 1990). EPA thus believes that further adequate assurance that all treatment D024-m-Cresol treatment below a characteristic level standards are met. D025-p-resol may be necessary before threats to D026--Cresol human health and the environment are 2. Background on Toxicity Characteristic D027-1,4-Dichlorobenzene ".minimized" within the meaning of D028-1,2-Dichloroethane section 3004(m). See 55 FRat 22654 On March 29, 1990, EPA revised 40 D029--1,1-Dichloroethylene (June 10, 1990). For some of the TC CFR 261.24--the Toxicity Characteristic D030-2,4-Dinitrotoluene wastes addressed in today's rule, the or "TC"-replacing the extraction D031-Heptachlor concentration-based treatment standards procedure (EP) with the toxicity D031-Heptachlor epoxide are consequently lower (i.e. more characteristic leaching procedure D032-Hexachlorobenzene stringent) than the regulatory levels that (TCLP). This rule also increased the D033-Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene number of hazardous constituents D034--Hexachloroethane establish those wastes as D035-Methyl ethyl ketone characteristically hazardous. regulated under this characteristic from D036-Nitrbenzene Dilution rules are intended to prohibit 14 to 40. These TC wastes are newly D037-Pentachlorophenol dilution in lieu of treatment and to identified wastes for the purpose of D038--Pyridine ensure that hazardous constituents are developing land disposal restrictions D039--Tetrachloroethylene destroyed or removed by treatment. (LDRs). See section 3004(g)(4). They fall D040-Trichloroethylene Third Third Case, 976 F. 2d at 16, 28. into three categories for purposes of the D041-2,4,5-Trichlorophenol EPA is consequently proposing that it is LDR program. The first category consists D042-2,4,6-Trichlorophenol impermissible to achieve the treatment of new organic constituents and D043-Vinyl chloride standards for TC wastes by means of includes all wastes identified as D018- 1. General Approach for Establishing dilution. (As stated above, however, D043. Today's proposal would establish Concentration-Based Treatment EPA is not addressing in this rule the treatment standards for D018 through Standards management of TC wastes in land-based D043 wastes when they are managed in centralized wastewater management non-CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non- Treatment standards established systems that were not included within Class I SDWA systems. The second and under the land disposal restrictions the scope of the recent emergency rule. third categories consist of those D004- (LDR) program are based on The court remanded these issues in the Doll metal wastes and D012-D017 performance of the best demonstrated Third Third Case (id.), leaving in place pesticide wastes that are now hazardous available technology (BDAT) for treating existing regulations that allow dilution based on TCLP analysis rather than EP a waste. Under EPA's procedure for in such systems). analysis. EPA established treatment establishing treatment standards, the Also, as described earlier, EPA is standards in the Third Third final rule Agency establishes concentration-based reposing treatment standards for the for these wastes if they exhibit both the treatment standards with compliance azardous constituents that can be TC (because they had to be hazardous measured through a total waste analysis present in treatable concentrations in waste) and the EP (because only EP as the best measure of destruction or TC wastes, but which are not the basis wastes were covered by the Third Third extraction (typically BDAT for organics), for causing the waste to be identified as prohibition). Today's rule establishes or establishes concentration-based hazardous (for example, lead present at treatment standards for the TC pesticide treatment standards with compliance less than TC levels, but present at levels wastes that do not exhibit the EP measured through analysis of the TCLP exceeding treatable concentrations and characteristic. EPA is not proposing leachate, as the best measure of metal exceeding LDR levels, in a waste that treatment standards for the TC organic, treatment. The Agency generally exhibits the TC because of benzene). and pesticide wastewaters that are specifies treatment technologies only for The Agency is proposing the same types managed in CWA facilities or facilities those situations where there are no of monitoring rules for these that engage in CWA-equivalent analytical methods to measure constituents recently adopted in the treatment prior to land disposal or in compliance with a concentration-based emergency rule, so that (in essence) Class I injection wells, or for TC metal treatment standard. monitoring for hazardous constituents is wastes (D004-D011). Such standards a. Nonwastewaters.The Agency is limited to those reasonably expected to will be proposed in a later rule. today proposing concentration-based be present in the wastes. EPA is soliciting information that may treatment standards for nonwastewater The Agency requests comments, be used to characterize industrial TC organic wastes based on existing generally, on mechanisms that may be generation patterns to assess the treatment data that were used to used to streamline the compliance potential for source reduction or establish treatment standards for these monitoring requirements under the LDR recycling for these TC wastes. While same constituents in listed wastes. The program. For example, forTC wastes source reduction and recycling are high proposed standards are presented at the that contain organic underlying priorities for any hazardous waste, the end of this section. The treatment

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48116 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 I Proposed Rules 48117

standards proposed today are at the PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FOR BDAT STANDARDS FOR TC ORGANICS same levels as those proposed as TC ORGANIC WASTES-Continued [Wastewaters] universal standards in a separate part of [Nonwastewaters] today's rule. Maximum for any The concentration-based treatment Maximum for single grab sam- standards being proposed are primarily any single grab Constituent pie based on incineration data. The Agency Code Regulated con- sample believes, however, these proposed stituent I oiai composiban treatment standards can also be met by Totaltion com(W9/k) i- a number of other treatment D018--Benzene ...... 0.014 technologies. (See discussion in section D027 . 1,4-Dichloroben- D019--Carbon tetra- I.A of this preamble for more zene 6.0 chloride ...... 0.057 information about these proposed D020-Chlordane ...... 0.0033 treatment standards). In fact, the Agency D028 . 1,2-Dichloroe- D021--Chlorobenzene ..... 0.057 has some data on the treatment of these thane 6.0 D022--Chloroform ...... 0.046 constituents by innovative technologies D023--o-Cresol ...... 0.11 D029. D024--m-Cresol ...... 0.77 (i.e., solvent extraction, thermal qxll,1- D025--p-Cresol ...... 0.77 desorption) that support the levels being Dichloroethy- lene. 6.0 D026-Cresol ...... 0.88 proposed today. D027-1,4-Dichloroben- The treatment technologies typically zene 0.09 used for organic nonwastewaters (e.g., D028-i ,2-Dichloroe- incineration, thermal desorption, D030 . 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 140 thane 021 D031. Heptachlor ...... 0.066 solvent extraction) tend to destroy or D0029-i ,1-Dichloroethy- extract the organics D031 . Heptachlor epox- lene 0.025 to a highly efficient ide. 0.066 degree. Thus, setting standards based on D030-2,4-Dinitrotol- uene 0.32 these treatment data may result in DO31-Heptachlor ...... 0.0012 D032. Hexachloroben- 10 DO31-Heptachlor epox- hazardous constituents being removed zene ide ...... 0.016 from the waste before disposal. D033 . Hexachloro-1,3- DO32- The Third Third Case directs EPA to butadiene. 5.6 Hexachlorobenzene ...... 0.055 ensure that the hazardous constituents D033-Hexachloro-1,3-bu- in characteristic waste are adequately D034 . Hexachloroethane 30 tadiene ...... 0.055 treated. Many TC organic D035 . Methyl ethyl 36 DO34- nonwastewaters contain hazardous ketone Hexachaloroethane ...... 0.055 constituents in addition to those D036 . Nitrobenzene ...... 14 DO35-Methyl ethyl ke- constituents which caused the waste to D037. Pentachlorophenol 7.4 tone ...... 0.28 be identified as a hazardous TC waste; D038 . Pyridine ...... 16 D036-Nitrobenzene ...... 0.068 for example, a waste which is classified D039. Tetrachloroethy- DO37-Pentachlorophanol 0.089 D038--Pyridine ...... 0.014 as TC hazardous waste because of its lene 6.0 DO39- benzene concentration may also contain 0.056 D0040. Trichloroethy- lene 6.0 Tetrachloroethylene ...... lead at levels of concern although hot DO40-Trichloroethylene.. 0.054 characteristically hazardous for lead, or D0041 . 2,4,5-Trichloro- D041-2,4,5-Trchloro- may contain non-TC hazardous phenol 7.4 phenol 0.18 constituents. (Standards for these D042-2,4,6-Trichloro- D042. 2,4,6-Trichloro- phenol 0.035 hazardous constituents would also be phenol 7.4 based on the universal treatment D0043-Vinyl Chloride ...... 0.27 standards, since these are virtually D043. Vinyl Chloride ...... 6.0 identical to standards for F039, the basis 2. Radioactive Mixed Waste for the standards included in the May 10 emergency interim final rule). b. Wastewaters. In today's notice, EPA Radioactive mixed wastes are those is proposing treatment standards for wastes that satisfy the definition of PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FOR newly identified TC wastewaters that subject to the Atomic TC ORGANIC WASTES are managed in systems other than those Energy Act (AEA) that also contain waste that is either listed as a hazardous [Nonwastewaters] regulated under the CWA, those regulated under the SDWA that inject waste in subpart D of 40 CFR part 261, Maximum for TC wastewaters into Class I injection or that exhibit any of the hazardous wells, and those zero discharge facilities waste characteristics identified in subpart C of 40 CFR part 261. Since the CodeCode Regulatedstituent con- any nlegrab that engage in CWA-equivalent hazardous portions of the mixed waste Total composi- treatment prior to land disposal. The tion (mg/kg) proposed treatment are subject to RCRA, the land disposal standards for newly restrictions apply. This means that the identified TC wastewaters would D018. I Benzene ...... 10 RCRA hazardous portion of all mixed D019. Carbon tetra- require treatment to meet the universal waste must meet the appropriate chloride. 6.0 treatment standards for the TC treatment standards for all applicable constituent and for the underlying waste codes before land disposal. In the D0020. Chlordane ...... 026 hazardous constituents. case of these organic TC wastes, any D021 Chlorobenzene .... 6.0 D022 Chloroform ...... 6.0 radioactive waste mixed with organic D023 o-Cresol ...... 5.6 TC wastes that are managed in non- 0024 m-Cresol ...... 3.2 CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non-Class I D025 p-Cresol ...... 32 SDWA facilities would have to meet the D026 Cresol ...... 8.8

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48117 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48118 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules promulgated treatment standards for the The Agency is also proposing to V. Deep Well Injection Issues TC waste. prohibit dilution of D012 and 13017 A. Prohibitionof Dilution of High TOC For the most part, the low nonwastewaters injected into Class I Ignitable and of concentrations TC Pesticide Wastes of radioactive deep injection wells. If thisprohibition Injected Into Class I Deep Wells compounds should not interfere with on dilution before Class I injection is the treatability of the hazardous promulgated, these pesticide wastes In the Third Third rule, EPA constituents in the waste. Therefore, the must be treated to meet the treatment determined that decharacterized wastes standards being proposed for TC wastes standards before they can permissibly could permissibly be injected in Safe are also being proposed forTC be injected into Drinking Water Act Class I such units, unless that nonhazardous deep injection wells radioactive mixed wastes. The Agency unit has been granted a no-migration is requesting data where this is not the (wells that dispose of wastewaters deep determination. See section IV.E which below the lowermost underground case. The Department of Energy (DOE) follows for more discussion on the has expressed some concerns about source of drinking water) without first proposed dilution prohibition for these being treated to meet the treatment meeting certain treatment standards. and certain ignitable wastes. DOE is currently collecting data from standard for the waste. See 55 FR at their facilities on mixed TC wastes. 2. Pesticide Wastewaters 22658 and § 268.1(c)(3). EPA indicated They are welcome to submit these data that so long as wastes that exhibit a as part of this rulemaking, and the data EPA set treatment standards characteristic at the point they are will be placed in the RCRA docket for expressed as required methods of generated no longer exhibit a public review. The EPA will analyze treatment for the EP toxic pesticide characteristic when disposed in a Class these data along with all other data wastewaters in the Third Third final I deep injection well, they are not received on TC wastes, and consider rule (55 FR 22554). EPA is not prohibited from land disposal. EPA took them in promulgating final treatment proposing to revise the treatment that position because the Agency standards. standards for pesticide wastewaters in believed that the deep injection of such today's rule. (See 268.40) wastewaters was an environmentally D. Treatment Standardsfor TC Pesticide sound and technically effective waste Wastes (DO12-D017) management practice, and consequently PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FOR that disposal of decharacterized wastes DOl2-Endrin PESTICIDES D013-Lindane in Class I deep injection wells would D014-Methoxychlor [Nonwastewaters] not pose hazards to drinking water or to D015-Toxaphene human health. Id. D016--2,4-D Maximum As described previously, this D017-2,4,5-TP (Silvex) for any determination was remanded by the single In the grab sam- D.C. Circuit. The court said, in essence, final rule for the Third Third that not only must characteristic wastes wastes Code Regulated (55 FR 22520), EPA promulgated constituent pie be treated to destroy or remove treatment standards for D012-D017 Total hazardous constituents before land wastes, but only for those wastes that composi- disposal, but that no deviation were hazardous by both the TCLP and tion (ag/ from this kg) principle (pursuant to RCRA section the EP leaching procedures. Wastes that 1006) was acceptable for underground were not hazardous by the EP leaching D012 Endrin ...... 13 injection practices because these procedure, but hazardous by the TCLP, D013 alpha-BHC ...... 066 practices were a type of permanent land are newly identified D012-D017 wastes D013 beta-BHC ...... 066 disposal (as opposed to temporary land and are currently not prohibited. EPA is D013 gamma-BHC ...... 066 disposal incident to treatment in units proposing treatment standards for D013 delta-BHC ...... 066 that are part of Clean Water Act D012-D017 wastes managed in non- D014 Methoxychlor ...... 18 treatment systems). 976 F.2d at 25-6. CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non-Class I D015 Toxaphene ...... 2.6 Although the Agency is still evaluating SDWA facilities in this notice. EPA is D016 2,4-D ...... 10 its interpretation of this part of the also proposing revised treatment D017 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) ...... 7-9 opinion, the Agency has indicated (at standards for pesticide wastewaters, as least initially) that the most likely explained below. E. ProposedExemptions for De Minimis reading is that the available alternatives 1. Newly Identified Pesticide Losses of TC Wastes and for TC for decharacterized wastes being Nonwastewaters LaboratoryWastes Dischargedto CWA injected in Class I nonhazardous deep Wastewater Treatment wells is for either these wastes to be There is no reason to think these treated to meet the treatment standard wastes cannot meet the existing The Agency is proposing to extend before injection (which option may treatment standards for D012-D017 the exemptions established in the May involve segregation of wastes exhibiting nonwastewaters (55 FR 22554). 24, 1993 emergency interim final rule to characteristics at the point they are Therefore, EPA is proposing that the TC organic wastes (58 FR generated), or apply for and obtain a no- existing treatment standards apply to 29860). Thus de minimis losses of TC organic wastes migration variance for the injection newly identified D012-D017 well. See 58 FR 4972, January 19, 1993 nonwastewaters. (It should be noted that and TC organic laboratory wastes discharged to CWA wastewater and 58 FR 29860, May 24, 1993. The EPA determined that the amount of treatment standards that apply'to these D012-DO17 waste subject to the treatment systems would not be subject to the requirements of 40 wastes are found in the proposed treatment standards is very small. 55 FR CFR part 268. treatment (See proposed § 268.1 table found at § 268.40 of this at 22634, 22646. Based on this in today's rule.) rule. For D001 High TOG ignitables, the determination, it is very unlikely that treatment standard is expressed as newly identified D012-D017 are being methQds of treatment that must be used generated). prior to land disposal: Fuel substitution.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48118 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 1 Proposed Rules 4a119

solvent recovery or incineration. The were injected in Class I nonhazardous treatment standards for ignitable and treatment standards for EP pesticide deep injection wells annually. That corrosive wastes managed by deep well wastewaters are also expressed as same data set also indicated that all injection that, in view of the unique methods: or wastewaters which exhibit the toxicity circumstances of deep well injection, incineration. The treatment standards characteristic for halogenated pesticide meet the statutory "minimize threats" for EP pesticide nonwasewaters ae content (DO12-DO?1 at the point they standard. Consequently, the Agency has expressed as levels that may be are generated totaled approximately 15 placed CMA's petition in the docket and achieved by using any treatment million gallons annually. The most is. soliciting comment on the petition. technology. recent information used for capacity VI. Treatment Standards for Newly EPA is proposing today to exchde determination in this proposed rule Listed Wastes two types of wastes from the portion of indicate that these injected volumes are, the rule (§268.1 (c3)lthat allows the in fact, much lower. However, even the A. Treatment Standardsfor Coke By- waste to be injected into a Class I deep largest potential volumes are relatively ProductProduction Wastes injection well if it no longer exhibits a small for Class I underground injection K141-Process residues from the recovery characteristic when it is injected. The well waste streams. of coal tar. including but not limited to tar two types of waste are nonwastewaters EPA is not proposing to grant a collecting sump residues from the production that at the point of generation exhibit national capacity variance for either of of coke from coal or the recovery of coke by- the characteristic of ignitability and these waste types. There is products produced from coal. This listing contain greater than 10 percent Total approximately one-half million tons does not include K087, decanter tank tar (i.e., approximately 120 million gallons) sludge from coking operations. Organic Carbon ("high TOC ignitable K142--Tar storage tank residues from the liquids subcategory") and TC toxic of available alternative treatment production of coke from coal or the recovery halogenated pesticide wastes (1)012- capacity for these liquid wastes. This of coke by-products produced from coaL DO 17). The Agency is singling out these treatment capacity is large compared to K143--Process residues from the recovery wastes not only because of the court's even the largest potential injected waste of light oil, including but not limited to those mandate in the Third Third Case, but volumes, however, a three month generated in stills. decanters, and wash oil because the Agency believes that capacity variance is proposed for the recovery units from the recovery of coke by- treatment of these wastes is a preferred other wastes included in this proposed products produced from coal. rule, in order that generators have time K144-Wastewater treatment sludges from management approach for them. light oil refining, including but not limited to (Indeed, the Agency had already singled to locate and arrange for treatment of intercepting or contamination sump sludges these wastes out from the exception that their wastes (see section XII for more from the recovery of coke by-products allowed dilution of characteristic wastes information about capacity variances). produced from coaL that were to be managed in Clean Water This three-month variance would also K145--Residues from naphthalene Act treatment systems including land apply to the prohibition of dilution of collection and recovery operations from the high TOC ignitable and TC pesticide recovery of coke by-products produced from disposal units, § 268.3(b) and 55 FR at coal. 22657). High TOC ignitable wastes when they are injected into Class K147-Tar storage tank residues from coal nonwastewaters contain high I wells. is requesting any and all tar refining. concentrations of organics that can The Agency K149-Residues from coal tar distillation, either be recovered directly for reuse, or information regarding volumes, including but not limited to still bottoms. that can be burned for energy recovery. facilities, and properties of these wastes Treatment, consequently, not only being injected in Class I nonhazardous The Agency recently promulgated-the eliminates the hazardous constituents in deep wells in order to make a final listing of K14l, K142, K143, K144, these wastes but utilizes recoverable determination on these issues. K145, K147, and K148 as hazardous wastes (August 18, 1992 (57 FR 37284)). resources in the wastes. The prohibited B. Request for Comment on Petition pesticide wastes contain a number of These seven wastes are generated in the From Chemical Manufacturer's production, recovery, and refining of particularly toxic hazardous Association RegardingDeep Well constituents (such as toxaphene, 2,4-11, coke and cokeby-products produced Injection of Ignitable and Corrosive from coal. EPA estimates that there are and (in some cases) dioxins and furans) CharacteristicWastes that warrant destruction or removal approximately thirty-four facilities in before land disposal. See generally 55 In the May 24, 1993 interim final rule the United States generating these FR at 22657 and the waste management for ignitable and corrosive wastes wastes. Greater details on the hierarchy in RCRA section 1003(6). managed in other than wastewater description and generation of these In addition, these wastes are not treatment systems whose ultimate wastes can be found in the listing rule injected in significant volumes, so that discharge is subject to the CWA, in and in the technical background redirection of the wastes to treatment other than Class I underground injection document supporting that rule. technologies will not have any wells subject to the SDWA UIC program, The final listing ru e also describes significant impact on well operators. and by zero dischargers who do not treat certain recycling scenarios in which (Although the issue of adverse impoct westewater with treatment equivalent to these materials are excluded from the on injection practices is ultimately that utilized by CWA dischargers, the definition of solid wastes (i.e., they are "irrelevant" to determining how to Agency discussed plans for future not listed as K141, K14Z, K143, K144, apply prohibitions to underground rulemakings covering those ignitable K145, K147, and K148). This occurs injection pactices, see 976 F. 2d at 26, and corrosive wastes disposed in such when these materials are recycled in the issue is relevant (at leest to some units. As part ofits response to May 24 one of three ways: Combined with coal extent) in determining how quickly EPA interim final rule, the Chemical feedstock residue as it is charged into responds to the issues remanded by the Manufacturers' Association (CMA) the coke oven; added to the tar recovery court). In fact, as a worst case, the requested that the Agency develop process; or mixed with coal tar before information the Agency gathered for the treatment standards intended for those this coal tar is sold as a product or Third Third rulemaking indicated that a wastes disposed in Class I deep further refined. See 57 FR 37285. maximum of .9 million gallons of point injection wells, CMA specifically 3727-37Z99 (August 18,199Z) for of generation DOO1 ignitable wastes requested the Agency to promulgate specific details of these conditions.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48119 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48120 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

Under such conditions, since they are be generated that would have to comply 2. Potential Future Revisions to not the listed wastes, the proposed land with the treatment standards (provided Treatment Standards for Existing Coking disposal restrictions in today's rule for the waste was to be placed in a land Wastes K087, K060, and K035 K141-K145, K147, and K148 would not disposal unit). apply. In response to the rulemaking for As a result, EPA is proposing Third Third wastes, the Hazardous 1. Proposed Treatment Standards treatment standards for both wastewater Waste Treatment Council submitted In general, these waste streams consist and nonwastewater forms of K141, data that they believe indicate that primarily of organics with a minimum K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, and treatment standards for certain amount of water. Many are quite viscous K148 wastes which are numerically constituents (e.g., benzene) in other and have the consistency of semisolids equivalent to the universal standards coking wastes, namely K087, K060, and or sludges. With respect to hazardous proposed for the constituents selected K035, cannot be achieved on a regular organics, these wastes typically contain for regulation in these wastes. The basis in ash residues from the thousands of ppm of polynuclear development of these standards is incineration of other types of hazardous aromatic compounds and hundreds of presented in the BDAT background wastes. (Note: The proposed ppm of phenols, benzenes, and other document for these wastes located in nonwastewater standard for benzene in single-ring aromatic compounds. the administrative docket for today's K141, K142, K143, K144,1K145, K147, Because of their highly organic rule. EPA is proposing maximum and K148 in today's rule is not nature, EPA has determined that concentration limits for benzene, transferred from K087, K060, or K035). thermal destruction technologies, such naphthalene, and six polynuclear The Agency agrees that when K087, as incineration or fuel substitution, organics in both wastewaters and K060, and K035 nonwastewaters are represent BDAT for these wastes. While nonwastewaters. The tables at the end of commingled with other wastes prior to extraction technologies, such as thermal this section list, by waste form, the treatment (such as the new coking desorption and critical fluid extraction, proposed standards for each constituent wastes) the promulgated standards for appear to be potentially applicable, EPA and indicate the constituents that are those nonwastewaters may not always currently lacks data verifying their regulated in each waste code. The be achievable (primarily the benzene performance on wastes similar to K141, proposed nonwastewater standards are nonwastewater standard for K087 and K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, and based on the limits of analytical K060). The Agency has not, however, K148. If these technologies can achieve received any requests for a treatability the levels of performance (i.e., comply detection of these eight compounds in incineration ash residues. EPA has data variance for any of these three wastes with the concentrations) of the proposed (i.e., K087, K060, and K035) nor has it treatment standards, they could also be from the incineration of fourteen vastly been notified that any particular considered to be BDAT. different, difficult to treat hazardous generator has had a problem complying While most of these wastes, as wastes indicating that these standards with the standards. EPA believes that generated, would be classified as should be achievable on a routine basis this is primarily because these wastes "nonwastewaters" according to for most hazardous wastes. The are no longer generated or generate no definitions applicable to the land proposed wastewater standards reflect residues when treated, and there is, disposal restrictions (40 CFR 268.2 (d) the performance of industrial therefore, no demand for treatment. The and (f}), EPA nevertheless sets treatment wastewater treatment systems as Agency is, nevertheless, soliciting standards for wastewater forms as well documented in several of EPA's Office comment from generators on whether as nonwastewater forms of these wastes of Water and Risk Reduction they have been unable to get their K087, on a waste code-basis. Even though the Engineering Laboratory databases and K060, and K035 wastes treated because listing of these seven wastes does not presented in Volume C of the Final treatment standards could not be specifically include wastewaters, if BDAT Background Document for U and achieved or verified. The Agency water or wastewater cones in contact P Wastes and Multi-Source Leachate requests any additional comment or with these wastes (such as during available in the Third Third rulemaking information that would assist in storage, treatment, or disposal), a docket. determining whether the standards for wastewater form of these wastes would these three wastes need to be revised.

PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FOR K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, AND K148 [Nonwastewaters]

Maximum for any sin- Constituents regulated for waste codes gle grab sample Constituent Total composition K141 K142 K143 K144 K145 K147 K148 ______(mg/kg) ____

Benzene ...... 10.0 X X X X X X Benz(a)anthracene ...... 3.4 X X X X X X X Benzo(a)pyrene ...... 3.4 X X X X X X X Benzo(b)fluoranthene I ...... 6.8 X X X X X X Benzo(k)fluoranthene I ...... 6.8 X X X X X X Chrysene ...... 3.4 X X X X X X X Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ...... 82 X X X X X X Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ...... 3.4 X X X X Naphthalene ...... 5.6 X I This standard represents the sum of the concentrations for each of this pair of constituents.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48120 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 176 1 Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48121

PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FOR K144, K442, K143, K144, K145, K147, AND K148 [Wastewatersl Maximum for any Constituents regulated for waste codes Consrtuent single grab sample Total composition K141 K142 K143 K144 K145 K147 K148 (mgA)

Benzene ...... 0.14 X X X X X X Bewz(a)eltwacene ...... 0.05% X X X X X X Beno(a)pyrene ...... 0.061 X X X X X. X X Bemo(b)fluorarthene ...... 10.11 X X X X X X Bemno(k)fluoraothene ...... 10.11 X X X X X X Chrysene ...... 0.059 X X X X X X X Dibenz(a.h)anthracene ...... 0.055 X X X X K X Indeno(1.2,3-cd)pyrene ...... 0.0055 X X X X Naphthalene ...... 0.059 X I This standard represents the sum of the concentrations for each of this pair of constituents.

B.Treatment Standardsfor With respect to hazardous organics, with these wastes (such as during Chlorotoluenes both of these wastes contain thousands storage, treatment, or disposal), a K149-Distillation bottoms from the of ppm of chlorinated aromatic-and wastewater form of these would be production of alpha (methyl) chlorinated chlorinated aliphatic compounds- In generated that would have to comply toluenes, ring-chlorinated toluenes, benzoyr fact, K149 wastes can contain up to 10 with the treatment standards (provided chlorides, and compounds with mixtures of percent benzotrichloride. K151 wastes the waste was to be placed in a land theseifunctional groups. (This wastedoes not include a variety of solid and semisolid disposal unit.) include still bottoms from the distillation of streams including sludges and As a benzyl chloride.) result, EPA is proposing skimmings from various separation treatment standards for both wastewater K150-Organic residuals, excluding spent units. K151 can contain up to 3 percent carbon adsorbent, from the spent chlorine gas and nonwastewater forms of K149, and hydrochloric acid recovery processes toluene and lesser concentrations of K150, and K151 wastes which are associated with the production of alpha chlorinated aliphatics, chlorinated numerically equivalent to the universal (methyl) chlorinated toluenes, ring- aromatics, and benzene. standards proposed for the constituents chlorinated toluenes, benzoyl chlorides, and Because of their highly organic selected for regulation in these wastes. compounds with mixtures of these functional nature, EPA has determined that The development of these standards is groups. thermal destruction technologies, such. presented in the BDAT background K151-Wastewater treatment sludges, as incineration or fuel substitution, excluding neutralization and biological document for these wastes located in sludges, generated during the treatment of represent BDAT for K149 and K150. In the administrative docket for today's wastewaters from the production of alpha a similarmanner, since K151 wastes rule. EPA is proposing maximum (methyl) chlorinated toluenes, ring- may contain significant concentrations concentration limits for benzene, chlorinated toluenes, benzoyl chlorides and of hazardous organics and since KI51 toluene, five chlorinated aliphatics, and compounds with mixtures of these functional wastes comprise a variety of waste six chlorinated aromatics in both groups. matrices, EPA has determined that wastewater and nonwastewater forms of The Agency recently promulgated the incineration also represents BDAT for these wastes. The tables at the end of listing of K1(49, K150, and K1 51 as these wastes. While extraction this section list, by waste form, the hazardous wastes on October 15, 1992 technologies, such as thermal proposed standards for each constituent (57 FR 47377). These three wastes are desorption and critical fluid extraction, and indicate the constituents that are generated in the production of appear to be potentially applicable to regulated in each waste code. The chlorinated toluenes and include both some K151 wastes, EPA currently lacks proposed nonwastewater standards are ring-chlorinated toluenes (where the data verifying their performance on based on the limits of analytical chlorine atoms are attached to the wastes similar to these K151 wastes. If detection of these compounds in aromatic ring) and methyl-chlorinated these technologies can achieve the incineration ash residues, EPA has data toluenes (where the chlorine atoms are levels of performance (i.e., comply with from the incineration of fourteen vastly attached to toluene's methyl moiety). the concentrations) of the proposed different, difficult to treat hazardous EPA estimates that there are four treatment standards, they could also be wastes indicating that these standards facilities in the United States generating considered to be BDAT. should be achievable on a routine basis these wastes. Greater details on the While most of these wastes, as for most hazardous wastes. The description and generation of these generated, would be classified as proposed wastewater standards reflect wastes can be found in the final listing "nonwastewaters" according to the performance of industrial rule and in the technical background definitions applicable to the land wastewater treatment systems as document supporting that rule. disposal restrictions (40 CFR 268.2 (d) documented in several of EPA's Office K149 and K150 waste streams are and (0), EPA nevertheless sets treatment of Water and Risk Reduction typically generated as organic liquids. standards for wastewater forms as well .Engineering Laboratory databases and Any aqueous phase that may be present as nonwastewater forms of these wastes presented in Volume C of the Final in these streams is expected to be on a waste code-basis. Even though the, BDAT Background Document for U and extremely acidic; therefore, both streams listing of these three wastes does not P Wastes and Multi-Source Leachate could potentially be hazardous by the specifically include wastewaters, if available in the Third Third rulemaking characteristic of corrosivity (i.e., D002). water or wastewater comes in contact docket.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48121 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48122 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FOR K149, K150, AND K151 [Nonwastewaters] Maximum for Constituents regulated for any single waste codes

Constituent Total corn- K149 K150 K151 position (mg/kg)

Benzene ...... 10 X Carbon tetrachloride ...... 6.0 X X Chloroform ...... 6.0 X X X Chloromethane ...... 30 X X Chlorobenzene ...... 6.0 X 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ...... 6.0 X X Hexachlorobenzene ...... 10 X X X Pentachlorobenzene ...... 10 X X X 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene ...... 14 X X X 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ...... 6.0 X Tetrachloroethylene ...... 6.0 X X 1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ...... 19 X Toluene ...... 10 X X

PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FOR K149, K150, AND K151 [Wastewaters] Maximum for ,Constituents regulated for any single waste codes

Constituent Total corn- K149TK150 K151 position (n /1)

Benzene ...... 0.14 X Carbon tetrachloride ...... 0.057 X X Chloroform ...... 0.046 X X X Chloromethane ...... 0.19 X X Chlorobenzene ...... 0.057 X 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ...... 0.090 X X Hexachlorobenzene ...... 0.055 X X X Pentachlorobenzene ...... ; ...... 0.055 X X X 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene ...... 0.055 X X X 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ...... 0.057 X Tetrachloroethylene ...... 0.056 X X 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ...... 0.055 X Toluene ...... 0.080 X X

VIl. Treatment Standards for rule for contaminated media (including consequent waste management at Hazardous Soils soil) in the context of the Hazardous contaminated facilities and sites. A. Introduction Waste Identification Rule. As a result of Second and more important, the that effort, the Agency may propose This section discusses proposed treatment standards proposed today are additional regulatory options for LDR based on levels attainable by a variety alternative treatment standards for treatment standards for hazardous soils, hazardous soils that may be met instead of technologies, including innovative or modify the options presented here in technologies. Thus, technologies that of the treatment standards that currently order to establish a consistent regulatory apply to the contaminating hazardous are more appropriate for the treatment framework for hazardous soils under of hazardous soils than combustion are wastes. These proposed alternative RCRA. standards would apply to soils that identified as BDAT. contain listed hazardous wastes, and Today's proposal is important in In addition, EPA is proposing to soils that exhibit any of the several respects. First, it continues the codify the contained-in policy for soils characteristics of hazardous waste. process of developing tailored standards, such as the previously (as it did for debris in the Phase I LDR In particular, EPA is proposing two rule, see 57 FR 37194, August 18, 1992.) alternative technology-based treatment promulgated treatment standards tailored to multi-source leachate and to The regulation would establish a approaches for compliance with the process for determining on a site- hazardous soil treatment standards and hazardous debris. Because today's also soliciting comment on variations of proposed treatment standards are specific basis whether or not these alternate approaches. It should be tailored to contaminated soil media, this environmental media (e.g., soil and understood that the Agency is also in proposal would primarily affect ground water) "contain" a hazardous the process of developing a proposed activities associated with cleanup and waste.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48122 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48123

B. Applicability, Regulatory Status of the media so that it no longer elemental composition of the soil, or Treated Soils, and Definitions "contains" the hazardous waste. EPA is other properties that might distinguish 1. Applicability proposing in this notice to codify the soil from waste or debris). Attempting to contained-in policy for environmental distinguish more precisely between Under current regulations, land media. The codification will provide a waste, soil, or debris using a chemical disposal of soils that contain a mechanism for determining when analysis or other tests would be difficult prohibited listed hazardous waste, or environmental media (e.g., soil, ground to develop and support, and that exhibit a prohibited characteristic water) no longer "contain" listed cumbersome to administer. In addition, of hazardous waste, is prohibited unless hazardous wastes, and thus, are no a basis for chemical analysis or other such soils have been treated to meet the longer subject to subtitle C regulation. tests has not been developed, and treatment standards promulgated for As proposed today, these contained-in implementation of any such approach that hazardous waste (i.e., the same determinations will be made by the EPA would most likely not be beneficial, but treatment standard the waste would Regional Administrator or designee on a rather simply delay the progress of have to meet if it was newly generated site-specific basis, considering factors remedial actions. The Agency rather than found in the soil matrix.) such as exposure potential and specifically solicits comment on the Today's rule proposes alternative contaminant characteristics (e.g., definition proposed for soil and this treatment standards that are specific to concentrations, mobility, persistence). type of pragmatic approach for hazardous soils. This continues the Management scenarios for the classifying mixtures of soil and other process of developing treatment contaminated media (e.g., disposal in a materials. (As noted in a following standards tailored to specific types of lined landfill) would not be a factor in section, however, adding soil to other hazardous wastes associated with making contained-in determinations. materials to attempt to reclassify the remediation activities. The Agency thus However, contained-in determinations mixture as "hazardous soil" is a form of has promulgated treatment standards could constitute "minimize threat" impermissible dilution and is illegal specific to multi-source leachate and for levels at a particular site. Thus, for a under the LDR program.) hazardous debris. particular site, contained-in levels could a. Hazardoussoi7. Hazardous soil is 2. Regulatory Status of Treated Soils function as a cap for LDR treatment soil that contains RCRA hazardous standards. waste(s) listed in 40 CFR part 261, Under this proposal, treatment of soils 4. Definitions subpart D, or soil that exhibits one or to meet the proposed treatment more of the characteristics of a standards may or may not affect the EPA isproposing a definition for hazardous waste defined in 40 CFR part regulatory status of the soils under hazardous soil, and identifying the 261, subpart C. It can be generated from RCRA subtitle C, depending on whether constituents subject to treatment for a wide variety of activities, including the soil is contaminated with listed hazardous soil. Soil is unconsolidated remedial actions at Superfund and waste or displays a hazardous earth material composing the superficial RCRA corrective action sites, and spills characteristic, or upon a site-specific geologic strata (material overlying at manufacturing plants. It should be determination that the soil no longer bedrock), consisting of clay, silt, sand, noted that in the Advance Notice of contains hazardous waste (see section 3 or gravel size particles (sizes as Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) below). Treatment of hazardous soils to classified by the U.S. Soil Conservation published on October 24, 1991 (see 56 meet the proposed treatment standards Service), or a mixture of such materials FR 55160 at 55172), EPA suggested that would not, of itself, determine whether with liquids, sludges, or solids which is soils containing listed hazardous wastes the soils would remain a hazardous inseparable by simple mechanical and soils that exhibit one or more of the waste. However, treatment to meet the removal processes and is made up hazardous characteristics be defined as proposed treatment standards may, in primarily of soil. Cf. 57 FR at 37224 "contaminated soil." Many commenters some cases, achieve the result that the (August 18, 1992) where EPA adopted a to the ANPRM were confused as to the soil is no longer hazardous based on similar classification scheme for debris. scope of the definition. They felt that separate regulatory determinations. This proposed definition would allow the definition suggested in the ANPRM It is not possible to predict at this site managers (e.g., on-scene included not only hazardous soils but time precisely how, or if, the Agency coordinators, remedial project all soils contaminated with any toxic may exempt certain hazardous soils managers, or equivalent corrective constituents. To clarify this point, the from subtitle C in future actions, or how action officials) to determine whether Agency is changing the term used to those exemptions (if such exemptions the material to be excavated is waste, refer to soils subject to regulation from are developed) might compare with the debris, or soil by judging the results of "contaminated soil" to "hazardous LDR treatment standards proposed here simple in-situ mechanical removal soil." for hazardous soils. If, however, the processes to separate the materials. b. Constituents subject to treatment. final exemption levels were at or above Such processes include pumping, Under today's proposed approach, the LDR treatment standards and dredging, or excavation by backhoe, hazardous soil would be treated for each represented minimize threat levels, forklifts, or other devices. Of course, any constituent subject to treatment, treatment standards would be capped at non-soil that is separated is'subject to regardless of whether the contaminating those levels, and the wastes also would the treatment standard for that material. waste is a listed or characteristic waste. no longer be subject to any other subtitle Id. In addition, any intentional mixing The Agency is proposing to define C control. of soil with non-soil does not result in constituents subject to treatment as any the mixture being classified as soil. regulated constituent found on Table 3. "Contained-in" Determinations Rather, it is a type of impermissible UTS in today's proposed § 268.48, that The Agency's "contained-in" policy dilution. Id. and id. at 37243. is present at levels above the universal says that environmental media such as This approach would avoid requiring constituent-specific treatment soil or ground water that is chemical analysis for soil properties in standards. The constituents in Table contaminated with hazardous waste order to differentiate precisely between UTS are all of the BDAT list hazardous must be managed as the hazardous waste, soil and debris (e.g., considering constituents that can be analyzed. As waste until the waste is separated from such things as soil particle size, with multi-source leachate, hazardous

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48123 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48124 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules soil can contain potentially all of these to assure that no attempts are made to appropriate to treat the large volumes of constituents. See, e.g., 55 FR at 22619- dilute hazardous waste with soil. low and moderately contaminated soil. 620 (June 1, 1990). Of course, not every d. Nonanalyzable constituents. To satisfy this objective, the Agency is soil will contain all of these Hazardous soils are often contaminated proposing two approaches it believes constituents, and EPA is not proposing with more than one hazardous are achievable (in most cases) using that soils necessarily be monitored for constituent, many of which have innovative technologies, and is the entire list of hazardous constituents. analytical methods available while soliciting comment on a variation of one (See section VII.A.) However, a scheme others do not. For soils containing of the two options. The Agency solicits that limited treatment only to the multiple organic constituents, some of comments on which of the approaches hazardous constituents in the listed which are nonanalyzable, the Agency should be promulgated in the final rule. waste or the TC constituent believes that treatment of the analyzable Table UTS in today's proposal (§ 268.48) contaminating the soil would usually constituents to meet the soil treatment lists the constituents subject to overlook the reality of the situation: standards should provide adequate treatment and the universal treatment Soils (like multi-source leachates) treatment of any nonanalyzable standards which are the basis of the soil frequently are contaminated with an constituents to appropriate levels. The treatment standards. enormous variety of contaminants from Agency is therefore not proposing 1. Technology-Based Treatment diverse sources. A treatment scheme treatment standards for nonanalyzable Standards for Hazardous Soils that ignored this reality would not fulfill constituents found in such hazardous the requirement of section 3004(m) of soil. The Agency requests comment on As indicated above, the Agency is RCRA that the hazardous constituents this approach as well as data on the considering several approaches for present in prohibited wastes be treated degree to which nonanalyzable developing technology-based treatment so as to minimize threats to human standards for hazardous soils. Under constituents are treated when the soil is these approaches, the universal health and the environment. See also treated for other organic constituents. If treatment standards (discussed in Third Third Case, 976 F.2d at 16 EPA should choose, based on public III.A (treatment must remove or destroy the section of this preamble) are comments, to regulate these proposed for soil as "base" standards. hazardous constituents in prohibited constituents, it could require treatment Each approach allows for treatment to wastes in order to satisfy section by specific technologies known to levels above the universal standards and 3004(m), and merely removing one achieve adequate treatment of the differ primarily in the extent of indicia of bazardousness is insufficient constituent. If this is determined to be treatment required. to satisfy this requirement). For soil necessary, EPA could publish Under the first approach, the Agency which is hazardous because it exhibits performance standards for the specified is proposing a range of standards with the characteristics of ignitability, technologies with the promulgation of a "ceiling" one order of magnitude corrosivity, or reactivity, the Agency this regulation. above the universal standard, provided would require treatment until the soil In other cases, a hazardous soil may 90% treatment of each constituent no longer exhibits the characteristic and be contaminated solely by subject to treatment is achieved. The also requires that the numerical nonanalyzable constituents, such as second approach is a variation of the treatment standards be met for all nonanalyzable U or P wastes. For these first, in that the Agency is proposing a constituents subject to treatment. soils, the Agency proposes requiring range of standards with a "ceiling" one c. Illegal contamination of soil. As treatment by the methods specified in order of magnitude above the universal noted above, illegal contamination of § 268.42 for those U or P wastes. The standard, however, there is no soil is the deliberate addition of Agency solicits comment on whether requirement that 90% reduction occur. hazardous constituents or hazardous other technologies should be allowed The third approach proposes an waste to soil (or vice versa). The Agency for treatment of such soils. unlimited range of values above the believes that existing regulations EPA points out that in proposing to universal standard provided 90% concerning impermissible dilution (40 exempt certain wastes from subtitle C treatment is attained (i.e., there would CFR 268.3 (a) and (b)) already make this control (see 57 FR at 21469, May 29, be no "ceiling" value) unless 90% conduct illegal, and subject the mixture 1992), the Agency did not allow wastes treatment would treat the waste to a to the most stringent treatment standard that contained nonanalyzable level below the universal treatment for any waste in the mixture (40 CFR constituents to qualify for the generic standards. If such a level would be 268.41(b)). The Agency acknowledges, exemption. The Agency has not yet achieved through 90% treatment, the however, that the promulgation of finally determined whether such wastes universal treatment standards would be standards tor hazardous soil which are will be available for the generic met. less stringent than the treatment exemption, and whether hazardous soils Analysis of the available soil standards that apply to hazardous waste should be addressed differently than treatability data has revealed that may create an incentive to illegally mix wastes. innovative technologies (e.g., thermal waste with soil. desorption, biological treatment, Because such action would be illegal, C. ProposedApproaches for dechlorination) can generally achieve EstablishingTreatment Standardsfor the Agency believes that most the universal standards proposed today. generators of hazardous waste will not Hazardous Soils In several cases, however, non- mix prohibited hazardous waste with In developing an LDR program for combustion does not achieve the soil. Specifically, section 3008(a) of hazardous soil, the Agency had a universal standards. Thus, the various RCRA provides EPA the authority to primary objective: The treatment approaches proposed today provide an issue an order assessing a civil penalty standards should be appropriate for soil. additional assurance as to the against any person who violates any The technology-based soil standards achievability of meeting the treatment requirement of subtitle C of RCRA. thus should not be based exclusively on standards for potentially hard-to-treat Criminal penalties may also apply. EPA incineration. See 55 FR at 8760-61 soil matrices. Additionally, the requests comment on whether any (March 8, 1990). Innovative proposed approaches would encourage further safeguards are needed, however, technologies are particularly the use of effective innovative (i.e. non-

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48124 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48125 incineration) technologies, a reasonable constituents, the Agency requests encountered, the use of highly efficient objective given EPA's determination comment on the practicality of using technologies (i.e. incineration) may be that combustion is not always stabilization technologies for treating appropriate. Thus, the Agency appropriate as the Best Demonstrated soil containing low levels of organic acknowledges that a highly Available Technology for many soils. 55 constituents. The Agency also requests contaminated hazardous soil may have FR at 8761. that commenters provide analytical data to be treated with a fairly aggressive Furthermore, the Agency believes demonstrating the effective treatment by technology in order to achieve the these approaches are appropriate for stabilization of soil contaminated with "ceiling" value. setting treatment standards for organic constituents, if available. In analyzing the data, the Agency hazardous soils, given the unique and a. Range of standardswith a "Ceiling" determined that a one order of often heterogeneous characteristics of one order of magnitude above the magnitude "ceiling" was appropriate soils. The proposed approaches Universal Standard,provided 90% given the Agency's commitment to the accommodate possible limitations of the treatment occurs. Under this approach, increased use of innovative data: That is, the data may not represent EPA is proposing treatment standards technologies. Although 65% of all data potentially problematic matrices and for hazardous soil as a range of values. pairs for treated organics in EPA's varying contaminant levels. The The base levels would correspond to the database were treated using innovative proposed universal treatment standards proposed universal standards, and the technologies to levels less than the are expressed as total concentration "ceiling" would be one order of proposed universal standards, the levels for each organic constituent. The magnitude above the universal levels. If proportion of data pairs capable of proposed universal treatment standards the generator or treater of hazardous soil achieving the standard increased to 69% for each metal constituent is expressed achieves a treatment standard above the when the levels were established at the as a level measured in the TCLP extract, universal level (but no higher than one order of magnitude "ceiling" provided because metal treatment technologies order of magnitude above the universal 90% treatment. Many innovative typically involve stabilization or standard, or the "ceiling"), they must technologies were capable of achieving' immobilization, and leachability and document that at least 90% treatment of the treatment levels under this reduced mobility of the metals is best the constituent has been achieved by approach. The EPA solicits comment on reflected in the concentrations in the TC indicating the initial constituent this overall approach and also on extract (i.e., metals are not destroyed or concentration and the final constituent whether the "ceiling" of ten times the eliminated after treatment with concentration. Such documentation universal standard (or other ceiling) stabilization or immobilization would be placed in the generator's or appropriately addresses technical and technologies, but rather have reduced facilities' files. (See proposed § 268.48.) environmental concerns where mobility.) Although metals recovery As concentrations increase in a hazardous soils are heavily technologies are available, they are not hazardous soil, the percent treatment contaminated with toxic constituents generally practical for treating necessary to achieve at least the "ceiling" and the 90% treatment portion of the hazardous soil because of the relatively levels would also increase. For option neither optimizes technology low levels of metal contamination example, if the untreated concentration performance nor reduces hazardous typically found in soil (i.e., low relative is one order of magnitude above the constituents to levels at which threats to the concentrations necessary for ceiling, achieving the ceiling level will are minimized. economical metal recovery). require a 90% reduction of the b. Range of standardswith a "ceiling" Soils that were contaminated with constituent. As the initial concentration one orderof magnitude above the both organic and metal constituents increases beyond an order of magnitude universalstandard. The Agency also would possibly require treatment by above the ceiling, reductions of greater requests comment on a variation of this more than one technology. Generally, than 90% would be needed in order to approach: The order of magnitude the first technology would treat the achieve the ceiling level. Thus, high increase over today's proposed organic constituents (e.g., by thermal initial concentrations would require universal standard would be the desorption) and the second technology high treatment efficiencies. For treatment standard. Under this option, would treat the metals (e.g., by example, an initial concentration of the treater would be required to treat all stabilization). 5,000 mg/kg of anthracene in hazardous constituents subject to treatment to Stabilization is typically not soil would require a treatment efficiency levels at or below the ceiling, (i.e., the considered an effective treatment of 99.3% to achieve the "ceiling" level universal standard times ten), without technology for organics; in addition, of 34 mg/kg (anthracene universal consideration of treatment efficiency. In organics can interfere with the standard = 3.4 mg/kg). other words, the treater would have to stabilization process. Nevertheless, It could be argued that high initial achieve the standard regardless of difficulties can occur at those sites concentrations requiring high treatment whether to do so for a given constituent where metals are the constituents of efficiencies would force treaters to required a 20% treatment efficiency or concern, and where organic compounds select incineration and other high a 99.9% treatment efficiency. are also present at concentrations only efficiency technologies. The Agency The basis for this option would be to slightly greater than the universal acknowledges that this may be the case increase the number and type of standards. In this case, the generator or with very high untreated innovative technologies capable of treater may consider treating the soil by concentrations. However, the Agency achieving the treatment standards. In stabilization without additional does not consider this a problem for addition, this option has the advantage treatment for the organic constituents .three reasons: (1) Data indicate that of simplifying compliance with the rule: present. The data currently available to relatively high treatment efficiencies are Only one number per constituent would the Agency do not fully address the possible using some innovative function as the treatment standard effectiveness of stabilization technologies; (2) most hazardous soil is independent of treatment efficiencies. technologies for treatment of very low not highly contaminated and is well- Under this option, analysis of the data levels of specific organic constituents. suited to the use of innovative for treatment of organic hazardous Although not considered an appropriate technologies; and, (3) when highly constituents in soils reveals that 91% of treatment technology for organic contaminated hazardous soils are the organic data were treated to levels

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48125 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48126 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

less than or equal to the universal toxic constituents and a 90% floor on hazardous soil was hazardous solely because standard times 10 by a diverse range of treatment neither optimizes technology it contained a TC constituent and no other innovative treatment technologies. The performance nor reduces hazardous underlying hazardous constituent, the proposed hazardous soil treatment standard Agency solicits comment on how much constituents to levels at which threats for that constituent would have to be waste volume would still be incinerated are minimized. EPA also solicits achieved. If, however, these wastes contained if this option is promulgated as the comments as to whether a 90% other constituents subject to treatment, as treatment standard. approach should be applied to inorganic explained above, they would have to be c. Achieving 90% treatment with no hazardous constituents. treated to achieve the hazardous soil "ceiling".Alternatively, EPA is also treatment standards for each constituent. proposing today an approach which 2. Explanation of Numeric Treatment Standards for Hazardous Soils 3. Treatment Standards for Residues would allow the treater of hazardous from Soil Treatment soil the option of meeting the land Under today's proposal, the specific disposal restriction requirement for soil hazardous soil treatment standard for a When hazardous soil is treated, by either achieving 90% treatment of given constituent will depend on which several types of residues can be each constituent subject to treatment or of the approaches is promulgated. The generated: The treated soil, including in by achieving treatment to the universal following examples illustrate how the some cases soil fractions containing treatment standard (in cases where 90% proposed approaches would work. concentrated levels of contaminants, wastewater from the treatment of treatment would result in a Example 1.The hypothetical basis for this concentration lower than the universal example isa waste regulated for hazardous soil, and possibly debris. In treatment standard.) This approach pentachlorophenol, which is present in the addition, treatment units often generate differs from the previous approaches in untreated soil at 1200 mg/kg. air emissions. The regulatory status of that there would be no numerical Scenario 1.Today's proposed rule would these residues and emissions is treatment standards that would have to require treatment to a level one order of discussed below. be met in situations where 90% magnitude greater than the universal Treated soil, and any soil-like residue, treatment occurs; documenting 90% standard (7.4 mg/kg), provided a-90% would continue to be subject to the soil reduction in the constituent concentration treatment standards (unless, as treatment would be sufficient to meet occurs. Under this approach, the LDR requirements. discussed above, the soil was Fentachlorophenol would be reduced to at determined on a site-specific The Agency is presenting this east 74 mg/kg, the value one order of basis to no approach as an alternative to possibly magnitude greater than the universal longer "contain" hazardous waste, and encourage the development of new and standard (totals levels). Achieving the thus the level of hazardous constituents innovative technologies to provide safer, technology-based standard of 74 mg/kg remaining in the soil were determined more cost-effective, and more publicly would require a treatment efficiency of 94% not to exceed minimize threat levels). In accepted methods for treating for treating pentachlorophenol. The standard particular, when a fraction of the treated remediation-related wastes. There is under this scenario is affected by the soil contains concentrated levels of some question whether innovative untreated contaminant level. If the untreated contaminants, additional treatment may waste was at 120 mg/kg, 90% treatment be necessary using a different and more technologies can generally meet the would require achieving 12 mg/kg. If the numerical standards proposed under the untreated level was 12 mg/kg, 90% treatment appropriate treatment technology. For approaches discussed above because it would achieve 1.2 mg/kg; however, because example, soil washing may effectively is unclear whether the available data in the universal standard is 7.4 mg/kg, treat the sandy fraction of a hazardous the soils database fully characterize the treatment would be required only to the 7.4 soil to the soil treatment standards, but wide range of soils and contaminants mg/kg universal standard level. may generate a clay fraction with high potentially encountered in the field. Scenario 2. Under this scenario, the concentrations of contaminants that Remediation-related soils are highly proposed rule would require treatment to a would more appropriately be treated variable in concentration, contaminant level one order of magnitude greater than the with a thermal desorption or universal standard. The proposed universal immobilization technology. This mix, and type in the field, and EPA is treatment standard for pentachlorophenol is concerned that its existing data may not 7.4 mg/kg; therefore soil would need to be (hypothetical) clay fraction would also adequately represent this diversity. treated until it achieved at least 74 mg/kg. have to be treated to meet the applicable In addition, there is also concern that Because a percentage removal is not required treatment standard. Thus, EPA does not the existing data may not be under this scenario, the limit is valid for all consider such residues to be a new representative of the performance of soils regardless of the untreated level. treatability group for purposes of this innovative technologies in the field. Scenario 3. Under this scenario, a 90% rule, and consequently such a EPA collected available data of three reduction in constituent concentration must nonwastewater residue would remain scales: Bench, pilot, and field. EPA be achieved. The untreated level of subject to the soil treatment standard. considered all available data in pentachlorophenol was 1200 mg/kg. This Cf. 55 FR at 22661 (June 1, 1990). constituent concentration must be reduced Hazardous wastewater determining the treatment standards by 90%, thus a treated level of at least 120 from the proposed under the previous approach; mg/kg (1200 mg/kg reduced 90% is 120 mg/ treatment of hazardous soil would be however, over 50% of the treatment kg) would have to be met. The standard subject to the universal standards being tests upon which EPA based the under this scenario is also affected by the proposed under 40 CFR 268.48 for all treatment standards are bench scale untreated contaminant level. If the untreated hazardous constituents subject to tests. The Agency believes that less waste concentration is 120 mg/kg, 90% treatment and for any hazardous weight may need to be given to bench treatment would require achieving 12 mg/kg. constituents added during treatment. scale data than full and pilot scale data If the untreated level was 12 mg/kg, 90% The Agency believes the universal because of the greater uncertainty in treatment would achieve 1.2 mg/kg; however, standards are appropriate for such because the universal standard is 7.4 mg/kg, wastewater, performance of the technology. treatment is required only to 7.4 mg/kg. given that the standards EPA solicits comment on the Example 2. Soils that are hazardous were initially developed for multi- technical or environmental because they exhibit the characteristics of source leachate, a wastewater that appropriateness of a 90% reduction ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity, would results from contact of water with soil approach, in particular where hazardous require treatment by technologies which and disposed hazardous constituents. soils are heavily contaminated with eliminate these characteristics. If the (Characteristic wastewater managed in

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48126 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48127 land-based wastewater treatment 4. Treatability Variances certain cases, site-related conditions and systems, however, would normally not When a hazardous soil cannot be waste-specific characteristics in be subject to treatment standards under treated to the specified standard, the establishing soil treatment standards this rule, but rather would be addressed generator or treatment facility may and subtitle C exclusion levels. when the Agency takes up the issues petition the EPA for a variance from the Contained-in determinations would relating to centralized wastewater treatment standard. A variance not be self-implementing. Rather, EPA management remanded by the court in mechanism exists under the LDRs for believes that site-specific the Third Third Case.) providing variances from the required determinations must be made by the Any hazardous debris residuals treatment standards for hazardous soils. appropriate regulatory agency, in careful would be subject to the treatment See 40 CFR 268.44. consideration of relevant factors. This standards for debris that were EPA established the variance proposal therefore specifies the factors promulgated on August 18, 1992 (57 FR procedure to accommodate those wastes and procedures to be considered and 37194). that cannot be treated to meet the utilized in making contained-in determinations for soil. The proposed Air emissions from treatment units standards even when appropriate well- designed and well-operated treatment rule would not, however, require these are controlled, in some cases, by explicit requirements when contained- regulatory programs under the Clean Air systems are used. A variance is also available when a treatment technology in determinations are made in the Act (CAA) or under RCRA. In particular, is inappropriate for a waste. Petitioners context of RCRA closures and remedy the Agency initiated a three-phased must demonstrate that the standard selections under RCRA and CERCLA. program under section 3004(n) of RCRA cannot be met because the physical or Such activities are typically conducted to address air emissions from hazardous chemical properties of the hazardous with considerable Agency oversight, waste management units other than soil differ significantly from the and cleanup decisions are made in thermal treatment units (e.g., hazardous soils EPA examined in consideration of substantial amounts of incinerators, boilers, industrial establishing the standard or that the site specific technical data. Such furnaces). The first phase addressed standard is otherwise inappropriate for remedy selection decisions are generally organic air emissions as a class from two the hazardous soil. (See 51 FR 40605; subject to public notice and comment. types of emission sources. The first Nov. 7, 1986.) While treatability through Records of Decision (under source category was process equipment variances may be granted that have CERCLA) or permit modifications, or (e.g., pumps, valves) that contact generic applicability, usually for analogous administrative mechanisms hazardous waste that contain greater hazardous soil they are granted on a under RCRA. Thus, these processes will than 10 percent organic compounds, site-specific basis by the Regional provide a surrogate for the petition including units such as distillation Administrator. review process that EPA is proposing columns and incinerators. The second today for contained-in determinations source category was certain vents on D. Contained-In Determinations that are pursued outside the context of various treatment technologies, such as EPA is proposing today to codify the RCRA or CERCLA remedial actions. air or steam strippers. These standards "contained-in" policy for hazardous soil In making contained-in were promulgated as final rules and and other environmental media in new determinations, we believe that EPA (or published in the Federal Register on § 261.3(g). EPA recently codified this the authorized State) must consider all June 21, 1990 (55 FR 25454). The principle for hazardous debris. See possible exposure pathways which second phase of standards developed § 261.3(f)(2); 57 FR 37194 (August 18, could pose a threat to human health or under section 3004(n) of RCRA was 1992). Today's rule also proposes the environment. Exposure pathways to proposed on July 22, 1991 (56 FR 33491) procedures for obtaining contained-in be considered thus include direct and addressed organic air emissions determinations for contaminated media human contact through ingestioan, from containers, surface impoundments, and requests comment on decision exposure to ecosystems, and potential and certain tanks. In the third phase of criteria for evaluating petitions for such for leaching of constituents to ground the section 3004(n) standards actions. water. development, the Agency wil develop In current practice, the primary Given the extreme variations in site- additional standards for the sources function of a contained-in specific and constituent-specific addressed in the first two phases as determination has been to determine characteristics, EPA is not proposing to necessary to address residual risks. specific constituent concentrations at adopt specific formulae or other which the media at a specific site no quantitative means of calculating In addition to the RCRA section longer "contained" hazardous waste, appropriate contained-in levels. The 3004(n) standards, the Agency regulates and thus would no longer be subject to Agency believes that considerable organic and metal emissions from the the management standards for flexibility must be allowed for such combustion of hazardous waste in hazardous waste. Such a determination decisions, if the process is to be incinerators, boilers and industrial may be made prior to treatment or workable. furnaces. See subpart 0, part 264 for subsequent to treatment. In the latter Proposed § 260.42 provides a set of incinerators, and subpart H, part 266 for case, the contained-in concentration decision factors that may be considered boilers and industrial furnaces. These levels for hazardous soil, if they are also by the Regional Administrator (or State controls are expected to address many minimize threat levels, would serve as Director) in making contained-in risks posed by air emissions during a floor on the LDR hazardous soil determinations. In particular: treatment of hazardous soils in these treatment standards. Thus, such soil is * Media characteristics; units. (A May 18, 1993 Agency no longer subject to subtitle C " Waste constituent characteristics, statement indicated, however, that some management standards, provided that including solubility, mobility, toxicity, of these standards should be amended the soil does not exhibit a hazardous and interactive effects of constituents to be made more strict in order to waste characteristic. EPA believes that. present that may affect these properties; adequately control such pollutants as fundamentally, it is important and e Exposure potential, including particulate matter and dioxins.) necessary to be able to consider, in potential for direct human contact, and

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48127 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48128 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules potential for exposure of sensitive hazardous debris, we are today (5) solidification/stabilization/ environmental receptors; ' proposing to apply these procedures to immobilization; (6) thermal desorption; * An "acceptable risk range of 10-4 oth hazardous debris and hazardous (7) thermal destruction; (8) vitrification, to 10-6 soil and other environmental media. and, (9) soil washing. A brief 9 Surface and subsurface EPA also notes that contained-in description of each technology is characteristics, including depth to levels could represent site-specific presented in Appendix A following this ground water, and characteristics of levels at which threats to human health preamble. subsurface formations; and the environment posed by " Climatic conditions; and hazardous constituents in the waste 2. Development of the Database • Other site or waste-specific have been minimized. See 57 FR at 985- The Agency has collected data on the characteristics or conditions that may 86 (Jan. 9, 1992) where EPA made a treatment of hazardous soil from affect whether residual constituent similar statement in the context of CERCLA remedial actions, concentrations will pose a hazard to contaminated debris. In such a case, demonstrations under the Superfund human health or the environment. treatment standards would be capped at Innovative Technology Evaluation The Agency specifically requests that level. (SITE) program, industrial sources, and comment regarding these contained-in Id. Although the contained-in and minimize threat determinations EPA-sponsored treatment tests. The decision criteria. In particular: (1) Agency attempted to obtain all available Should the final need not be identical (cf. Hazardous rule specify a list of Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F. soil treatment data which met minimum criteria that must be considered; (2) 2d at 362-63, explaining that the requirements of quality assurance and should the criteria listed above be more quality control. Each treatment test specific regarding the conditions which minimize threat level is a stricter standard (for example) than the levels at contains information on the treatment would allow for or preclude contained- process used and results of laboratory in determinations; and (3) are there which wastes are identified or listed as hazardous), and indeed is generally analyses on untreated and treated soil. other factors the Agency should A hazardous soil database was consider when making contained-in regarded as among the strictest of the statutory environmental standards (id. developed to organize and analyze this determinations, in addition to those treatment data. The database will be listed above? and Third Third Case, 976 F. 2d at 14), there is no absolute bar to a available as a national resource to EPA The procedure for contained-in regions, states, PRPs and other determinations, as specified in proposed determination that sufficient concentrations of hazardous government agencies to support LDR § 260.42, would involve submission of a applications and compliance, petition to the EPA Regional constituents have been destroyed, removed, or immobilized to determine technology screening for selection of Administrator or State Director that remedial actions, and variance petition requests approval of specific contained- both that the soil no longer "contains" hazardous wastes and that threats to screening and support. in concentration levels, and which To develop the soil treatability provides adequate supporting human health and the environment posed by the hazardous constituents in database, the Agency prepared Data information addressing the factors Summary Forms (DSFs) to record specified in this section to enable an the wastes have been minimized. EPA stresses that in making such a information from the treatment test informed decision to be made. reports. The DSFs contain information Opportunity for public comment would determination, threats to both human health and the environment would have on site identification, soil matrix, soil generally be provided for contained-in collection description, treatment determinations by means of notice in a to be considered (see section 3004(m) and 886 F.2d at system, design and operating conditions local newspaper. There would be a 362). In addition, any of the treatment system, concentrations minimum 30-day period for submission such determination would have to be of hazardous constituents in untreated of comnAents from the public. The based exclusively on remaining threats and treated soil, QA/QC information, Regional Administrator (or State posed by the waste without regard to and residual matrix information. Director) would assess any written how the waste will be managed (see After all the data were edited (the comments received, and a notice in the American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, next section of this preamble explains local newspaper would be published 906 F. 2d 729, 735-36 (D.C. Cir. 1990) the criteria used to edit the data), 36 announcing the final determination. explaining that section 3004(m) treatment technologies were represented Separate written notice would be sent to standard ordinarily can be satisfied only by 2541 data pairs, for a total of 295 the petitioner. Such determinations by treatment occurring before treatment tests: 43 (15%) of the tests would constitute final Agency action, subsequent disposal of the waste). were full scale, EPA solicits comment on its proposed 108 (36%) were pilot and would not be subject to scale, and 144 (49%) were bench scale. administrative appeal procedures. The approach for contained-in Table I lists the number determinations, of DSFs having Agency also proposes to waive from the particularly on the information for each technology as well procedural requirements of the decision factors to be used, the as the scale of the test. contained-in determination those procedures for making determinations, and the proposed linkage to treatment already subject to public notice under TABLE 1-NUMBER OF BENCH, PILOT RCRA or CERCLA authority (See standards and subtitle C exclusion levels. AND FULL SCALE TREATMENT TESTS proposed § 260.42(c)). BY TECHNOLOGY We noted above that the Agency E. Soil Treatment Database recently codified the contained-in Scale of test principle for hazardous debris. See 1. Treatment Technologies Treatment Tech- nology Bench Pilot Full § 261.3(f)(2); 57 FR 37194 (August 18, EPA believes that nine general 1992). The Agency did not, however, technologies have been demonstrated establish procedures BT01 *-Aerobic at that time for and are available for treating hazardous Bioremediation 2 1 0 making the determinations. Given that soil: (1) Biological treatment; (2) BT03*-Aerobic/ the procedures discussed above for chemical extraction; (3) dechlorination; Anaerobic hazardous soil are also appropriate for (4) high-temperature metals recovery; Bioremediation 0 1 0

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48128 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48,129

TABLE 1--NUMBER OF BENCH, PILOT TABLE I-NUMBER OF BENCH, PILOT the percent recovery values for spikes AND FULL SCALE TREATMENT TESTS AND FULL SCALE TREATMENT TESTS were less than 20% or greater than BY TECHNOLOGY-Continued BY TECHNOLOGY--Coninued 200%. and, (7) data pairs with untreated concentrations less than the proposed universal Scale of test Scale of test standard were not used. A Treatment Tech- Treatment Tech- total of 2541 data pairs remained after notgy Bench Pilot Full nology Bench Pilot Full application of these criteria. a. Considerationof innovative BT04 - TH02-High technologies. As indicated earlier, the compostng 4 1 0 Temperature Agency belieVes it important (and BTO5"-Aerobic Thermat Bioslurry ...... 1 Desorplion ...... 3 1 reasonable) to allow the use of BT07"---n-situ THO-Photoly- innovative technologies, as well as Bioremediationf sis ...... 1 5 0 incineration, in setting treatment Unlined ...... 0 0 THO7"-Thermal standards for soils. Our basis for this is BT08*-Aerobfc Distllation 1 1 severalfold: First, the data suggest that Compostg/ innovative technologies can achieve Lined ...... 0 Totals: ..... 144 108 43 (Percent) (49) (36) (15) treatment levels within a reasonable BT12*-Aerobic range of the levels obtained by Land Treat- These technologies are considered by the incineration. Second, the Agency ment/Lined ...... 2 0 2 Agency to be innovalive technologies. CEOO ---Chemi- believes that it is not generally cal Extration ... 0 3 0 3. Analysis of the Database. practicable to treat the large volumes of hazardous soil by incineration, CEO 1*-Sovent In analyzing the soil treatability Extraction ...... & 0 particularly given the relatively low CEO--Critical database, the Agency needed to concentrations of hazardous Fluid Extraction 0 2 0 determine the adequacy of the data for constituents typically present. A CTO--Hydroly- setting treatment standards for common sense approach would indicate sis ...... 1 0 0 hazardous soil. Therefore, the Agency that incineration may be practical only DCOI*--KPEG reviewed the design and operating, for "hot-spots" where soil is highly Dechlorination s T 1 conditions for each treatment test contaminated with organic constituents DC02.-APEG included in the database to determine if Dechlorination 4 0 1 (see 55 FR 8760-61, March 8, 1990). For any data should be eliminated, i.e., the the large volumes of soil that are DC03-High Agency believed that poorly designed Temperature contaminated with low or moderate Dechforination 0 1 C and operated treatment tests should be levels of toxic constituents, innovative IMOO--Immo- eliminated from the data set used to technologies are practical, available, and bilization ...... 9 2 1 determine treatment standards. To IM01--Stabiliza- can achieve the proposed levels of the evaluate the data, the Agency developed technology-based standards. Third, a set of minimally acceptable design and several innovative technologies (e.g., IM03--Cement operating conditions for each high temperature metals recovery, Stabilization 39 a 2 technology., These criteria, or IM04-Fly Ash chemical extraction) are recovery Stabilization .... 3 0 performance standards, can be found in technologies; we note that RCRA voices IM04/M05--FIy the Hazardous Soil Rule Background a strong preference for use of such Ash/Ume Sta- Document which is in the RCRA docket technologies. (See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. bilzationr 1 0 for this proposed rule. A list of the data 198, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. 31.] And, IM06-Kin Dust eliminated from consideration along fourth, the Agency is committed to Stabilization .... 5 0 with the rationale for each decision can allowing and encouraging the use of STO *-Air Strip- be found in the docket. A total of 1183 innovative technologies, particularly ping...... 0 1 1 data pairs were removed from the soil biological technologies, for the ST2*-Steam treatment standard data set as a result of Stripping...... 0 0 1 treatment of hazardous waste. ST03*--Vacuum this review. b. Rationalefor not using the Extraction ..... 0 The Agency then further reviewed the "traditional"BDAT approachto SWO1*--Soil data set using the following criteria: (1) develop hazardoussoil treatment Washing ..... 8 0 Immobilization data for organic standards.In analyzing the data, the SW02*-Acid constituents were not used; (2) metal Agency determined that the Washing ...... 0 1 constituents data from immobilization, "traditional" statistical method SW03"-Water high temperature metals recovery, soil previously used by the LDR program Washing ...... 4 1 1 washing, acid washing, water washing, was not appropriate for hazardous soil. TDOO--Thefnal or detergent washing were used while Destruction ...... 1 0 In the past, the Agency has typically TD01--Rotary metals data from all other technologies evaluated incineration treatability data Kiln ...... 1 13 deemed as inappropriate for metals to identify the "most difficult to treat" TDO4-4nfrared .. 0 8 were removed, (3) dechlorination data waste and established the treatment TDO6--Pyrolysis 0 2 1 were used only for appropriate organic standard based on a statistical analysis TDO7--irculat- constituents; (4) data pairs with of data from the treatment of that waste. ing Bed Com- nondetect untreated concentrations We believe this approach is not bustion...... 0 1 were not used; (5) data pairs where the appropriate for hazardous soil. As TDOd-Viiifica- iOn ...... 0 treated concentration for metals was indicated above, the Agency prefers to THO 1*--Low given as total concentration were not establish soil treatment standards at Temperature used (and initial concentration was a levels achievable by a variety of Thermal leachate); (6) treated levels were not technologies, including innovative Desorption ...... 9 28 used where the QA/QC indicated that technologies. Given the large volumes of

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48129 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48130 Federal Register,/ Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules hazardous soil, wide variations in hazardous soil utilizTing innovative provides the following: Detailed contamination, and varying soil types, technologies? and; (2.) Are there any protocols for field sampling and the Agency believes that flexibility in constituents for which the universal measurement; a list of hazardous soil choice of technology is appropriate. For treatment levels would not be and debris constituents; procedures for example, an aggressive highly efficient achievable? The analysis concluded that sample custody and transportation; and technology would not be needed to treat for almost all constituents, the proposed additional QA/QC procedures for a lightly contaminated soil. universal standards can be met using sampling and analysis. This document c. Graphicalanalysis of data. The well-designed and well-operated is available in the docket. Those Agency used a graphical representation innovative technologies. For several intending to submit additional data to of the data for each of the 80 constituents for which only incineration EPA are urged to consult the QAPP and constituents for which there was data were available, this conclusion communicate with EPA to confirm that adequate data. The Agency then could not be reached. However, the data meets EPA's QA/QC objectives. developed a data set for each incineration was shown to be effective constituent with the screened data. The in treating these constituents. EPA prefers pilot and full scale data data in each data set were plotted using d. Transfer of proposed universal over bench scale data. The Agency one variable, treated concentration. The standards to constituents without data. considered treatment test scale to be Y-axis represented the treated The soil data base includes data for 94 associated closely with the quantity of concentration in parts per million and of the 191 constituents subject to today's material used in the individual the X-axis arrayed the data from lowest proposed soil treatment standards. treatment tests that provided treatment to highest concentration. The data were Because the available data largely justify data. When entering data into EPA's plotted using symbols to distinguish the the use of the universal standards for database, scale was entered as indicated various treatment technologies for soil treatment, (i.e., innovative by the data and accompanying which data was available and to denote technologies appear capable of treating documents. When the data reference did whether the value was a "detect" or a soil to the universal levels proposed not provide scale information, the scale "nondetect" value. The existing LDR today), the universal standards were was assigned by EPA according to the treatment standards for the constituent transferred to constituents for which the quantity of soil treated. Generally, if less and the proposed universal standard database does not contain data. This than 1 kg was treated, the test was were also represented on the plots as transfer is justified because for all categorized as bench-scale. If more than benchmarks. These graphs are available organic constituents for which 1 kg, but less than 1,000 kg was:treated, in the docket. innovative technology data were the test was categorized as pilot-scale. The graphical plots for each of the 80 available, the data supported the use of Cases where treatment involved more constituents facilitated a comparison of the universal standards. In addition, than 1,000 kg, the tests were categorized the treatment levels achievable by the allowing the 90% reduction in as full-scale. EPA requests comments on various technologies, the existing waste hazardous constituents alternative, with these quantity specific categories. code treatment standards, and the or without the one order of magnitude proposed universal standards. To "ceiling," provides assurance that the Alternative methods for defining the identify a potential soil treatment level, proposed levels would be routinely scale of the treatment test will also be we identified the point on the graph that achievable. Treatability variances considered. One proposal considers the was the last point in the lowest remain an option for particular soils intent of the test. For example, bench- "plateau" (i.e. where the slope of the which prove more difficult to treat. scale tests are designed to determine curve is close to zero) and below which whether alternative technologies can were included data representing one or 4. Request for Additional Data and achieve established performance more well designed and operated Comment criteria. Whereas the intent of a pilot- innovative technologies obtaining EPA continues to solicit treatability scale study is to provide detailed cost, efficient removal of constituents (i.e., data and other information relevant to design, and performance data. Thus, high percent removal). This point was the hazardous soil treatment standards data collected from a pilot-scale study called the potential BDAT level. proposed today. Commenters submitting should yield accurate scale-up Because the proposed universal performance data for treatment or information. Full-scale operations are standards were within a reasonable recovery technologies in response to designed to achieve remediation of the range of this potential BDAT level, and today's proposed rule are requested to site and are not considered studies. The in order to simplify and streamline the include, to the extent possible, the Agency requests comment on this LDR program, the universal standards following: Complete chemical and alternate definition of scale, and on were selected as base treatment levels. physical analysis of the hazardous soil, other potential definitions or (We note that the proposed universal treated soils, treatment residuals, and applications of treatment test scale. standards were within a reasonable any other materials separated from the range of, and generally higher than, the hazardous soil; technical descriptions of In addition, EPA continues to solicit treatment level suggested by the plateau the treatment or recovery process, information on the costs associated with on the graph.) including design and operating treatment or recovery technologies for To determine that the treatment data parameters; and information on the hazardous soil in order to prepare a from the innovative technologies were, quality control/quality assurance (QA/ revised regulatory impact analysis. Of in fact, representative of well-operated, QC) procedures utilized for sampling, interest are technical reports that efficient treatment units, we analyzed anazing, and operating the technology. include costs or estimates of costs for all data points considering factors NAdeveloped "Quality Assurance set-up and operation of the treatment including: untreated concentration, Project Plan (QAPP) for Characterization technology. These reports should percent treatment, and design and Sampling and Treatment Tests include the appropriate information on operating conditions of the technology. Conducted for the Hazardous Soil and treatment efficiencies and applicability Essentially, this analysis was used to Debris (CS&D) Program" that describes to 'various soil types, including all the answer two questions: (1.) Can the the data quality objectives of the technical information discussed in the proposed universal standards be met for hazardous soil and debris program and preceding paragraphs.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48130 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48131

F. Sampling and Analysis Protocols- lieu of the treatment standards for the 3. Voluntary RCRA Cleanups Grab vs. Composite Samples RCRA wastes contaminating the soil. The proposed hazardous soil b. Soil contaminated with newly listed Where performance data were based treatment standards, when final, would on the analysis of composite and grab wastes which have final treatment apply to all RCRA hazardous waste land samples, the Agency established standards. EPA recently promulgated disposed. Therefore, hazardous soil treatment standards based on the treatment standards for "newly-listed" generated during the course of a analysis of grab samples. Grab samples (i.e., listed since enactment of HSWA in voluntary cleanup would be subject to normally reflect maximum process 1984) hazardous wastes in the Phase I the hazardous soil treatment standards. variability, and thus would reasonably final rule (August 18, 1992) including: The Agency is concerned that the F037-F038, K107-Kl10, Kill, K112, existing treatment standards that apply characterize the range of treatment Kl17, K123, K124, K125, Kl26, system performance. Basing treatment Kl18, to hazardous waste (and soil containing standards on grab samples (and K131, K132, K136, U328,U353, and hazardous waste) may pose a enforcing on that basis) is, of course, U359. The Agency chose not to apply disincentive to voluntary cleanups. The permissible. Third Third Case, 976 F.2d the treatment standards for these wastes soil treatment standards proposed today at 34. to hazardous soil contaminated with should begin to alleviate the these wastes. Consequently, we are In cases where only composite data impediments to voluntary cleanups. In proposing today to subject soil general, the treatment standards exist, the Agency considers the QA/QC contaminated with these newly listed of the data, the inherent efficiency of the proposed in today's rule regarding wastes to the soil treatment standards. hazardous soil are higher than the process design, and the level of Soil contaminated with newly performance achieved. The Agency may c; listed existing treatment standards, and are and identified wastes which have intended to allow flexibility in then choose to use this composite data proposed treatment standards. to develop treatment standards. Where In a determining what treatment separate section o this proposed rule, technologies to utilize. EPA requests these data were used to establish the Agency treatment standards, the treatment is proposing treatment comment regarding the proposed soil standards were identified as based on standards for additional newly listed treatment standard options and the and identified hazardous wastes, effect the approaches, if promulgated, analysis of composite samples. including Enforcement of that standard thus those that exhibit the toxicity may have on voluntary cleanups. characteristic for organics. The would also be based on composite 4. Phase I LDR Rule: Hazardous Debris samples. proposed hazardous soil treatment standards, when final, would apply to On August 18, 1992, the Agency G. Relationship to Other Regulations soils contaminated with those newly published the Phase I LDR rule; among and Programs listed or identified hazardous wastes. other things, this rule set technology- 1. based treatment standards for hazardous RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions 2. RCRA Corrective Action waste-contaminated debris. In summary, Program Treatment standards proposed in this to meet the land disposal restrictions, a. Existing LDR treatment standards. rule would, when finalized, apply to all hazardous waste-contaminated debris The Agency has promulgated land RCRA hazardous soil (i.e., soil must be treated to the existing disposal restriction treatment standards contaminated with a listed waste or standards, or alternatively by specified for all hazardous waste that were listed exhibiting a hazardous characteristic.) technologies (i.e. treatment methods) or identified in part 261 before the For example, soil treatment standards based on the type of debris and the type enactment of HSWA. Soil contaminated promulgated under this rule would of contaminants present. If this with a hazardous waste that is subject apply to corrective action at RCRA- treatment is performed with a specified to a treatment standard is also subject to permitted facilities or interim status destruction or extraction technology, the that treatment standard. There is a facilities, when remediation of treated debris would no longer be question as to whether treatment hazardous soil involves excavation and considered contaminated nor is it a standards applicable to "as generated" land disposal or placement of such soil. hazardous waste (provided it also does hazardous waste are also appropriate for However, the Corrective Action not exhibit a hazardous characteristic), hazardous soil. The Agency is also Management Units and Temporary and thus is no longer subject to RCRA concerned that treatment technologies Units Final Rule (58 FR 8656) creates a subtitle C regulation. For a further considered BDAT for the actual waste remediation unit, called a corrective discussion, refer to the final rule (57 FR may not be able to achieve the waste action management unit (CAMU), 37194, August 18, 1992). treatment standards in soil. The Agency within which management of Debris is defined as a solid material believes that soil may be more difficult remediation wastes would not (man-made objects or environmental to treat than waste because of factors constitute land disposal or placement. media) intended for disposal that: (1) such as: (1) Contamination from (See 58 FR 8659). Remediation waste Has been originally manufactured or multiple wastes results in complex includes soils containing listed processed, except for solids that are treatment and analysis matrices; and, (2) hazardous wastes or which themselves listed wastes or can be identified as varying soil types, such as easy-to-treat exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic, being residues from treatment of wastes sandy soil, difficult-to-treat clays, and that are managed for the purpose of and/or wastewaters, or air pollution soils with high content of organic implementing corrective action control devices; or (2) is plant or animal matter. To address these concerns, the requirements under § 264.101 and matter; or (3) is natural geologic material Agency developed the soil treatment RCRA section 3008(h). (See 58 FR 8683). exceeding a 60 mm sieve size including database to establish treatment Therefore, management of remediation gravel, cobbles, and boulders (sizes as standards that would be appropriate for wastes within a CAMU designated classified by the U.S. Soil Conservation hazardous soil. Thus, when today's according to the criteria in § 264.552 Service), or is primarily debris mixed proposed soil treatment standards are would not require the application of with soil, liquid, sludge, or other solid promulgated, hazardous soil will LDRs, including today's soil treatment waste materials. The "primarily" become subject to those standards in standards. determination is based on the volume of

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48131 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48132 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules soil and debris in the loader bucket as regulations are applicable to the 6. Soil Contaminated by Underground excavated. Separation is not required. hazardous soil (see, e.g. RCRA section Storage Tanks However, the generator may use 3004 (d)(3),(e){3); also see Superfund Petroleum contaminated soil removed screening (or other separation LDR Guide #5, Directive 9347.3-06FS, during remediation of releases from a techniques) to separate the soil from 60 July 1989.) In cases where there is no RCRA Subtitle I underground storage mm and larger gravel and man-made known evidence that the soil is tank (UST) generally are not subject to objects. contaminated with a prohibited listed the LDR soil treatment standards. These It is clear from the definition of debris hazardous waste and thus the LDRs are soils would generally only be defined as that there will be an overlap with the not legally applicable, but the soil is hazardous because of the toxicity proposed hazardous soil requirements. contaminated with substances known to characteristic (TC. Such petroleum The Agency is following the precedent be constituents of a particular listed contaminated soil that fails the TC for set in the hazardous debris rule: In the waste, EPA evaluates the soil to one or more of the newly identified event of mixtures of soil and debris that determine whether the LDR treatment standards are relevant and appropriate. organic wastes (D018-D043) has been are not readily separable, the Agency temporarily deferred from regulation as has decided that the primary category of See NCP, 40 CFR 300.400 (g)(2); a mixture (i.e., soil or debris) based on Superfund LDR Guide #7, Directive a hazardous waste (55 FR 26986). In visual inspection will determine how 9347.3--08FS, December 1989. addition, the Agency has recently that mixture will be regulated. In determining the potential relevance proposed to permanently exempt UST and appropriateness of the LDR petroleum-contaminated soils from the 5. CERCLA as amended by SARA treatment standards in a particular TC rule (58 FR 8504). However, should This section discusses the response action under the Superfund a Subtitle I petroleum contaminated soil relationship between the proposed program, EPA makes the following fail the TC using the superseded treatment standards for hazardous soil comparisons, among pthers, where Extraction Procedure (El ) for toxicity and the Agency's response actions pertinent: (1) The actions or activities characteristics D001 through 0017 (the implemented under CERCLA regulated by the requirement as original EP toxicity characteristics), (Superfund). We discuss here the compared to the remedial action ignitability (001), corrosivity (002), current applicability of the LDR contemplated; (2) the purpose of the and reactivity (D003], the soil would not program to the Superfund program as requirement and the purpose of the be subject to the deferral and would be well as the impact of today's proposed CERCLA action; (3) the substances subject to all applicable RCRA land soil LDR treatment standards on the regulated by the requirement and the disposal restriction requirements. Superfund program. In this section, we substances found at the CERCLA site; It is notable that there is a pending discuss the difference between and (4) the medium regulated or lawsuit challenging this deferral. applicable LDR requirements and the affected by the requirement and the Pending the results of the litigation, Superfund program's use of "relevant medium contaminated or affected at the these TC soils may become subject to and appropriate" requirements of other CERCLA site (NCP, 40 CFR 300.400 today's proposed soil treatment environmental laws to remediate (g)(2). standards when finalized. hazardous soil. Currently, as set out in the preamble Finally, the Agency reminds the The Superfund program's efforts to to the NCP, there is an established regulated community that any soil remediate hazardous soil fall into three presumption that the existing BDAT contaminated by a release from a categories: (1) Where LDR requirements treatment standards are inappropriate hazardous substance UST (Subtitle I) as are applicable; (2) where LDR for hazardous soil and debris, 55 FR well as from all non-Subtitle I USTs requirements are found to be relevant 8759.62, and thus under RCRA (including petroleum tanks) will and appropriate under the regulations at 40 CFR 268.44(h), a continue to be subject to applicable circumstances of the release; and (3) treatability variance is generally RCRA hazardous waste requirements, where LDR requirements are neither appropriate (unless the presumption is including the existing land disposal applicable nor relevant and appropriate. rebutted). Accordingly, much of the restrictions and the hazardous soil When hazardous soil is excavated, hazardous soil from CERCLA actions treatment standards, when promulgated. treated in another unit, and replaced on now excavated and disposed of is 7. Other Petroleum Contaminated Soil the land, or excavated and disposed in treated to meet site specific treatability a unit outside of the area of variance standards. (EPA has prepared In response to petitions from several contamination (AOC), the LDR guidance documents as an aid to states, the Agency has recently proposed regulations are either applicable implementation of treatability to temporarily suspend from regulation requirements or they may be found to be variances.) See Superfund LDR Guide as hazardous waste petroleum relevant and appropriate requirements #6a, Directive 9347.3--6FS, September contaminated soils from sources other under the circumstances of the release. 1990, or Superfund LDR Guide #6b, than Subtitle I USTs, such as above- When hazardous soil is not excavated Directive 9347.3-07FS, December 1989. ground tanks and pipelines. Such a and placed into another unit as part of Given that today's proposed treatment deferral has only been proposed, a Superfund response action (e.g., standards for hazardous soil are based however, until it is finalized, these soils consolidation within the AOC, in-situ on actual soil treatability data from would continue to be subject to the treatment, or no treatment), the LDR technologies other than incineration, applicable RCRA hazardous waste treatment standards do not apply including a number of innovative regulations, including the existing and because there has been no "land technologies, the Agency anticipates future land disposal restrictions. See 57 disposal" of a hazardous waste (RCRA that there will be less need to invoke the FR 61542. variance process when soil treatment Section 3004(k), 55 FR 8759-60 (March 8. Radioactive Mixed Wastes 8, 1990).) Today's proposal would not standards become effective. We note, changeIf the this.hazardous soil is contaminated however, that today's proposed soil a. Definition of mixed wastes. treatment standards would retain the Radioactive mixed wastes are those with a listed hazardous waste or if it treatability variance procedures of 40 wastes that satisfy the definition of fails a RCRA characteristic test, the LDR CFR 268.44. radioactive waste subject to the Atomic

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48132 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48133

Energy Act (AEA) that also contain a human eye. When disturbed, asbestos Cluster project. The LDR program will waste that is either listed as a hazardous fibers may become suspended"in the air continue to consider the goals and waste in subpart D of 40 CFR part 261, for many hours, thus increasing the principles of the Cluster as they are or that exhibits any of the hazardous extent of asbestos exposure for further developed. waste characteristics identified in individuals within the area. EPA and 2. Weathered Sludges subpart C of 40 CFR part 261. On July the Occupational Safety and Health 3, 1986 (51 FR 4504), EPA determined Administration (OSHA) have major EPA believes that weathered sludges that the hazardous portions of mixed responsibility for the regulatory control may constitute a new category of wastes are subject to the RCRA of exposure to asbestos. EPA controls contaminated media, or at least a regulations. emissions of asbestos to the ambient air different treatability group. EPA The majority of mixed wastes can be under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, currently is attempting to assess the divided into three categories based on through the National Emission definition of weathered sludges, the the radioactive component of the waste: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants comparison of these sludges to newly (1) Low-level wastes, (2) transuranic (NESHAPS) program. generated sludges, methods available to (TRU) wastes, and (3) high-level wastes. The Agency believes that special treat these sludges, and the relationship Low-level wastes include radioactive provisions might be needed for of these sludges to sediments. EPA is waste that are not classified as spent regulation of hazardous soil that requesting data or comments on any of fuel from commercial nuclear power contains asbestos. The Agency the above areas to consider in plants, or that is not defense high-level specifically requests comment on the developing a research program which radioactive waste from weapons need for such provisions, and on what may lead to an amendment of the LDR production. TRU wastes are those waste special provisions might be needed. One treatment standards that are currently containing elements with atomic option the Agency is considering for applicable to weathered sludges. numbers greater than 92, the atomic disposal of hazardous soil containing 3. EPA Lead Strategy number of uranium. High-level asbestos is to collect and seal asbestos radioactive wastes are defined as spent In the case of hazardous soil containing soil in leak-tight containers contaminated with lead, EPA seeks to fuel from commercial nuclear power (as described in the NESHAP plants, and wastes from weapons integrate the present rulemaking effort requirements), followed by with the Agency's Lead Strategy, which production. macroencapsulation and disposal in a b. RCRA requirements.In the final was issued on February 21, 1991. This Subtitle C landfill. This option would be strategy presents a coordinated rule for the Third Third wastes, EPA in lieu of treating the soil by destroying promulgated treatment standards for approach addressing the significant or removing the contaminants subject to health and environmental problems four treatability groups of mixed waste: treatment. (1) Specific high-level wastes, (2) D008 resulting from lead pollution. Lead is a radioactive lead solids, (3) mixed waste H. Related EPA Activities on multimedia pollutant with significant containing elemental mercury, and (4) ContaminatedMedia toxic concerns; accordingly, EPA plans to address lead contamination by mercury containing hydraulic fluid 1. Contaminated Media Cluster contaminated with radioactive coordinating its authorities across materials. The Agency further asserted The Agency has undertaken an programs. EPA solicits comments on the that "all promulgated treatment initiative designed to improve the option of setting a total lead standard standards for RCRA listed and overall quality of its regulatory decision- (versus the proposed leachate standard), making by looking at groups or consistent with the goal of the lead characteristic wastes apply to the RCRA "clusters" hazardous portion of mixed radioactive of regulations in order to strategy. Copies of the Lead Strategy can (high-level, TRU and low-level) wastes develop more integrated approaches to be obtained by calling the TSCA Hotline unless EPA has specifically established various environmental problems. One of at 1-800--835-6700. a treatability group for that specific these "clusters" is contaminated media, 4. Bioremediation category of mixed waste." which includes hazardous soil. The goal The Agency is today proposing to of the Contaminated Media Cluster As a follow-up to the Administrator's subject mixed radioactive hazardous project is to develop a set of overarching Bioremediation Summit held in soil to the proposed treatment standards principles to guide the Agency's February, 1990, EPA explicitly is for hazardous soil (in addition to any approach to policies and regulations soliciting treatment data on biological regulation of that material under AEA), dealing with remediation. technologies to aid in the development rather than to the treatment standards The Agency has gathered preliminary of treatment standards for hazardous for the contaminating waste. This information on the quantities and types soil. EPA is aware of the impact of all of media needing remediation, the types LDR rulemakings on the development includes soil contaminated with mixed and application of innovative treatment waste for which special treatability of risks they represent, the current technologies. This notice affirms EPA's groups have been established. statutory and regulatory framework, the elements of an effective cleanup 'interest in gathering private sector data Therefore, this soil would be subject to for consideration in settifig treatment the proposed soil standards rather than process, and the costs and benefits of to the specified treatability group cleanup. As part of this effort, the standards. standards. The Agency solicits Agency sponsored a forum in January VIII. Compliance Monitoring and comments on this approach. 1992 with participants from industry, Notification trade associations, and congressional 9. Special Provisions for Soil Containing staff; as well as a series of meetings for A. Compliance Monitoring Asbestos regional and state participants. The In the May 24, 1993 interim final rule Asbestos is a naturally occurring purpose of the forum and meetings was (58 FR 29872), the Agency adopted the family of fibrous mineral substances. to discuss the issues involved in same approach for monitoring The typical size range of asbestos fibers remediating contaminated media. This underlying hazardous constituents that is 0.1 to 10 micrometers in length, LDR proposed rule is consistent with it had used previously (in the Third which is not generally visible to the the efforts of the Contaminated Media Third rule at 55 FR 22620, 22621) for

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48133 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48134 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules multi-source leachate (F039.) That data for each waste, it could pose an required to be reported on the LDR approach allowed generators and unnecessary burden when generator notification) (see section VIII.A). facilities that manage ignitable or knowledge would suffice. Commenters on this issue when it was corrosive wastes to monitor for If such testing were required, an issue raised in regard to ignitable and underlying hazardous constituents "reasonably would exist as to frequency of testing corrosive characteristic wastes in the expected to be present." and how this could be determined Supplemental Information Report Generators could base this without the type of interaction that prepared for the Notice of Doa determination on their knowledge of the occurs for facilities developing waste Availability on the Third Third Case raw materials they use, the process they analysis plans as part of the permitting generally said that the regulated operate, and the potential reaction process. One possible option is to community should only be required to products of the process, or upon the develop some type of self-implementing address those constituents which are in results of a one-time analysis for the waste analysis plan analogous to that the characteristic wastes as generated, entire list of constituents subject to required for generators who treat their prior to any subsequent mixing with treatment. Treaters and disposers must prohibited wastes in 90-day tanks and other wastes, and the generators should perform some testing to demonstrate containers. See § 268.7(b}(4). monitor only for those hazardous compliance with the standards. 58 FR The Agency also solicits comment, constituents reasonably expected to be 29874-875. however, whether such a testing present in the characteristic waste. This In adopting these requirements, the requirement is necessary based on the is the approach being proposed in this Agency noted that they might be following analysis of the existing rules. rule. The determination of which modified in the future, and that there If a generator does no treatment of constituents subject to treatment are in are certain potential deficiencies in the characteristic wastes, the wastes must the waste may be made based on a one- process, in particular, the lack of a be sent to subtitle C treatment facilities time analysis of the waste to determine federal requirement to notify the subtitle before disposal (since the wastes will which of the constituents subject to D treatment (if any are actually treating still exhibit a characteristic). In this treatment are present, or it may be made decharacterized prohibited wastes) and case, the wastes will be accompanied by based on knowledge of what disposal facilities (see further the § 268.7(a) notice and certification constituents are reasonably expected to discussion at preamble section B.3 telling the treater what the treatment be present in the waste. Supporting below, and in the interim final rule (58 standard for the waste is, including documentation for the determination FR 29874, May 24, 1990)). The Agency identification of the underlying should be kept in the generator's on-site is further concerned that generators may hazardous constituents requiring files for five years. (See § 268.7(a)(7).) not be able to adequately determine the treatment. Although this determination This approach for determining which underlying hazardous constituents need not be based on testing, the constituents are present in the waste is present in characteristic wastes, or to treatment facility must do some actual not necessarily the approach that will be determine, without testing, whether testing to determine whether the treated taken in future rulemakings. these constituents are present at levels waste meets the treatment standards, the below the treatment standards. (In the 2. Management in Subtitle C-Regulated frequency of testing to be determined by Facilities case of listed wastes, which are the treatment facility's waste analysis relatively uniform as to waste plan. § 268.7(b)(1)-(3) and 58 FR 29874. The Agency has information that composition, EPA has identified all the The treater would then send a many of the TC wastes that are not potential hazardous constituents that managed in CWA or SDWA systems are could be in the waste and specified notification form to the EPA Region or authorized state pursuant to § 268.9. being treated in hazardous waste those that must be treated. EPA is If a generator does some treatment, management units (primarily unable to make such a general finding such as removing the characteristic but incinerators) subject to RCRA subtitle C. for characteristic wastes, because they not treating for underlying Hazardous soil contaminated with listed vary to a great degree. Hence, hazardous the use of constituents, then it would be a subtitle hazardous wastes and, perhaps, some generator knowledge or sampling and characteristic wastes, will oftentimes be analysis C treater and would be required to is necessary for determining the conduct treated in a subtitle C unit. In such a presence and levels of underlying some analysis of the waste, as just explained. If treatment is conducted case, the notification, certification, and azardous constituents in characteristic recordkeeping requirements set out in wastes, although the Agency may be in units not requiring permits, the generator must prepare a waste analysis 40 CFR 268.7 apply. This means, able to develop such information as generally, that a notification would be guidance for specific types of plan "based on a detailed chemical and physicai analysis prepared for each waste shipment sent characteristic wastes.) of a representative from the generator to the treatment The Agency solicits comment on sample of the prohibited waste(s)". facility, § 268.7(b)(4)(i). Consequently, in the same manner that such whether generators should be required such a paperwork follows a listed waste from to do some testing of characteristic generator is already required to conduct "cradle to grave." wastes to determine what hazardous some waste analysis. For TC wastes and characteristic constituents are present and whether EPA consequently solicits comment hazardous soils, once as to the waste is no they meet treatment standards. the appropriateness of a further (or longer hazardous, however, the only Alternatively, the Agency could require perhaps, more explicit) requirement of further recordkeeping and generators to certify what underlying generator testing. documentation required is set out in 40 hazardous constituents are in the waste B. LDR Notification CFR 268.9. Section 268.9 requires that and whether they meet treatment the generator/treater (including 1. standards, in a manner similar to the Constituents To Be Included on the generators who treat, see 51 FR at existing certification requirement for LDR Notification 40598, November 7, 1986) prepare a generators of wastes that meet the EPA solicited comment on how to one-time notification which is sent to treatment standards as generated (see 40 limit the constituents subject to the EPA Region or authorized state and CFR 2687(a)2)(ii)). While a testing treatment to be monitored In TC wastes also kept in the generator or treater's requirement would ensure that there Is and hazardous soil (and thus, the ones files. The notification must include the

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48134 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48135 name and address of the subtitle D waste, or for the subtitle D treater to insufficient data or information to facility receiving a waste shipment, a verify compliance with the treatment support that such treated debris would description of the waste initially standards or to notify the ultimate not leach Appendix VIII constituents generated, and the treatment standard to disposal facility as to the constituents in over time in a manner that would be which the waste is subject (see the waste. If such waste management protective to human healtib and the § 268.9(d), as amended at 57 FR 37271 arrangements currently exist or are environment: In our proposal to the (August 18,1992)). For TC wastes and likely to occur as a result of today's rule Phase I LDR rule, the Agency solicited hazardous soils, these would be when it is finalized, some wastes would comment on whether immobilized universal treatment standards. These not be subject to the LDR notification hazardous debris should be excluded treaters must certify that they are requirements, as was described in the from subtitle C control. While the familiar with the treatment process used interim final rule of May 24, 1993 (58 Agency received favorable comments on at their facility and that the process can FR 29874). Without such recordkeeping, excluding such treated debris from the successfully treat the waste to meet the EPA might have difficulty enforcing hazardous waste regulations, no treatment standards without treatment standards for the constituents information or data was provided to impermissible dilution. See subject to treatment. However, these support such a position. Therefore, the § 268.7(b)(5), which applies to persons requirements would impose an final rule requires that immobilized who treat formerly characteristic wastes additional burden on generators, hazardous debris continue to be (see § 268.9(d)(2)). The Agency believes especially those that have established managed as a hazardous waste. that, normally, at least some waste alternative arrangements to provide this The Agency again wants to revisit the analysis is needed to make a good faith information to treaters. EPA solicits issue of whether immobilized hazardous showing for meeting the treatment comment as to the potential debris, if treated in certain ways or is standards, given the number of enforcement concerns if there is not a treated to meet certain limits, should be hazardous constituents that could be federal requirement that generators covered by those excluded from subtitle C control. As a standards. notify subtitle D treatment and disposal result, since the promulgation of the It is important to state that in addition facilities receiving decharacterizod to other waste codes that are currently Phase I LDR rule, the Agency has wastes. undertaken a number of activities. required to be included on notifications Generators an4 subtitle D facilities under § 268.7, generators of TC wastes may have substantial incentives to B. Roundtable Discussion that are managed in non-CWAtnon- exchange and verify compliance with In an attempt to gather information on CWA-equivalent/non-Class I SDWA treatment standards for underlying systems and in hazardous soil must the issue, the Agency sponsored a hazardous constituents independently roundtable discussion on August 3, identify the constituents subject to of regulatory requirements. Generators treatment along with the corresponding 1992. Participants at the meeting and subtitle D facilities, for example; are included persons who commented on constituent universal treatment subject toCERCLA liability for their standards.' the Phase I LDR rule, debris treatment waste management practices. Therefore. vendors, hazardous waste treaters and 3. Potential'Management of the Agency solicits comment on disposers, state officials, and officials Decharacterized Wastes at a Subtitle D whether it should consider a federally- from the Department of Energy (see Waste Management Facility mandated notification requirement. If a Docket for specific list of attendees). EPA is soliciting information on notification gap exists, one option Representatives from the environmental certain potential waste management would be to require that generators or interest groups were also invited but practices for decharacterized TC wastes treaters that decharacterize TC wastes or were unable to attend. The purpose of and soils to help determine whether hazardous soil provide any subsequent the meeting was to gather information new notification requirements are, treaters of that waste with a list of the and discuss various regulatory needed. The Agency wishes information underlying hazardous constituents approaches that would allow the on whether generators or treaters, after subject to treatment that the waste Agency to exclude immobilized removing the characteristic, send the contains, and for the final treater to hazardous debris from subtitle C decharacterized TC waste or soil off-site provide a one-time notification to EPA. control. While no specific information .was to a subtitle D (nonhazardous waste) IX. Further Solicitation of Comment gathered, there was a discussion on treatment facility for further treatment Regarding Exclusion of Hazardous the types of standards that could be to address the underlying hazardous Debris That Has Been Treated by applied such as design and operating constituents subject to treatment. Immobilization Technologies standards, leach test, structural integrity Although the initial generator of the test, permeability test for encapsulating waste would have to comply with A. Background material, so as to exclude immobilized § 268.9, there is no current requirement The final Phase I Land Disposal hazardous debris from hazardous waste that the generator notify a subtitle D Restrictions (LDR) rule promulgated: on control. Additionally, the following nonhazardous waste treater of the June 30, 1992 (57 FR 37194, August 18, points were also made by one or more constituents subject to treatment in the 1992), excludes from subtitle C control participants at the roundtable. hazardous debris that is treated using an 9 A number of the attendees I An important issue that was discussed at the extraction or destruction technology indicated that even if immobilized January 13-14,1993, LDR Evaluation Project provided the treated debris meets the hazardous debris were excluded from Roundtable meeting was the notification/ performance standards specified in hazardous waste control, recordkeeping requirements that are currently in it would place. Today's proposed rule would add certain § 268.45 Table 1. Our basis for doing continue to be managed as a hazardous requirements to the existing notification/ this is that the debris no longer contains waste due to CERCLA liability concerns. recordkeeping system. In response to the concerns the hazardous waste. On the other hand, * There was some question whether a expressed by Roundtable participants and the hazaidous debris treated by an streamlining and clarification efforti initiated in specific exclusion for immobilized section 1U.C.3, however, the Agency will examine immobilization technology is still hazardous debris was necessary or all the notification/recordkeeping requirements of subject to the hazardous waste whether the Hazardous Waste the program to see if they can be simplified. regulations because the.Agency has Identification Rule (HWIR) may be a.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48135 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

.48136 ,Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, 'September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

more appropriate mechanism for operating standards that would ensure X. Modifications to Hazardous Waste' addressing this issue. that immobilized hazardous debris was Recycling Regulations * A representative from the glass non-hazardous; the reason for this is the industry suggested that glass cullet and paucity of experience in immobilizing A. Introduction vitreous materials should have a hazardous debris. Nevertheless, the This proposal also includes changes separate treatment standard. He Agency is interested in pursuing this to the hazardous waste recycling indicated that the glass matrix would area and specifically seeks assistance regulations which amend an exclusion not leach lead at a higher rate than from the regulated community on this (and related variance) which would would an immobilized product-that is, issue. allow streamlined regulatory decisions it made little sense to grind up the glass to be made regarding the regulation of material and then to stabilize it when D. Conclusions certain types of recycling activities. the original matrix is just as sound. These procedures should allow While no consensus was reached, the While the Agency has a better sense environmentally beneficial recycling to following principles were generally of the types of standards that may be occur more easily. (This part of today's arrived at by most of the participants at appropriate for excluding immobilized proposal is, however, not directly the meeting. hazardous debris from subtitle C related to the proposed rules Microencapsulation:Participants at control, the Agency still does not have establishing prohibitions and treatment the meeting seem to believe that using the data to propose specific exclusions. standards for hazardous wastes.) a leach test may be more appropriate to In particular, for microencapsulation, if EPA wishes to note that the changes demonstrate effective a leach test is the most appropriate to the definition of solid waste being microencapsulation immobilization mechanism for determining whether proposed today are fairly narrow in over an approach of developing design such treated debris is non-hazardous, scope. The Agency has also initiated a and operating standards. It was noted the Agency believes that HWIR may be public dialogue process, administered that treatment of hazardous debris is the appropriate rulemaking to address by EPA's Definition of Solid Waste Task very waste and debris specific; if one this issue. The Agency has a series of Force, which is examining the overall could define design andoperating studies underway and is currently impacts of the RCRA program on standards that were generally evaluating comments ancLis not in a recycling, and which will ultimately applicable, they would likely be too position to determine what such levels consider broader changes to the burdensome in many cases. are at this time. With respect to definition of solid waste. Macroencapsul.ation/Sealing:The macroencapsulation/sealing, additional participants seem to indicate that the data or information will need to be B. Modification of the Existing "Closed- grinding requirement in the TCLP leach gathered before the Agency is in a Loop" Recycling Exclusion and Related test made it inappropriate for predicting Case-Specific Variance performance of macroencapsulation/ position to exclude this type of immobilized hazardous debris. 1..Existing "Closed-Loop" Recycling sealing immobilization technologies. To assist the Agency in this Exclusion and Related Variance These technologies rely on an effort, we specifically impermeable coating applied to the solicit comment on the following In the January 4, 1985 final rule, the outside of the debris. Rather, the questions: Agency promulgated an exclusion from participants suggested a structural test Microencapsulation:Is the use of a the definition of solid waste at to determine whether the given debris/ leach test for excluding immobilized § 261.2(e)(1)(iii) for secondary materials technology combination was sufficient hazardous debris more appropriate than that are recycled in a "closed-loop," to maintain the coating or a specification of design and operating (i.e., returned to the original production permeability test for the coating media. standards? Is exclusion of immobilized process in which the material was While the participants conceptually hazardous debris using design and generated (see preamble discussion at believed that such an approach was operating standards workable? 50 FR 639)). To be considered such a "closed-loop" process, three workable, no one was able to suggest a Macroencapsulation/Sealing:What conditions specific test or standard. In addition, it type of structural or other test could be must be met. First, the secondary was felt by some of the participants that used? What type of criteria should be material must be returned to the original the development of such a test could be applied in determining whether such process without undergoing significant difficult to develop. debris is non-hazardous? The Agency is alteration or reprocessing (i.e., it must The Agency specifically solicits considering allowing stabilization for be returned without first being comments on the general principles soils containing low levels of organic reclaimed). Second, the production described above. While no data or constituents, and solicits comment on process to which the unreclaimed information was provided at the whether similar stabilization material is returned must be a primary techniques production meeting, it was indicated that if such or tests to ensure the effectiveness of process (i.e., a process that information uses raw materials as the majority of its was submitted to the such stabilization would be appropriate Agency, the Agency would consider for excluding debris from subtitle C feedstock, as opposed to a secondary such information in making its decision. process that uses spent materials or control. metal as the majority of its C. EPA Investigations In addition, the Agency specifically feedstock). And third, the secondary In addition to the above roundtable solicits comment on any data or material must be returned as a feedstock discussions, EPA has also been information that is available to to the original production process and reviewing the literature and talking to demonstrate that immobilized must be recycled as part of that process vendors in an effort to obtain sufficient hazardous debris (if treated properly) (as opposed to an ancillary process such information on how to propose would not pose a substantial hazard to as degreasing). EPA believes that these standards that could allow the exclusion human health and the environment. If conditions characterize a material that is of immobilized hazardous debris. To such information is submitted to the part of an on-going production process, date, no useful insights have been Agency, the Agency will exclude such and as such, the management of the gained on how to specify design and debris from subtitle C control. material should not be characterized as

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48136 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48137 M waste management (i.e., the material is production process from which they definition of solid waste under 40 CFR not part of the waste management were generated (see 50 FR 652 for a 261.2(e)(1)(iii). The difference.between problem).' discussion of the existing variance). The the regulatory requirements applicable The Agency is today proposing to amendment would similarly expand the to the residues of primary processes and readdress the second conditio--that variance to make it available for residues of secondary processes seems the production process to which materials that are returned to secondary superfluous and is difficult to defend secondary material is returned must be processes, as well as those returned to from an environmental standpoint a primary process. The Agency imposed primary processes. because the residues of a secondary this condition due to considerations process that are recycled back into the regarding jurisdiction, as it was 2. K069 Wastes Recycled Back into the Secondary Process process are no more of a waste understood in 1985, rather than to an . management problem than the residues evaluation of the potential impacts on In the case of K069 wastes (emission of a primary process recycled in a the environment from closed-loop control dust/sludge from secondary lead similar manner. recycling involving secondary processes smelting), the Agency identified thermal Therefore, the Agency proposes to (i.e., this condition was established recovery of lead in secondary smelters modify the existing exclusion for without a consideration of whether such (the same process that generates the secondary materials that are recycled secondary materials would be part of waste) as BDAT in the Land Disposal back into the original process without the waste management problem). By Restrictions for the First Third prior reclamation to include those definition, a secondary process uses Scheduled Wastes final rule (53 FR materials that are recycled back into waste materials as its principal 31138; August 17, 1988). The treatment secondary processes. feedstock. Thus, the Agency concluded standard based on BDAT was expressed that the process residue, which is as "No Land Disposal" because the 3. Storage Prior to Recycling returned to the original process as a Agency believed the K069 waste to be The Agency also proposes to substitute "indigenous" to the smelting process condition the modification to the for feedstock that is itself "closed-loop" wgste, is no less a waste than the waste and thus was no longer a solid waste exclusion (and the related material originally introduced (see 50 within RCRA jurisdiction when 260.30(b) variance) such that secondary FR 639). (The Agency notes that in most introduced into the secondary smelter materials recycled back into secondary cases this condition has no impact on (which had been a long-standing policy processes from which they were the recycling of residues from secondary regarding the reclamation of K069 generated cohtinue to be managed in an processes because such residues that waste, as stated in the November 29, environmentally sound manner. Absent exhibit a characteristic of hazardous 1985 preamble, 50 FR at 49167.) this condition, one possible outcome waste (i.e., characteristic by-products Therefore, the slag residue from the could be that a listed waste that is and sludges) are already excluded from recovery of the K069 waste would not currently required to be managed in a the definition of solid waste if be derived from a solid waste and protective manner (i.e., without land reclaimed). would thus not be a listed waste (but disposal) would begin to be managed in While the Agency continues to would be considered hazardous waste if an unprotective manner because, as an believe that the jurisdictional logic it exhibited a hazardous characteristic.) excluded secondary material, no behind this condition is sound, the (This view is also evident in the June 1, regulatory requirements would apply. Court opinions regarding RCRA 1990 Land Disposal Restrictions for The Agency is requiring sound jurisdiction allow more weight to be Third Third Scheduled Wastes final management (i.e., management that is given to environmental considerations. rule. In the preamble discussion designed to contain the material or APIv. EPA, 906 F.2d at 740-41; AMC regarding BDAT for wastes that exhibit otherwise prevent its release to the v. EPA, 907 F2d 1179, 1186 (D.C. Cir. the characteristic of toxicity for lead, the environment) as a condition of this 1990). EPA has reevaluated this slag from secondary lead smelters is exclusion in order to keep this form of condition of the exclusion from the evaluated as a characteristic waste recycling from becoming part of the definition of solid waste due to its rather than a derived-from K069 waste waste disposal problem, and to avoid a impact on the recycling of residues from (see 55 FR 22566-568; June 1, 1990).) reduction in environmental protection secondary processes, in particular However, on June 26, 1990, the D.C. from that currently existing. In secondary lead smelters, and has Circuit Court held in American particular, the Agency wishes to ensure determined that this condition is less Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 906 F.2d 726 that no land disposal of any excluded relevant as an environmental (D.C. Cir. 1990) that EPA erred in material occurs. EPA believes the API consideration, assuming that the disavowing the statutory authority to and AMC H cases discussed above secondary material is well-managed establish treatment standards for a slag support such an approach. prior to reprocessing. Therefore, the residue of an "indigenous" waste and For example, under the current Agency is proposing to remove this that RCRA jurisdiction could, in fact, regulations, K069 waste is required to be condition from the "closed-loop" extend to the slag. As a result of the managed in an environmentally sound recycling exclusion. By doing this, mandate in that case, unless the Agency manner prior to recycling. As a listed secondary materials that are recycled in takes affirmative steps to otherwise waste, it must be managed in storage secondary production processes can be exclude it, the slag resulting from the units that meet specified criteria. And. excluded from the definition of solid reclamation of K069 waste would as a waste subject to the land disposal waste, provided that the materials are likewise bea K069 hazardous waste, see restrictions, K069 waste may not be well-managed prior to recycling. The 56 FR at 41165 (August 19, 1991). a placed on the land, for example in open discussion of K069 wastes below result the Agency never intended. waste piles, until the applicable illustrates the need for this amendment. The Agency notes that this would not treatment standard has been met. Following the same reasoning, the be the outcome if the emission control However, as a secondary material that is Agency is also proposing to amend dust was generated by a primary lead excluded from the definition of solid § 260.33(b), a related case-by-case smelter and was recycled back ino the waste because it is recycled back into variance for materials that are reclaimed original generating process. Such a the process from which it was prior to reuse in the original primary sludge would be excluded fr6m the generated, hazardous waste

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48137 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48138 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

management standards and the, land quantity estimates. In addition, wastes likely to be recycled and, therefore, disposal restrictions would not apply. managed in CWA, SDWA, CWA- alternative treatment may not be (The Agency notes that such recycling is equivalent systems are not included in required. Fewer than 100 tons of also the applicable treatment standard this rule and will be addressed in an chlorinated toluene (K149-K151) for K069 and that there is no upcoming rulemaking. nonwastewaters are currently being land conventional disposal alternative.) EPA's decisions on whether to grant disposed and will require alternative The Agency solicits comment on a national capacity variance are based treatment due to the LDRs. No K149- broadening the "closed-loop recycling" on the demand for commercial K151 wastewaters are currently being exclusion and the related 260.30(b) treatment or recovery technologies. land disposed. variance to include secondary materials Consequently, the methodology focuses . The quantities of radioactive wastes recycled into a secondary process. The on deriving estimates of the quantity of mixed with wastes included in today's Agency also solicits comment regarding wastes that will require commercial proposed rule and currently 'eing land the condition that such secondary treatment as a result of the LDRs- disposed are uncertain. materials from a secondary process be quantities of waste that will be treated EPA has very limited information excluded only provided that the on-site or by facilities owned by the which differentiates high TOC D001 materials are managed such that the game company as the generator are ignitable wastes from low TOC D001 excluded material does not become part omitted from the required commercial ignitable wastes, particularly with of the waste management problem, in capacity estimates. reference to the type of Class I injection particular, that there be no direct The major capacity information well (i.e., nonhazardous versus placement of materials on the land, and collection initiative for this proposal hazardous) the wastes are disposed into. also solicits comments regarding was an EPA survey of all land disposal However, the information the Agency whether all exclusions from the facilities that manage newly identified. does have indicates that both D001 definition of solid waste should be TC organic wastes (including TC- ignitable wastes and D012-D017 TC conditioned on sound management contaminated soil and debris) in land- pesticide wastes are deep well injected practices. based units. The survey, conducted in into Class I hazardous wells with no- the spring of 1992, is a census of XI. Implementation Issues migration petitions. EPA estimates thai, approximately 140 facilities. EPA based on management practices, little if During the LDR Roundtable on identified the universe primarily based any diluted high'TOC ignitable waste is January 14 and 15, 1993, participants on those facilities that had submitted injected into Class I nonhazardous expressed a need for more information permit modifications or received wells, and no more than 419 tons of to help implement regulations as they interim status for managing these D012-D017 pesticide wastes are deep are issued. The Agency is specifically wastes. For each facility, EPA requested well injected into class I wells without soliciting comments on possible wastestream specific data on newly no-migration petitions. implementation issues regarding the identified TC organic wastes and EPA estimates that 3 million tons of provisions being proposed today. information on on-site land disposal hazardous soil contaminated with XII. Capacity Determinations units and treatment and recovery previously regulated wastes are systems. presently land disposed without prior This section presents the data sources, EPA developed a data set of the treatment. 2 The Agency also estimates methodology, and results of EPA's information on the survey results. that 234,000 tons of hazardous soil and capacity analysis for today's rule. Specifically, the data set contains 34,000 tons of hazardous debris Section A summarizes the results of the information on the quantities of newly- contaminated with the newly identified capacity analysis for the wastes covered identified organic TC wastes that will organic TC wastes are currently being by this proposal; Section B summarizes require commercial treatment capacity managed off-site and will require the analysis of available capacity; as a result of the LDRs. The data alternative treatment. Section C presents the results of the collected from the survey to date have In addition, EPA expects a one-time capacity analysis for surface disposed been used for the required capacity generation of hazardous soil newly identified and listed wastes; estimates and are part of the docket for contaminated with F037 and F038 Section D summarizes the capacity today's proposed rule. Additional petroleum refining wastes of analysis for wastes mixed with analysis may revise the required approximately 180,000 tons in 1994. radioactive contaminants; Section E capacity estimates for the final rule. This one-time generation is due to the summarizes the results of the capacity A. CapacityAnalysis Results Summary cleanout or closure of surface analysis for high TOC ignitable and TC impoundments at petroleum refineries. pesticide wastes and newly listed For the organic TC wastes (DO18- The estimation of 180,000 tons was wastes injected into Class I deep wells; D043), EPA estimates that 252,000 tons based upon information submitted to and Section F presents the results of the of newly identified organic TC sludges EPA by petroleum refineries and an capacity analysis for hazardous soil and and solids will be managed off-site and assessment of "typical" quantities of debris contaminated with the newly require alternative treatment as a result soil excavated during impoundment listed and identified wastes covered in of today's proposed rule. closures. Absent additional information, this proposal and for hazardous soil EPA estimates that much smaller EPA expects a proportionate number of quantities of the other listed wastes contaminated with Phase I wastes. these surface impoundment closures to In general, included in today's proposed rule EPA's capacity analysis will be completed prior to the effective date methodologies focus on the amount of require alternative treatment. In waste currently land disposed that will particular approximately 4,600 tons of 2These wastes include soil contaminated with require alternative treatment as a result coke by-products (K141-K145, K147 Third Third wastes that were granted a two-year of the LDRs. Land-disposed wastes that and K148) nonwastewaters are currently capacity variance In the Third Third rule (55 FR do not require alternative treatment being land disposed. No K141-K145, 22520). This national capacity variance expired on May 8. 1992. However, the Agency granted a (e.g., those that are currently treated K147 and K148 wastewatqrs are national cae-by-case extension to hazardous soil using an appropriate treatment currently being land disposed. The contaminated with Third Third wastes which technology) are excluded from the majority of these nonwastewaters are expired May 8, 1993.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48138 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 I Tuesday, September, 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48139

of this rulemaking. Thus, EPA estimates treatment capacity exists, such capacity generated from ongoing production approximately 90,000 tons of hazardous may not be immediately available. processes or other industrial activities; soil contaminated with F037 and F038 Additional time may be required to it applies only to remediation wastes would require treatment as a result of determine what compliance entails, managed in implementing remedial this rulemaking. EPA requests redesign tracking documents, possibly actions, For example, under the final. comments on the timing of the surface adjust facility operations, and possibly CAMU provisions, remediation wastes impoundment closures and the affected segregate wastestreams. EPA believes may be excavated from several isolated quantities of wastes. these legitimate delays can be areas at a facility, treated in a central Table I lists each waste code for encompassed within a short-term location on-site, and disposed in a which EPA is proposing LDR standards capacity variance because the ability to CAMU without triggering the LDRs or today. For each code, this table get wastes to the treatment capacity in other RCRA land disposal unit indicates whether EPA is proposing to a lawful manner is an inherent part of requirements. CAMUs tan be used only grant a national capacity variance for assessing available capacity. *at' facilities regulated under subtitle C of surface-disposed wastes. EPA is not EPA's recently promulgated final rule RCRA, at CERCLA sites where proposing to grant a national capacity addressing corrective action determined to be applicable or relevant variance for newly identified organic TC management units (CAMUs) and and appropriate requirements (ARARs), wastes. However, the Agency is temporary units (Tus) (published and under some state remedial programs proposing to grant two-year national February 16, 1993 at 58 FR 8658) is (i.e., CAMUs cannot be used at facilities capacity variances for mixed radioactive likely to reduce the quantity of that are not currently remediating under wastes (i.e., radioactive wastes mixed remediation wastes and soil subject to federal or state authorities) and can be with newly identified TC organic the land disposal restrictions by used only with the permission of the constituents D018-D043), for hazardous reducing the quantity of remediation permit writer. soil and debris contaminated with waste and soil excavated and also by As a result, EPA believes that the, newly listed and identified wastes reducing the volume of material CAMU rule will reduce the volume of covered under this proposal, and managed off-site. As a result, the remediation waste requiring treatment hazardous soil contaminated with Phase CAMU/TU rule is likely to free up to LDR standards. In particular, ' . I wastes. EPA is also proposing to current hazardous waste treatment and incineration and off-site management extend the effective date for compliance disposal capacity and reduce the are likely to be used less frequently than with treatment standards for all waste demand for future capacity, they currently are, while on-site codes covered by this rulemaking by In summary, the CAMU/TU rule is management of in-situ and excavated granting a three-month national capacity designed to facilitate RCRA corrective soil will increase. Although estimates of variance. This extension would not actions and CERCLA remediations by the quantity of remediation waste and apply to wastes with a specified longer providing that remediation wastes hazardous soil that will be affected by national capacity variance. EPA is managed within CAMUs and Tus will the CAMU is unknown, EPA estimates proposing to delay the effective date not be subject to the RCRA land that about 1,500 facilities subject to the because the Agency realizes that even disposal restrictions requirements. The RCRA corrective action requirements where data indicate that sufficient CAMU rule does not apply to wastes will use CAMUs.

TABLE 1-VARIANCES FOR NEWLY LISTED AND IDENTIFIED WASTES rYes" Indicates EPA is Proposing to Grant a Variance] Disposal Unit Waste Type Landfill Land treat- Surface ir- Waste pile Deepwell ment poundment High TOC D001 Wastes ...... No No No No No D012-D017 Wastes, ...... I...... No NO No No No D018-0043 Nonwastewaters ...... No No No No N/A K141-K145 Wastes ...... No No No No No K147-K148 Wastes ...... No No No No No K149-K151 Wastes ...... No No No No No Mixed Radioactive ...... Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Soil (Prey. Regulated Wastes)b ...... No_ No No No N/A Sod (Phase I Wastes) ...... Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Soil (Phase IIWastes)c...... Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Debris (Phase IIWastes)c ...... Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A NIA means Not applicable. ,Newly identified TC wastes that were not previously hazardous by the old EP Leaching Procedure. bEPA has previously granted a two-year national capacity variance to soil contaminated with previously regulated wastes. c EPA is proposing to grant a two-year national capacity vaiance for hazardous soil and debris contaminated with Phase Ii wastes, including mixed radioactive/Phase II wastes.

B. Analysis of Available Capacity previous LDR notices and regulations, furnaces (BIFs)), other conventional and data received in voluntary data treatment facilities, and innovative The analysis of commercial 6apacity submissions. These data include technology vendors. for newly identified wastes is based estimates of available capacity at Combustioncapacity. Combustion primarily on the TSDR Survey capacity commercial combustion facilities (i.e., capacity for liquid hazardous wastes has data set. data received in response to incinerators and boilers and industrial historically been more readily available

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48139 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48140 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 I Proposed Rules than capacity for sludges and solids. delayed; not include capacity from kilns should not be considered in Commercial capacity for combustion of facilities that violate environmental available capacity estimates. sludges and solids is available at both regulations; account for the expiration EPA is also considering the capacity incinerators and industrial furnaces of capacity variances granted for effects of recent court decisions (primarily cement kilns that are combustion in the Third Third rule; and regarding the regulation of hazardous authorized to accept hazardous waste). account for actual operating time in its constituents other than those for which Because of the new regulations and assessment of a facility's available , the waste fails the TC test. EPA solicits policies regarding the burning of capacity. These factors were taken into comments on the treatment capacity hazardous wastes in boilers and account in the capacity analysis where effects of requiring facilities to treat the industrial furnaces, many commercial appropriate. underlying hazardous constituents in cement kiln facilities are currently Three commenters also reported TC organic hazardous wastes to meet changing their operational practices. ongoing data collection efforts that the proposed universal treatment The effect of these new combustion might provide additional information on standards. controls and other changes will be available capacity in the near future. EPA will analyze the results of the addressed in future revisions to capacity These efforts include surveys being combustion surveys that will be estimates for wastes regulated in this conducted by the HWTC to determine conducted by the Hazardous Waste final rule. its members' sludge and solid Treatment Council and the Cement Kiln The types of wastes cement kilns are combustion capacity and their capacity Recycling Coalition. review recent able to burn are limited by air emission to treat soil; the Cement Kiln Recycling regulatory developments concerning limits, feed system limitations, and Coalition on cement kiln dust issues combustion facilities, and determine product (i.e., cement) quality that may contain information on the how much combustion capacity will be considerations. For instance, cement waste~burning practices at cement kilns; available for wastes covered by this rule quality considerations generally require and Oak Ridge National Laboratories of when it becomes effective. that wastes burned in cement kilns have mixed radioactive waste generators to Other conventional treatment a heating value of at least 5.000 Btu/lb. assess mixed radioactive waste technologies. There are three primary In addition, combustion capacity may treatment capabilities. EPA has received conventional commercial treatment be limited by chemical characteristics, confirmation that HWTC and the CKRC technologies for the newly identified constituent levels, and physical are planning to survey their members on and listed wastes besides combustion: properties of the waste. available combustion capacity. Because Stabilization, biological treatment, and Information available to EPA of time constraints, this new chemical precipitation. EPA estimates indicates that at least 192,000 tons/year information will be summarized and that over 1 million tons of stabilization of commercial combustion capacity are included in the Docket to today's capacity, 187,000 tons of biological available for all newly identified TC proposed rule and will be considered in treatment capacity, and 813.000 tons of organic sludges and solids, including the capacity analysis for the final rule. chemical precipitation capacity are soil and debris. However, EPA recently A few of the comments received on currently available. In analyzing received data from the Hazardous Waste the ANPRM noted factors that may limit alternative treatment capacity for - Treatment Council (HWTC) stating that the applicability of commercial stabilization, biological treatment, and a survey of their members showed combustion for certain TC wastes. One chemical precipitation for newly approximately 300,000 tons of commenter emphasized that EPA must identified and listed wastes, the Agency incineration capacity is currently consider certain external factors that can built on the capacity analysis conducted available for solids. If the available limit Incineration capacity, including for the Third Third LDR rule. This capacity for cement kilns is added to waste characteristics, such as heating analysis was based on data contained in this figure and the additional capacity value and chlorine content, that might the TSDR Capacity Data Set which required after the expiration of the affect waste acceptability; limitations contains results from the National F037/38 variance is subtracted, there imposed on wastes, such as TC wastes, Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, would be approximately 334,000 tons of which are often managed as bulk solids; Storage, Disposal and Recycling Survey sludge/solids combustion capacity packaging and transportation (the TSDR Survey). available. This quantity of available limitations; limited temporary storage Innovative technologies.There are capacity takes into account capacity that space at certain facilities; and regulatory several innovative technologies for the will be required for Phase I wastes that obstacles to permitting new treatment of hazardous soil including were granted a national capacity incinerators. EPA requested information hydrolysis, vacuum extraction, variance (57 FR 37194, August 18, on these factors in the survey of photolysis, and oxidation. To the extent 1992), ignitable and corrosive wastes facilities that manage organic TC wastes, that these technologies can be used to whose treatment standards were vacated including soil and debris, in land-based treat hazardous soil on-site, the required (58 FR 29860, May 24, 1993), waste units. This information has been and capacity for combustion will decrease. characteristics that affect the ability for will be re-evaluated and taken into EPA has limited information on a particular facility(s) to treat the account in the capacity analysis for the innovative technologies with regard to wastes, and other factors that may limit final rule. both available capacity and to capacity. Other potential capacity limitations limitations of the technologies or In the comments submitted in noted in the comments were equipment constraints on the use of these response to the October 24. 1991 problems at commercial facilities that technologies. EPA solicits comments on Advanced Notice of Proposed can cause disruption in waste the use of innovative technologies for Rulemaking (ANPRM), several acceptance, and the Boiler and the treatment of hazardous soil. commenters raised issues regarding Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule which may Specifically, EPA requests information EPA's methodology for determining potentially limit combustion capacity at on constraints on the use of these available capacity. Commenters cement kilns. One commenter also technologies both on- and off-site, proposed that EPA should not consider noted that if the cement produced by a including physical or chemical planned capacity since new facilities kiln that bums listed hazardous wastes characteristics of the soils, and logistical and facility expansions are commonly is subject to LDR standards, then cement constraints such as permitting.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48140 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 176 I Tuesday, September 14, 1993 I Proposed Rules 48141 scheduling, etc. EPA also solicits data TABLE 2.-REQUIRED AND AVAILABLE to the land disposal restrictions. 3 EPA on volumes of hazardous soil currently CAPACITY FOR NEWLY IDENTIFIED has not separately quantified the being treated by these technologies, ORGANIC TC WASTES' amounts of used oil subject to the LDRs. The Agency current available capacity, and estimates (All quantities are in tons] requests comments on the of future capacity. quantities and management of the used Treatment Available ca- Required ca- oil that exhibits the toxicity C. Surface Disposed Newly Identified technology pacity pacity characteristic and that is subject to the and Listed Wastes LDRs. Chemical pre- 1. Required Capacity for Newly cipitation .... 2813,000 10,000 2. Required Capacity for Other Newly Identified TC Organics (D018-D043) Liquid com- Listed Organic Wastes bustion ...... 541,000 311,000 This section presents EPA's analysis The Agency is proposing to develop Sludgelsolid treatment standards for TC organic of required capacity for other listed combustion 334,000 253,000 organic wastes including coe by- nonwastewaters based primarily on .. Stabilization 41,127,000 41,250 product wastes and chlorinated incineration performance data. Newly toluene 1Does not Include hazardous soil and production wastes. identified organic TC wastewaters that debris, mixed radioactive wastes, or deepwell are managed in systems other than those injected wastes. a. Surface DisposedCoke By-Product 2Capacity analysis for the Third Third rule. Wastes regulated under the CWA, those 3These are liquid nonwastewaters. regulated under the SDWA that inject 4Capacity analysis for the proposed Phase I K141 Process residues from the recovery'of TC wastewaters into Class I injection Newly Listed and Newly Identified Waste rule. coal tar, including, but not limited to, tar wells, and those zero discharge facilities collecting sump residues from the that engage in CWA-equivalent Table 3.-1993 QUANTITIES OF TC production of coke from coal or the recovery of coke by-products produced treatment prior to land disposal are also NONWASTEWATERS REQUIRING OFF- from coal. This listing does not include affected by today's proposed rule. SITE TREATMENT K087 (decanter tank tar sludge from (Organic TC wastewaters managed in [Surface Disposed Wastes in Tons] coking operations). CWA, SDWA, or CWA-equivalent K142 Tar storage tank residues from the production of coke from coal or the systems will be addressed in future Code wastewatersNon- rulemakings, and EPA will make recovery of coke by-products produced variance determinations at that time.) from coal. 0018 ...... 152,990 K143 Process residues from the recovery of The Agency does not have data D019 ...... 8,510 light oil, including, but not limited to, indicating that facilities managing D020 ...... 6,319 those generated in stills, decanters, and organic TC wastewaters would be D021 ...... 8,484 wash oil units from the recovery of coke impacted. EPA solicits comments on the D022 ...... 8,343 by-products produced from coal. quantities of newly identified organic 0023 ...... 3,897 K144 Wastewater sump residues from light TC wastewaters affected by today's D024 ...... 515 oil refining, including, but not limited to, 0025 ...... 308 Intercepting or contamination sump proposed rule. 0026 ...... 1,518 sludges from the recovery of coke by- EPA developed estimates of the D027 ...... 1,142 products produced from coal. quantities of newly identified TC 0028 ...... 14,197 K145 Residues from naphthalene collection organic wastes based on current 0029 ...... 3,859 and recovery operations from the management options to comply with the 0030 ...... 511 recovery of coke by-products produced D031 ...... 203 from coal. LDR requirements. The Agency also D032 ...... 3,109 K147 Tar storage tank residues from coal tar developed estimates of available on-site 0033 ...... 450 refining. treatment and recovery capacity. Table 0034 ...... 412 K148 Residues from coal tar distillation, 2 summarizes available capacity for D035 ...... 4,216 including but not limited to still each alternative treatment or recovery D036 ...... 262 bottoms. technology required for the newly D037 ...... 612 For coke by-product nonwastewaters, D038 ...... 2,297 identified Toxicity Characteristic 0039 ...... 69 0 EPA is proposing to establish nonwastewaters. The table also D040 ...... 6,583 concentration standards based on summarizes the required capacity for D041 ...... 108 Incineration. Under the authority of each technology. A comparison of D042 ...... 120 section 3007 of RCRA, EPA collected required and available treatment D043 ...... 16,482 generation and management information concerning coke by-product wastes; this capacity indicates that adequate Total ...... 252,347 treatment capacity exists for new TC information was collected in 1985 and nonwastewaters. Therefore, EPA is not The quantities presented in Table 2 1987. The Agency identified the proposing to grant a national capacity do not include used oil because in the following annualized quantities of variance for D018 through D043 May 1,final listing determination the wastes: 49 tons of K141 Agency determined that the TC nonwastewaters, 2,750 tons of K142 nonwastewaters. EPA is requesting nonwastewaters, 10 tons of K143 comments and any additional data on characteristic adequately defines those used oils which should be regulated as nonwastewaters, 304 tons of K144 its assessment that there is adequate nonwastewaters, 1,408 tons of K147 treatment capacity for these wastes. hazardous waste. Because of the TC regulation and other environmental nonwastewaters, and less than 100 tons Table 3 presents the 1993 quantities regulation, the Agency determined that of K148 nonwastewaters. EPA identified of TC nonwastewaters requiring off-site it is unnecessary to list used oil being no K145 nonwastewaters that were treatment by waste code. disposed as hazardous. Thus, used oil being land disposed. The majority of that is not recycled and that exhibits the "Used oil that isrecycled isnot subject to the toxicity characteristic would be subject land disposal restrictions. (40 CFR 261.6 (a)and (b))

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48141 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48142 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

K141 to K145 nonwastewaters generated request and engineering site visits. EPA hazardous waste regulations, including during that timeframe were recycled or 'identified four facilities that produce the land disposal restrictions, regardless used or energy recovery. Tar storage chlorinated toluene wastes. of the type of radioactive constituents tank and tar distillation bottoms may be The Agency has identified no K149 that these wastes contain. removed periodically. The Agency is nonwastewaters, no K1 50 Radioactive wastes that are mixed soliciting comments for the above nonwastewaters, and les* than 100 tons with spent solvents, dioxins, California estimated quantities which may require of K151 nonwastewaters that were being list wastes, or First Third, Second Third, alternative treatment as a result of the land disposed. For the capacity analysis, or Third Third wastes are subject to the LDRs. EPA assumes that these quantities are land disposal restrictions already Current management practices currently being land disposed and will promulgated for these hazardous wastes. indicate that the majority of the newly require further treatment as a result of EPA granted national capacity variances listed coke by-product wastes are today's proposed rule. for all of these mixed wastes because of amenable to recycling, and therefore. EPA does not have any information a lack of national treatment capacity. alternative treatment may not be that chlorinated toluene wastewaters are Today's rule addresses the radioactive required as a result of today's proposed currently generated. The quantity of wastes that contain newly listed rule. Thus, EPA believes that adequate these wastewaters is assumed to be zero. hazardous wastes being restricted in capacity exists to treat the small amount EPA is soliciting comments on changes today's proposed rulemaking. of wastes, if any, that require alternative of management practices or generation Based on comments received by EPA treatment. data on these wastes. EPA does not have any information in response to the ANPRM (56 FR Because adequate capacity exists to 55160) and previous rulemakings, the that coke by-product wastewaters are treat these wastes, EPA is not proposing currently generated. The quantity of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is the to grant a national capacity variance for primary generator of these wastewaters is assumed K149, mixed RCRA/ to be zero. K150, and K151 nonwastewaters radioactive wastes. A variety of non- EPA is soliciting comments on changes and wastewaters. of management practices or generation DOE facilities also generate mixed data on these wastes. 3. Newly Identified TC Wastes That wastes, including nuclear power plants, As a result of this analysis. EPA is Were Not Previously Hazardous by the academic and medical institutions, and proposing not to grant a national Old EP Leaching Procedure industrial facilities. capacity variance to K141, K142, K143, In the Third LDR rule (55 FR 22520. In response to the ANPRM, DOE K144. K145, K147. and K148 June 1, 1990), EPA promulgated developed and submitted data on its nonwastewaters and wastewaters. treatment standards for D012 through generation of mixed RCRA/radioactive D017 wastes, but only for those wastes wastes and its capacity available to treat b. Surface Disposed Chlorinated such wastes. To update and refine its Toluene Wastes that were previously hazardous by the old EP leaching procedure and remain data, DOE requested 37 DOE Field K149 Distillation bottoms from the hazardous under the new TCLP. D012 Organizations to identify and production of alpha (methyl) chlorinated through D017 wastes that were not characterize their mixed waste streams, toluene, ring-chlorinated toluene. hazardous by the old EP leaching including developing profiles of the benzoyl chlorides, and compound with newly regulated TC organic waste mixtures of these functional groups. procedure but are now hazardous using the new TCLP are considered newly- streams. Twenty DOE Field (This waste does not include still Organizations responded to the data bottoms from the distillation of benzyl identified D012 through D017 wastes. chloride.) In response to the ANPRM (56 FR request and provided waste stream- K150 Organic residuals, excluding spent 55160, October 24, 1991), EPA did not specific data, including annual carbon adsorbent, from the spent receive any estimates for additional generation rates and the inventory of chlorine gas and hydrochloric acid waste quantities (or newly-identified such wastes expected by May 1993. In recovery processes associated with the wastes) due to the use of TCLP rather April, 1993, this Interim Mixed Waste production of alpha (methyl) chlorinated than the EP leaching procedure. EPA Inventory Report was prepared and toluene, ring-chlorinated toluene, believes that the quantities of the newly- included a national inventory of all benzoyl chlorides and compounds with identified D012 through D017 wastes mixed wastes that are currently stored mixtures of these functional goups. or will be generated K151 Wastewater treatment sludges. due to the use of the TCLP rather than over the next five excluding neutralization and biological the EP leaching procedure are small, if years, and a national inventory of mixed sludges, generated during the treatment any, and, hence, expects little or no waste treatment capacities and of wastewaters from the production of additional demand for commercial technologies. The report provides waste alpha (methyl) chlorinated toluene, ring, treatment capacity as a result of the stream-specific and treatment facility- chlorinated toluene, benzoyl chlorides LDRs. Because sufficient capacity exists specific information for each DOE site and compounds with mixtures of these to treat these wastes, EPA is proposing in each state. EPA has not completed its functional groups. not to grant the newly-identified D012 review of the data contained in this For wastes generated during the through D017 wastes a national capacity report, and consequently, the data were production of chlorinated toluene, EPA variance. not available for use in this proposed is proposing to establish concentration- rule. Additionally, the six-month public based treatment standards based on D. Required and Available Capacity for comment period for the Interim Report incineration for nonwastewaters. EPA Newly Identified Wastes Mixed with has not yet expired. EPA will update the collected generation and management Radioactive Components results of the capacity analysis for the information on wastes generated from EPA has defined a mixed RCRA/ final rule with the results from the Final the production of chlorinated toluene. radioactive waste as any matrix Mixed Waste Inventory Report. EPA collected this information under containing a RCRA hazardous waste and Data on some of the other DOE the authority of section 3007 of RCRA a radioactive waste subject to the facilities were derived from other data during engineering site visits in 1988. Atomic Energy Act (53 FR 37045, 37046, sources. DOE also submitted data This capacity analysis incorporates data September 23, 1988). These mixed gathered from its Field Organizations on from the section 3007 information wastes are subject to the RCRA the availability of its existing and

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48142 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48143 planned capacity to treat mixed RCRA/ 22520, June 1, 1990), EPA is allocating capacity variance in the Third Third radioactive wastes, including TC wastes. available capacity first to those wastes rule (55 FR 22520) which expired in While DOE has provided its best disposed in surface units, second to May 1992. However, EPA granted a one- available data on mixed waste wastes resulting from CERCLA and year national case-by-case extension for generation, uncertainty remains about RCRA clean ups, and finally to hazardous soil contaminated with mixed waste generation at DOE (and underground injected wastes. Based on previously regulated wastes requiring non-DOE) facilities. For example, not all this hierarchical approach, the Agency treatment by incineration, retorting, or DOE Field Organizations responded to is proposing the following effective vitrification. This variance expiredin DOE's request for information. In dates for injected wastes. May 1993. Consequently, these wastes addition, DOE recently completed an EPA has very limited information may undergo treatment prior to land Interim Mixed Waste Inventory Report which differentiates high TOC DO01 disposal. In order to determine the (April 1993). This information will be ignitable wastes from low TOC D001 capacity available to treat newly listed incorporated into the final capacity ignitable wastes, particularly with and identified hazardous soil, EPA must analysis. In addition, the data submitted reference to the type of Class ! injection consider the impact that the treatment to EPA generally did not include DOE well (i.e. nonhazardous versus of hazardous soil contaminated with environmental restoration wastes hazardous) the wastes are disposed into. wastes regulated in previous LDR which, when generated, will increase However, the information the Agency rulemakings will have on available the quantity of newly identified mixed does have indicates that both Doo commercial capacity EPA used several wastes that require treatment. ignitable wastes and D012-D017 TC data sources to estimate the total Although DOE is in the process of pesticide wastes are deep well injected quantity of land-disposed hazardous increasing its capacity to manage mixed into Class I hazardous wells with no- soil and debris. These sources include: RCRAlradioactive wastes, information migration petitions. EPA estimates that, responses to the Advance Notice to the supplied by DOE indicates that a based on management practices, little if Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for the significant capacity shortfall currently any diluted high TOC ignitable waste is newly identified wastes (56 FR 55160); exists for the treatment of mixed RCRA/ injected into Class I nonhazardous the newly developed TC data set radioactive wastes, much of which is in wells, and no more than 419 tons of discussed earlier, information provided storage facilities awaiting treatment. D012-D017 pesticide wastes are deep during a series of roundtable meetings DOE has indicated that it will generally well injected into Class I wells without held by the Agency in May and June of give treatment priority to mixed wastes no-migration petitions. 1991 with representatives of companies that are already restricted under The following wastes are the newly involved in the management and previous LDR rules (e.g., radioactive listed wastes for which numerical disposal of hazardous debris and soil; wastes mixed with solvents, dioxins, standards are being proposed, and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS); California list wastes, or First Third, which current data indicate are not Records of Decision (RODs) of Second Third, or Third Third wastes.) being underground injected: Superfund sites; the National Survey of DOE is also concerned about the Treatment, Storage, Disposal and availability of treatment capacity for Coke Production Wastes: K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, K148 Recycling Facilities (TSDR Survey); and mixed wastes that will be generated as the National Survey of Hazardous Waste a result Chlorotoluene Production Wastes: K149, of site remediation activities. K150. K151 Generators.4 EPA's review of non-DOE data sources In general, EPA found severe also showed a significant lack of Therefore, EPA is proposing that these limitations in estimating the total commercial treatment capacity. wastes be prohibited from underground quantity of hazardous soil because the Despite the uncertainty about injection upon the date of final available data are incomplete and quantities of mixed radioactive wastes promulgation of this rule. EPA is not poorly defined. The reason for this lack containing newly listed and identified proposing to grant a national capacity of comprehensive data is several-fold: wastes that will require treatment as a variance for any of these waste types. First, the regulated community reported result of today's proposed rule, any new The Agency requests further comment that their data generally are not commercial capacity that becomes on whether any of these wastes are classified by soil but rather by waste available will be needed for mixed being injected. Comment is also code and waste description; second, the radioactive wastes that were regulated requested on what quantities of wastes data from the TSDR and Generator in previous LDR rulemakings and whose are being injected, and on the Surveys were not collected and variances have already expired. Thus, characteristics of these wastes. categorized specifically for soil, and soil EPA has determined that sufficient F. Required and Available Capacityfor was often mixed with debris 5 and was alternative treatment capacity is not Hazardous Soil and Debris frequently contaminated with more than available, and is proposing to grant a one waste, thereby making the two-year national capacity variance for Contaminated With Newly Listed and Identified Wastes hazardous soil quantity determinations mixed RCRAIradioactive wastewaters difficult; third, TSDR and Generator and nonwastewaters contaminated with This capacity analysis focuses on Surveys do not include data on newly listed and identified wastes hazardous soil and debris contaminated hazardous soil contaminated with whose standards are being proposed with wastes whose treatment standards today. are proposed in this rule as well as 4EPA conducted the surveys during 1987 and hazardous soils contaminated with 1988 to obtain comprehensive data on the nation's E. Required and Available Capacityfor Phase I wastes. capacity for managing hazardous waste and the High TOC Ignitable, TC Pesticide,and Based on data currently available, volumes of hazardous waste being land disposed as Newly Listed Wastes Injected into Class well as data on waste generation, waste EPA estimates that 3 million tons of characterization, and hazardous waste treatment I Deep Wells hazardous soil contaminated with capacity in units exempt from RCRA permitting. As explained in previous rules previously regulated wastes are 5Data submitted by TSDFs in roundtable concerning land disposal restrictions presently disposed in hazardous waste meetings sometimes combine contaminated debris with soil. Furthermore. TSDFs have stated that (see e.g., 52 FR 32450, August 27, 1987; without prior treatment. These historical waste data are generally not kept by soil 53 FR 30912, August 16, 1988; 55 FR wastes were granted a two-year national classifications.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48143 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48144 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September i4, 1993 / Proposed Rules , newly identified wastes because they TABLE 4.-1993 QUANTITIES OF TC- these closures will occur during 1994. were not considered hazardous wastes CONTAMINATED SOIL AND DEBRIS Closures with waste removal may in 1986; and fourth, the BRS only covers REQUIRING OFF-SITE TREATMENT- involve the generation of hazardous soil. active generators of hazardous waste Continued Based on assessments of the "typical" and therefore may not capture soil quantities of soil excavated during volumes generated at inactive sites. [Surface Disposed Wastes in Tons] surface impoundment closures, EPA estimates that as much as 90,000 tons of 1.Waste Generation Code Soil Debris F037- and F038-hazardous soil may be a. Hazardoussoil. The hazardous soil D021 ...... 29,760 212 impacted by this rule. EPA stresses that covered by this proposal includes soil D022 ...... 139 71 these quantities represent a one-time contaminated with D018-D043 organic D023 ...... 31 57 generation of soil and are not expected TC wastes, soils contaminated with D024 ...... 30 50 to recur after 1994. EPA requests coke-by product wastes and chlorinated 0025 ...... 30 60 comments on this estimate and the toluene wastes, mixed radioactive soils D026 ...... 111 1,270 timing. contaminated with Phase II wastes, and D027 ...... 1,795 244 EPA estimates that approximately 3 soils contaminated with Phase I wastes. D028 ...... 976 314 D029 ...... 1,831 324 million tons of hazardous soil The largest quantity of hazardous soil in contaminated with previously regulated this proposal is from hazardous soil D030 ...... 28,938 90 D031 ...... 17 13 wastes are land disposed per year. EPA contaminated with D018-D043 organic D032 ...... 59 68 believes these quantities will initially TC wastes. Based on the results of the D033 ...... 60 103 have a significant impact on the TC survey, EPA's current estimate for 0034 ...... 60 29 capacity available to treat newly listed this quantity that will require off-site D035 ...... 461 293 and identified hazardous soil. EPA treatment is 234,000 tons per year. Table D036 ...... 113 65 solicits comment on this quantity 4 presents the estimated 1993 quantities D037 ...... 336 227 D038 567 538 estimate. Comments from the *ofsoil and debris contaminated with ...... roundtable meetings indicate that newly identified TC wastes requiring D039 ...... 2,789 961 off-site treatment, by waste code and D040 ...... 3,967 878 decommissioning of large chemical type. The results of the newly D041 ...... 17 22 plants and increasing remediation 0042 ...... 17 22 activities can significantly increase the developed TC data set discussed in the D043 ...... 66 85 introductory section of this chapter have estimated quantity of hazardous soil. been used for these demand estimates Total ...... 233,845 33,781 Several commenters to the ANPRM and are part of the docket for today's indicated that EPA may have rule. Additional analysis of the survey EPA believes mixed radioactive soils underestimated the annual quantities of data will be incorporated in the capacity contaminated with Phase II wastes are hazardous soil generated. Some analysis for the final rule.6 currently generated. For example, DOE commenters provided site specific data One commenter to the ANPRM informed EPA that mixed radioactive on the quantities of soil generated indicated that as many as 3,000 soil contaminated with newly identified during remedial actions. The Agency is TC organic wastes are generated at a rate incorporating these data in its analysis manufactured gas plants (MGP) may be 3 generating TC-contaminated soil and of 1.5 m 3 per year. Additionally, 23.7 m of the required capacity for hazardous debris. Most of the soil and debris of TC organic mixed radioactive soils soil. Other commenters indicated that generated at these plants is expected to are being stored awaiting treatment. very large quantities of hazardous soil be contaminated with benzene. While Therefore EPA does not believe there is contaminated with wood preserving EPA acknowledges that the quantities of sufficient treatment capacity for the TC wastes and with former Bevill wastes TC-contaminated soil from MGP are organic mixed radioactive soils will be generated in the near future. The potentially large, the Agency expects generated annually. Agency acknowledges these comments. that most of this quantity will be Soils for Phase I wastes are being However, hazardous soil contaminated managed on-site and will not require regulated under this rulemaking. The with wood preserving wastes and with off-site or commercial treatment largest source of hazardous soil former Bevill wastes will be addressed capacity. EPA requests updated contaminated with Phase I wastes are in a future rulemaking. information on the generation and F037 and F038 wastes generated at EPA notes that the promulgation of management of these wastes and on petroleum refining facilities. EPA new soil standards may encourage the whether there will be sufficient believes that the quantities of hazardous development of on-site treatment commercial treatment services to treat soil contaminated with other Phase I technologies or the increased use of these wastes on-site. wastes are relatively small. EPA has innovative technologies. EPA requests received information from petroleum comments on the use of innovative TABLE 4.-1993 QUANTITIES OF TC- refineries indicating that most facilities technologies for hazardous soil. CONTAMINATED SOIL AND DEBRIS that were managing F037 and F038 Specifically, EPA requests information REQUIRING OFF-SITE TREATMENT wastes in surface impoundments are on constraints to the use of these technologies both on- and off-site, [Surface Disposed Wastes in Tons) modifying their operations in some way. To the extent that a proportion of including physical or chemical Code Soil Debris surface impoundments will be closed characteristics of the wastes, and with waste removal, hazardous soil will logistical constraints such as permitting, 0018 ...... 161,1661 27,574 be generated. scheduling, etc. 13019 ...... ,195 Information submitted to EPA by 32 b. Hazardous debris. This rule covers D020 ... 16 some petroleum refining facilities debris contaminated with the newly indicates that many surface listed and identified wastes covered in 6The total quantity of all TC hazardous soils impoundments managing F037 and impacted by LDR regulations may increase as this proposal. An examination of the further regulations are developed for TC wastes F038 wastes will be closed with waste data from the TC survey indicates that which are deferred to future rulemakings. removal and that a significant number of approximately 34,000 tons of debris

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48144 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline. Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48145 contaminated with D018-D043 wastes inadequate, although adequate on estimates of available treatment may be currently land disposed. immobilization (e.g.. stabilization) capacity. SA believes mixed radioactive debris capacity exists. Inadequate capacity also b. Hazardousdebris. EPA. estimates contaminated with Phase II wastes are exists for many of the proposed ; that approximately 34,000 tons of debris currently generated. For example, DOE technologies in the extraction family contaminated with newly identified informed EPA that mixed radioactive (e.g., soil washing, chemical extraction). organic TC wastes are currently land debris contaminated with newly Much of the capacity of extraction disposed and require off-site identified TC organic wastes are technologies currently used to commercial treatment capacity. The generated at a rate of 46.36 m3 per year. decontaminate soils, such-as soil 3 capacity analysis conducted for debris Additionally, 957.42 m of TC organic washing, may not be permitted prior to contaminated with Phase I wastes mixed radioactive debris is being stored the effective date of this rule, although indicates that insufficient capacity awaiting treatment. Therefore EPA does EPA is exploring options to expedite the exists to treat debris contaminated with not believe there is sufficient treatment permitting of these technologies. In organics. capacity for the TC organic mixed conclusion, EPA anticipates that the off- radioactive debris generated annually. site commercial capacity available to EPA is proposing to grant a two-year capacity variance for debris 2. Current Management Practices treat hazardous soils at the time this rule becomes effective will be limited to contaminated with newly listed and Waste generators and TSDFs report incineration and stabilization. EPA identified wastes covered under this that most of the soils contaminated with recognizes that innovative technologies proposal (i.e., newly identified organic D018-DO43 newly identified organic TC are also available to treat hazardous soil. TC wastes (D018-D043), K141-K145, wastes are currently landfilled without EPA requests comments on the and K147-K151 wastes.) The Agency is prior treatment. Incineration is the practicality and current availability of concerned that there will be insufficient commercial off-site treatment these technologies. time for facilities generating these debris technology reportedly available for EPA is proposing to grant a two-year and for potential treaters to plan for the these wastes. national capacity variance for soils management of such debris after the Other than incineration for treating contaminated with newly identified TC expiration of the one-year renewal, of the organic TC-contaminated soil, EPA has organic wastes (D018-D043) and K141- hazardous debris case-by-case capacity no information on the commercial off- K145, K147, K148,K149, K150,and variance in May 1994. EPA also realizes site availability of other treatment K151 wastes. The variance is necessary that there may be logistical problems technologies (e.g., low temperature because of the general lack of capacity associated with the management of thermal desorption, bioremediation, to treat soil contaminated with organics, hazardous debris cogenerated with solvent extraction.) Although several and the large quantity of soil hazardous soils contaminated with commenters to the ANPRM mentioned contaminated with previously regulated wastes covered in this proposal. In bioremediation as an alternative to organic wastes, for which the variances examining the generation of hazardous incineration for the treatment of TC- have expired. EPA is also proposing to debris, EPA has learned that debris and contaminated soils, no commenter grant a two-year national capacity soil are usually cogenerated; therefore, provided facility specific information on variance to soils contaminated with EPA is proposing to grant a two-year commercially available off-site newly listed wastes covered in the national capacity variance to debris treatment capacity for bioremediation. Phase I rule (i.e.. F037 and F038 contaminated with wastes covered by The lack of off-site commercial capacity petroleum refining wastes; U328, U352, this proposal. EPA requests comments for technologies other than incineration and U359; K107-K110; Kill and K112; on this approach. was confirmed by responses to EPA's K117, K118, and K136; and K123- EPA notes that if soil and debris are request for voluntary information from K136.) The quantities of soil contaminated with newly identified vendors of innovative technologies contaminated with F037 and F038 organic wastes covered in this rule and provided in the Vendor Information generated as a result of surface also with newly identified inorganic System for Innovative Treatment impoundment closures are estimated to wastes whose treatment standard is Technologies (VISITT). Although EPA be approximately 90,004 tons. EPA based on an available technology, the has received no information that expects the quantities of soil soil and debris would remain eligible special-handling problems may limit the contaminated with other Phase I wastes for the national capacity variance. This quantity of hazardous soil that currently to be relatively small. is because the hazardous soil and debris can be treated by incineration, EPA is As discussed above, EPA estimates would still have to be treated by some requesting information on special- that as much as 3 million tons of technologies that EPA has evaluated as handling concerns with managing these hazardous soil contaminated with being unavailable at present. wastes. previously regulated wastes are land disposed per year. Any newly proposed XmI. State Authority 3. Available Capacity and Capacity commercial capacity will be needed for Implications A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized soil that is contaminated with wastes States a. Hazardous soil. EPA is proposing regulated in previous LDR rulemakings. that hazardous soil be treated prior to The proposed variance may allow Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA land disposal using one or more of the sufficient time for the installation and may authorize qualified States to following general methods of soil permitting of the treatment systems administer and enforce the RCRA treatment: Biological treatment, necessary to handle the quantities of program within the State. Following chemical extraction, soil washing. soils contaminated with newly listed authorization, EPA retains enforcement dechlorination, low-temperature wastes covered in the Phase I rule. authority under sections 3008, 3013, thermal desorption, high-temperature . The Agency's qualitative argument is and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized distillation, thermal destruction, based on this need and the lack of solid States have primary enforcement stabilization, and vitrification. EPA has incineration as well as other capacity for responsibility. The standards and determined that available'destruction managing hazardous soils. The Agency requirements for authorization are (e.g., incineration) capacity is solicits comments on this approach and found in 40 CFR part 271.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48145 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48146 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

Prior to the Hazardous and Solid or final authorization are described in have to demonstrate that it-had the Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a 40 CFR 271.21. It should be noted that requisite authority to administer State with final authorization HSWA interim authorization expired on sections 3004(f) and (g) of RCRA. The administered its hazardous waste January 1, 1993 (see 40 CFR 271.24(c)), conditions under which such an. program in lieu of EPA administering although EPA is currently developing a. authorization may take place are the Federal program in that State. The rule which would extend this date. summarized below and are discussed in Federal requirements no longer applied Section 271.21(e)(2) requires that a July 15, 1985 final rule (50 FR 28728). in the authorized State, and EPA could States that have final authorization must not issue permits for any facilities that modify their programs to reflect Federal XIV. Regulatory Requirements the State was authorized to permit. program changes and must subsequently A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant When new, more stringent Federal submit the modification to EPA for to Executive Order 12291 requirements were promulgated or approval. The deadline by which the Executive Order No. 12291 requires enacted, the State was obliged to enact State would have to modify its program to adopt these regulations is specified in that a regulatory agency consider for equivalent authority within specified each regulation the potential benefits as time frames. New Federal requirements section 271.21(e). Once EPA approves did not take effect in an authorized State the modification, the State requirements compared to the potential costs to until the State adopted the requirements become Subtitle C RCRA requirements. society. To this end, for all major rules, as State law. States with authorized RCRA a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) In contrast, under RCRA section programs may already have must be conducted. An RIA consists in' 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new requirements similar to those in today's a quantification of the potential benefits, requirements and prohibitions imposed proposed rule. These State regulations costs and economic impacts of a rule. A by HSWA take effect in authorized have not been assessed against the major rule is defined as a regulation States at the same time that they take Federal regulations being proposed estimated to result in: (1) An annual effect in nonauthorized States. EPA is today to determine whether they meet effect on the economy of $100 million directed to carry out these requirements the tests for authorization. Thus, a State or more; (2) A major increase in costs or and prohibitions in authorized States, is not authorized to implement these prices for consumers, individuals, including the issuance of permits, until requirements in lieu of EPA until the. industries, Federal, State, and local the State is granted authorization to do State program modifications are government agencies, or geographic so. While States must still adopt HSWA- approved. Of course, states with existing regions; or (3) Significant adverse effects related provisions as State law to retain standards could continue to administer on competition, employment, final authorization, HSWA is and enforce their standards as a matter investment, productivity, innovation, or implemented Federally in authorized of State law. In implementing the on the ability of United States-based States in the interim. Federal program, EPA will work with enterprises to compete with foreign- Certain portions of today's rule are States under agreements to minimize based enterprises in domestic or export being proposed pursuant to sections duplication of efforts. In many cases, markets. 3004(d) through (k), and (in), of RCRA EPA will be able to defer to the States The Agency estimated the costs of (42 U.S.C. 6924(d) through (k), and (in)). in their efforts to implement their today's proposed rule to determine if it It is proposed that these be added to programs rather than take separate is a "major" regulation as defined by the Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which actions under Federal authority. Executive Order. Today's rule is identifies the Federal program States that submit official applications estimated to have total annual requirements that are promulgated for final authorization less than 12 incremental costs of $330 million; pursuant to HSWA and that take effect months after the effective date of these therefore, today's proposed rule is in all States, regardless of their regulations are not required to include considered a major rule. Because today's authorization status. States may apply standards equivalent to these proposed rule is a major rule, the for either interim or final authorization regulations in their application. Agency has performed an Regulatory for the HSWA provisions in Table 1, as However, the State must modify its Impact Analysis, analyzing the benefits,. discussed in the following section of program by the deadline set forth in costs, and economic impacts of today's this preamble. Table 2 in 40 CFR § 271.21(e). States that submit official proposed rule. 271.1(j) is also proposed to be modified applications for final authorization 12 More detailed discussions of the to indicate that this rule is a self- months after the effective date of these methodology and results sections may implementing provision of HSWA. regulations must include standards be found in the background document, equivalent to these regulations in their "Regulatory Impact Analysis of the B. Effect on State Authorization application. The requirements a state Land Disposal Restrictions for the Phase As noted above, EPA is today must meet when submitting its inal 2 Newly Listed and Identified Wastes proposing a rule that in part, when final, authorization application are set forth in and Contaminated Soils," which has will be implemented in authorized 40 CFR 271.3. been placed in the docket for today's States until their programs are modified The regulations being proposed today proposed rule. to adopt these rules and the need not affect the State's Underground modification is approved by EPA. Injection Control (UIC) primacy status. 1. Methodology Section Because the rule is proposed pursuant A State currently authorized to a. Cost methodology. In today's to HSWA, a State submitting a program administer the UIC program under the notice, the Agency-is proposing modification may apply to receive either Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) could treatment standards for newly identified interim or final authorization under continue to do so without seeking wastes, consolidating waste stream LDR RCRA section 3006(g)(2)or 3006(b), authority to administer the amendmerpts requirements into a "universal" set of respectively, on the basis of' that will be promulgated at a future LDR standards, as well as establishing requirements that are substantially date. However, a State which wished to standards for treatment of hazardous equivalent or equivalent to EPA's. The implement part 148 and receive soil. The newly identified wastes procedures and schedule for State authorization to grant exemptions from covered under today's rule include program modifications for either interim the land disposal restrictions would wastes displaying the organic toxicity

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48146 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules / 48147 characteristic (TC), and pesticide wastes of the waste minimization activities off-site incineration, to $213 per ton for that were not previously hazardous by would then be a part of the compliance on-site thermal desorption. the EP leaching procedure (see section costs of this rule. Organic Toxicity Characteristic IV of today's preamble for TC organic The second question is how much of Nonwastewaters (DO18-D043) the waste minimization indicated in the and pesticide wastes), as well as Coke TC Census Chlorotoluenes 1992 TC Census is attributable to the TC EPA employed the 1992 Production wastes and the TC (see section V of today's preamble.) Rule and how much is attributable to Database for the analysis of The Agency has not estimated the the Phase II proposed rule. The volumes nonwastewater volumes under potential changes in compliance costs assigned to waste minimization in the regulation in today's proposed rule. As for the proposal to adopt the universal 1992 TC Census database have been there is no proposed variance for these LDR requirements. In general, the removed from those volumes for which wastes, the Agency determined costs on Agency believes that many standards compliance costs were estimated in the an annual basis from the proposal date would not change significantly, and Phase i RIA. If these waste of the rule. minimization plans were in anticipation In establishing a baseline for the TC .thus not significantly alter current Agency assumed compliance costs. However, the Agency of the TC and the Phase II rule, then at nonwastewaters, the least a portion of the costs for these subtitle C landfilling on-site, for requests comment on the economic (company captive) impacts of the universal treatment waste minimization activities should be noncommercial included in the costs for the rule. If facilities, and off-site, for commercial standards proposal. Of the newly case, regulated hazardous soil in today's rule, these plans were due to the TC rule, facilities. For the post-regulatory then the costs of the TC rule may have EPA developed technology assignments the only newly identified wastes facility soil are TC wastes. There been overestimated, and there would be for the wastestreams at each contaminating on the standards being are some volumes of F037 and F038 not waste minimization costs incurred based listed waste which has been found to to the Phase II rule. established in today's rule. contaminate soils, however these These waste minimization timing and Organic Toxicity Characteristic volumes are only generated on a non- accounting issues are difficult to HazardousSoil given the data and routine basis, and are believed to be evaluate TC Census understanding of facilities compliance EPA employed the 1992 negligible. The volumes of soils which Database, for the cost analysis of the TC are under existing LDR regulations will practices which currently exist. The uncertainty noted, the EPA requests hazardous soil volumes under receive a potential relief from regulation regulation in today's proposed rule. The as the Agency is reducing the treatment comment on ways to account for these costs in this rule and in future Agency applied an adjustment factor standards to which these soils must from the "Regulatory Impact Analysis comply. Finally, the Agency is rulemakins. i. Organic toxicity characteristic for the Final Rulemaking on Corrective proposing some new testing and Action Management Units and recordkeeping requirements, as well as wastes (DO18-DO43).The treatment standards for the organic TC wastes Temporary Units" (January 11, 1993, reducing other recordkeeping CAMU RIA) to soil volumes from requirements. require the regulation of all underlying the hazardous constituents. The TC wastes remediation to account for the effects of The cost analysis seeks to estimate volumes. In incremental costs which will be covered in this analysis can be divided the CAMU rule on these the proposed Into three groups: TC nonwastewaters, addition, the Agency is proposing a two incurred as a result of for these requirements. The incremental costs are TC soils and TC debris; while TC year national capacity variance estimated as the costs incurred for wastewaters are being regulated in soils, therefore, costs incurred from under the post-regulatory today's rule, EPA believes any affected these requirements do not begin until management the proposal date of the requirements minus the costs currently volumes to be negligible. EPA relied on two years after incurred under the baseline practices of existing unit costs which have been rule. used in past regulatory analyses to In establishing a baseline for the TC management. All dollar estimates are in hazardous soils the Agency assumed 1992 dollars (unless otherwise noted.) perform the cost analysis of today's rule. The potential cost savings estimated for EPA describes below the method of subtitle C landfilling on-site, for previously regulated hazardous soils has estimating the costs incurred in noncommercial (company captive) not been subtracted out of.the incurred complying with the TC standards facilities, and off-site, for commercial costs to obtain a total, but are presented proposed in today's notice. facilities. The Agency presents three as a separate cost savings estimate. The volumes employed for the TC options for the post-regulatory case in The effects of waste minimization wastes, taken from the 1992 TC Census today's rule: (a) Universal Standards 10, have not been thoroughly accounted for Database, differ from those in the (b) Universal Standards 10, with 90% in the Phase II RIA. There are two areas capacity section. For the purposes of Removal, and (c) 90% Removal (taking of concern. developing *thecost estimates for today's comment on a possible cap for option The first issue is how to account for rule, EPA used a different accounting of (c).) EPA modeled the costs for the soil waste minimization in the future, due to the reduction in volume due to waste standards under two approaches: the Phase II rule. To comply with LDR minimization plans, which plans were Options (a) and (b) as roughly requirements, generators will choose the Indicated in the TC Census. This equivalent options, and (c) separately. least costly means to comply: Either pay accounting approach used for the cost For each approach, the Agency for treatment and subtitle C disposal estimation allowed more waste developed technology assignments for costs, or reduce their waste volumes. minimization plans to be includedin the soils at each facility based on the EPA has not considered waste the long term volumes requiring standards being established in t6day's minimization as a low cost compliance treatment under today's rule. rule. In all three options, EPA assumed approach in the RIA. To the degree that Approximately 90% of the TC that thermal desorption and soil vapor waste minimization will be employed to nonwastewaters are estimated to require extraction (SVE) would be used comply with the Phase H rule, the costs thermal treatment, either incineration or approximately 90% at a cost between of the-rule would be lower than are thermal des6rption. The unit cost. $515 to $213 per ton. The assignments estimatedin the RIA. However, the costs estimates range from $1850 per ton for include a treatment technology

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48147 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48148 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules residuals management, subsequent having existing standards established Restrictions for the Phase 2 Newly disposal, and transportation as needed. for their treatment, are being placed Listed and Identified Wastes and The Agency requests comment on the under new proposed standards, which Contaminated Soils," which has been methodology and unit cost estimate. are specifically developed for soil placed in the docket for today's rule, Organic Toxicity Characteristic treatment. To the degree that these presents these approaches in full. HazardousDebris standards are less stringent, there will The Information Collection Request be an incremental cost savings (ICR) for today's rule, being prepared by EPA employed the 1992 TC Census calculated for the impact from today's EPA, estimates that the recordkeeping Database, for the cost analysis of the TC rule. cost is $41 per wastestream. For the hazardous debris volumes under The Agency estimated a volume of requirements in today's rule, it is regulation in today's proposed rule. As previously regulated soil of 2.1 million estimated to take one hour to develop for the TC soil, the Agency applied an tons per year which would incur costs and submit the required notification and adjustment factor from the CAMU RIA under today's rule. This estimate is one quarter of an hour to retain copies to debris volumes from remediation, as derived from the capacity analysis work of the documentation and notification. was done for the soils volumes, to performed for today's rule, applying an The Agency requests comment on this account for the effects of the CAMU rule adjustment factor to account for a estimate. on these volumes. The CAMU rule is reduction in the volumes being treated b. Economic impact methodology. The expected to reduce volumes by due to the recently promulgated CAMU economic effects of today's proposed approximately 54%. In addition, the rule. As the Agency is unable to grant rule are defined as the difference Agency is proposing a two year national a national capacity variance for between the projections of the likely capacity variance for TC debris, previously regulated soils, the costs economic impacts on facilities that therefore, costs incurred from these savings is assumed incurred from the result from regulatory compliance and requirements do not begin until two date of proposal of today's rule. the industrial activity likely in the years after the proposal date of the rule. The standards being established in absence of regulation (i.e., baseline In establishing a baseline for the TC today's rule for previously regulated soil conditions). hazardous debris the Agency assumed are the same three as those being The Agency has evaluated the subtitle C landfilling on-site, for established for newly regulated soil (i.e.: economic impacts for facilities noncommercial (company captive) TC soil): (a) Universal Standards x 10, managing organic TC wastes on a facilities, and off-site, for commercial (b) Universal Standards x 10, with 90% facility-specific basis, limited only by facilities. For the post-regulatory case, Removal, and (c) 90% Removal the extent that data were available. EPA EPA developed technology assignments (comment is taken on a possible cap for estimated the economic effects by for the wastestreams at each facility this option). The Agency did not have comparing incremental annual based on the standards being facility specific data to develop a post- compliance costs to a number of established in today's rule. The regulatory scenario for these volumes. company financial measures, such as assignments include a treatment Therefore, for the baseline and post- revenues, cost of operations, operating technology (treatment train where regulatory alternatives, EPA used income, and net income. Financial data required), subsequent disposal, and professional judgment in interpreting were obtained from Standard & Poor's transportation as needed. the available data to estimate Corporation Descriptions for the last ii. Remaining wastes. In addition to percentages of treatment for the post- fiscal year reported. organic TC wastes, the wastes affected regulatory scenario. To determine these Since EPAbelieves that no costs will by today's proposed rule include coke percentages of treatment, the Agency be associated with the treatment by-product wastes and chlorotoluenes. compared existing soil concentration standards for coke by-products in the Based on an economic analysis of coke data (1991) from the CERCLA Record of proposed rule, no economic impacts by-product waste management, EPA Decision (ROD) database with the will be associated with regulation of assumes that generators of these wastes universal treatment standards. From these wastes. Economic impacts of will, for the most part, be recycling compliance for facilities currently land these data, the Agency was able to were these wastes rather than disposing of determine baseline and post-regulatory disposing chlorotoluenes them in subtitle C landfills. Therefore, technology percentages for the soil evaluated on a facility-specific basis. EPA estimates that negligible coke by- volumes. c. Benefits methodology. The Agency product wastes will be affected by this iv. Testing and recordkeepingcosts. In evaluated three types of benefits for rule. For the chlorotoluene waste addition to the costs for treatment of today's standards for newly identified volumes, EPA conducted a detailed cost wastes, EPA estimated the incremental TC wastes: reduction in human health analysis using site specific data. costs for the now testing and risks via the ground-water pathway, iii. Previously regulatedhazardous recordkeeping requirements in today's reduction in human health risks via the soil. The hazardous soil regulated under rule. Testing and recordkeeping costs air pathway, and positive effects on the today's rule can be broken into two were developed for organic TC wastes value of properties adjacent to waste groups: Hazardous soil which is under only, using the facility specific data management facilities. EPA's analysis of existing regulations, and newly available for these wastes in the 1992 the benefits of today's rule covers TC regulated hazardous soil. The newly TC Survey. wastes only. These wastes dominate the regulated hazardous soil is The Agency employed baseline and other wastestreams covered by today's contaminated with TC wastes, and were post-regulatory scenarios appropriate to rule in terms of volume and costs. 'described above. The previously the testing requirements for each waste Moreover, the Agency had better data regulated hazardous soil represents soil to develop cost estimates for the testing available for the TC wastes, in terms of contaminated with listed or Extraction requirements in the rule. The Agency attributes such as constituent Potential Leaching Procedure (EP) made several assumptions as to how concentrations and volumes which are toxicity wastes. Treatment standards frequent a generator would need to test required in an analysis of benefits. The were placed on these soils during the their wastes, and for how many Agency did not conduct a quantitative scheduled waste rules (First Third LDR, constituents to test. The "Regulatory benefits estimate of the universal LDR Second Third LDR, etc.) These soils, Impact Analysis of the Land Disposal proposal or the previously regulated soil

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48148 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

FederA! Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48149 standards. EPA believes that these posed by the consumption of leachate volume of all TC wastes managed at that proposals could potentially greatly- by the DAF (expressed as a probability facility. reduce compliance costs, with distribution) to yield predicted (4) EPA calculated the unit area negligible change in protection of concentration at an exposure well. managing TC wastes. human health and the environment. (6) EPA then summed the 1800 (5) EPA estimated annual average However, the Agency requests comment predicted risks across all facilities (i.e., emissions due to volatilization and dust on this finding. If commenters believe 36 facility leachate risks times 50 DAFs) entrainment for each constituent at each the Agency should perform a quantified to develop an estimate of the facility. estimate of the change in benefits of this distribution of risk at facilities managing (6) Using the same meteorologic proposal, commenters should suggest untreated TC wastes. The Agency conditions assumed for the Corrective appropriate methods and approaches. summed the risks across the distribution Action RIA (CARIA),7 atmospheric i. Human health risk reduction- to obtain a total population risk transport for each constituent was ground water pathway. The estimate. The Agency employed evaluated. EPA then calculate fundamental concept underlying EPA's standard assumptions of a 70 kg person concentrations at several downwind approach for assessing ground-water drinking 2 liters of water per day over points corresponding to potential risk reduction is that subtitle C 70 years. exposure locations. containment is completely effective in (7) To simulate the regulatory options, (7) The Agency calculated individual the short-term, i.e., over a period of the Agency reset the leachate cancer risk and non-cancer risk, using about 30 years. However, the Agency concentrations in Steps 2 through 4 exposure assumptions from the CARlA. assumes that over the longer term, with the universal standard (8) EPA calculated population risk for containment systems and monitoring concentrations. EPA then replaced the exposed populations. will fail. The benefits analysis DAF distribution for subtitle C facilities (9) The Agency simulated the performed for today's rule captures this (from Step 5) with a DAF distribution regulatory options. long-term risk which could be avoided for subtitle D facilities, because the under today's rule. EPA analyzed the treated TC residues will not need to be 2. Results Section baseline risks, i.e., risks posed by TC managed as hazardous wastes. risk reduction-Air a. Cost results. In total, today's wastes in the absence of today's rule, as ii. Human health proposed rule would have an well as post-regulatory risks under two pathway. Constituents contained in TC incremental annual cost of $330 million. options. In the baseline, TC wastes are waste, soil, and debris may be emitted through volatilization and dust Seventy percent of this cost would be untreated, shipped off-site, and placed to air for the treatment of organic TC entrainment. Reducing the in subtitle C landfills. In the post- nonwastewaters, and 18 percent and 12 regulatory scenario, TC wastes are concentrations of TC constituents percent would be for the treatment of treated and placed in subtitle D through the treatment standards set in organic TC contaminated soil and landfills. The difference in risks from today's rule significantly reduces the potential for air emissions, and the risks debris, respectively. In a separate the baseline to the post-regulatory analysis, EPA estimates that the condition is a measure of the benefit of posed by those air emissions. The goal regulatory options proposed for all an option. of the air pathway risk analysis was to previously regulated contaminated soil The basic approach involves the characterize baseline (pre-LDR) risk and could represent a potential annual following steps (which are elaborated on the reduction in baseline risk resulting from regulatory options. savings of approximately $250 million in the RIA background document, to $560 million. which has been placed in the docket for In the baseline, untreated TC wastes are placed in subtitle C landfills. In the i. Organic TC wastes and other newly today's rule): described above, (1) The Agency employed waste post-regulatory scenario, treated wastes regulatedwastes. As are placed in subtitle C or D landfills. EPA conducted a facility-specific cost concentration data from the 1992 TC analysis for those facilities managing survey to represent waste In this analysis, EPA assumed that any concentrations. air emissions due to additional organic TC waste. (2) Where surveys reported total waste transportation, storage or treatment in Since EPA believes no coke by- concentrations, rather than TCLP the post-regulatory scenario are product wastes will be landfilled as a concentrations, the Agency used the negligible. result of the coke by-product listing rule Organic Leaching Model (OLM) to The Agency's basic approach involves (August 18,1992, at 57 FR 37284), EPA estimate leachate concentrations. the following steps (which are estimates that no cost impact will be (3) EPA calculated the mean elaborated on in the RIA background associated with the treatment standards concentration of each constituent at document, which has been placed in the for coke production wastes. The each facility, weighted across the docket for today's rule): incremental cost for chlorinated volume of all TC wastes managed at that (1) EPA used bulk waste toluenes is estimated to be less than facility. concentration data from the TC survey $0.1 million annually. (4) EPA calculated the risk that would to represent waste concentrations. ii. Previouslyregulated hazardous be posed by consumption of leachate, (2) In cases where respondents soil. As described above, EPA relied on for both cancer and non-cancer effects, reported TCLP concentrations, rather available soil concentration data and at each facility. than bulk concentrations, the Organic professional judgment to determine the (5) EPA developed a set of dilution/ Leaching Model (OLM was used to effect of the proposed rule on previously attenuation factors (DAF) to represent "back-calculate" bulk concentrations. regulated hazardous soil. Exhibit XIV-1 the effect of fate and transport processes (3) The Agency calculated the mean presents the percentages estimated by in a ground-water system. For each concentration of each constituent at EPA for the post-regulatory scenario for facility, the Agency divided the risk each facility, weighted across the the previously regulated soil.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48149 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48150 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 /'Proposed Rules

EXHIBIT XIV-1 .- BREAKDOWN OF PERCENTAGES OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE PREVIOUSLY REGULATED SOILS POST-REGULATORY SCENARIO 90 percent UTS only UTS+90 only percent Incineration ...... 0%-10% 5%-15% 5%-15% Stabilization ...... 10% 10% 10% Soil Washing ...... 80% 55% 70% Thermal Desorption ...... 100/-20% 15%-25% 15 %-25% Total ...... 110% 95% 110% -For the UTS Only option, the total sums to 95% because 15% of the soil requires no treatment at all under this option. -Techno"y assignments assume a small amount of treatment trains are required. -Soil washing is assigned as a low cost technology where minimum treatment is required.

Both the data and the methodologies presents results for the baseline risks annual values by assuming an average used for the cost analysis have and two regulatory approaches. For each life span of 70 years. Based on these limitations. The main limitations are case, results for individual cancer and assumptions, EPA estimates the baseline addressed in the background RIA non-cancer risk are presented for both population cancer risk to be 0.33 cases document which has been placed in the high end and central tendency per year for the central tendency docket for today's rule. The Agency has approaches. The section concludes with baseline. The post-regulatory population limited unit cost data for these population risk estimates for cancer cancer risk is about 0.031 cases per year treatment technologies. The Agency risks. in the central tendency. In other words, requests additional data and comment The results, presented in full in the the regulatory option reduces 0.30 cases on the assumptions in this analysis. RIA background document which is per year in the central tendency. b. Economic Impact Results. For non- included in the docket for today's rule, An approach which would render the commercial companies (company show about eight percent of the same result would be to compute the captives) in the TC capacity database, population having an individual mean individual risk across the only one company would have a ratio of lifetime excess cancer risk above 10-6 distribution and multiply it by the total incremental compliance cost to cost of in the high end baseline, and four number of people potentially exposed 10-6 and 10- 4 , and operations greater than one-half percent. percent between 4 across all facilities (i.e., 6,870 people Looking at the ratio of net income (i.e.. approximately four percent above 10- per facility times 48 facilities times 23 after tax) to the incremental compliance in the high end baseline. For the central percent with down gradient wells cost, five companies would have a ratio tendency baseline, the individual excess equals 75,800 people). less than 20; four of these five lifetime cancer risk is approximately six The analysis shows that the 99th companies, however, reported a net loss percent above 10-6, five percent percentile baseline exposure level is less in the last fiscal year. Of these five between 10-6 and 10-4, and two than the reference dose. Because the companies, only one would have a ratio percent above 10 -4. For both regulatory riskiest facility has an expected value of operating income to the incremental options, EPA assumed that all for non-cancer exposure that is below compliance cost less than 20. constituents would be directly (option the reference dose, the Agency is For the commercial companies in the 1) or indirectly (option 2) treated to assuming no significant non-cancer risk TC capacity database, only one has a universal standards. For the post- in the baseline. Post-regulatory non- ratio of incremental annual cost to cost regulatory cases, about five percent of cancer risk is also insignificant for both of operations greater than five percent. the population has an individual regulatory options. Since no costs are associated with the lifetime excess cancer risk level above Assumptions for the second treatment standards for coke by- 10-6. regulatory option produced cancer risks products, no economic impacts are Using the distribution of individual identical to those of the first option. For expected. Economic impacts for risks, the Agency calculated baseline non-cancer risks, however, the two facilities that generatd chlorinated cancer population risk. EPA used data options produced somewhat different toluene wastes are calculated based on from the Corrective Action RIA on the results. the before-tax annualized incremental proportion of subtitle C facilities with ii. Results-Air Pathway. This section costs. The results of the analysis, potentially exposed populations provides results for the air pathway, for however, are aggregated since the data through ground water (23 percent), and the baseline and post-regulatory used in the analysis are propriety. Based the mean size of the potentially exposed options. The Agency used two methods on a ratio analysis of incremental cost population (6,870 people per facility). to calculate potential emissions. Method to total sales, none of the facilities that Using the facility/risk distribution of 1 for limiting mass flux from generate these wastes is expected to 1800 points (i.e., 36 facilities times 50 volatilization was never triggered; experience significant impacts as a DAFs) the Agency multiplied the Method 2 limited emissions for 30 of the result of the proposed rule. individual risk for a certain percentile of 141 constituent/facility combinations Both the data used for the economic the distribution by the number of people modeled for the baseline, which impact analysis and the methodologies represented by each percentile (i.e., accounts for the difference between the developed have limitations. The main 6,870 people per facility divided by the baseline risks in the two approaches. limitations are addressed in the percentile represented by a single For both post-regulatory options, the background RIA document which has facility. A single facility represents 100 two methods produced virtually been placed in the docket for today's percent divided by 48 facilities, or 2.08 identical results. rule. percent per facility. Therefore, there are Using Method 1. approximately 27 (75 c. Benefit Estimate-i. Results- about 3,300 people per percentile.) The percent) of the 36 facilities modeled Groundwater Pathway. This section population risks were then converted to have individual cancer risk exceeding

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48150 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48151

10-6 at the 140 m distance in the does not believe that many Class V facilities employing alternative baseline, 16 facilities (45 percentl are injection well owners and operators will treatment is estimated to range from between 10-6 and 10-4, and 11 be affected by the proposed Phase II $3.9 million to $58 million annually. facilities (30 percent) have individual requirements. The Agency believes that The range of costs for alternative cancer risk exceeding 10-4 at the 140 m, .the new proposed Phase II LDRs for treatment is ihe result of applying a with the peak value at 2 times 10--. In injected wastes cover either listed sensitivity analysis. Only the the post-regulatory scenario, the wastes or distinctly industrial wastes incremental treatment costs for the new individual cancer risk is reduced so that that would be injected by owners and waste listings are calculated in this RIA. approximately 5 facilities (15 percent) operators of only Class I injection wells. The total cost to industry of petitions have individual cancer risk over 10-6. EPA has no data which definitively and alternative treatment arising from At the 600 m distance, using Method indicates that any volumes of Phase II the proposed Phase II revisions for deep 1, approximately 18 facilities (50 wastes are being injected in Class V well injection is estimated to range from percent) of the 36 facilities have wells, but reiterates that we are $4.8 million. to $58.9 million annually. individual cancer risk exceeding 10-6 soliciting any and all comments and All of these costs will be incurred by in the baseline. 16 facilities (45 percent) information which will affect the Class I injection well owners and are between 10-6 and 10-4, and about regulatory impact analysis. operators. 2 facilities (5 percent) have individual According to the available data, the The Agency did not perform a cancer risk exceeding 10- 4.In the post- RIA indicates that up to 43 Class I quantified risk assessment for this regulatory scenario, the individual injection facilities will be potentially proposal. However, the benefits to carrcer risk is reduced so that no affected by the new Phase II Land Ban human health and the environment in facilities have an individual cancer risk requirements. These Class I injection the RIA are generally defined as reduced over 10-6. facilities will now be required to either human health risk resulting from fewer . Using Method 2, approximately 27 treat wastes, or file "no migration" instances of ground water facilities (75 percent) of the 36 facilities petitions as outlined in 40 part CFR 148 contamination. In general, potential modeled have individual cancer risks (See 53 FR 28118 preamble for a more health risks from Class I injection wells exceeding 10-6 at the 140 m distance in thorough discussion of the no migration are extremely low. However, injection is the baseline. 22 facilities (60 percent are petition review process). Up to 21 not without risks. In isolated cases, between 10-6 and 10-4. and 5 facilities formerly non-hazardous Class I facilities potential risks to human health and the (15 percent) have individual cancer risk may become newly hazardous due to environment may be greater due to exceeding 10-4 at the 140 m, with the the additional restrictions, whereas 22 abandoned, unplugged wells near the peak value at 2 times 10- 4. In the post- facilities already have no migration injection well site. Other cases involve regulatory scenario, the individual exemptions approved by EPA, but may possible grout seal failure around the cancer risk is reduced so that face additional requirements requiring protective casing of an injection well. approximately 5 facilities (15 percent) some modification of their petitions due but cancer risks from such a failure are have individual cancer risk over 10-6. to the proposed Phase II rule. insignificant. Of studies conducted to At the 600 m distance, using Method The additional facilities affected by describe Class I well problems, only six 2, approximately 14 facilities (40 Phase II rulemaking contributes to wells, or less than two percent of all percent) have individual cancer risks overall compliance costs already Class I wells, were reported to have exceeding 10-6, and no facilities have incurred by Class I injection well experienced malfunctions that individual cancer risk exceeding 10-4 owners and operators managing contributed to any contamination of the with the peak value at 2 times 10-s. In hazardous wastes regulated by previous surface or of an underground source of the post-regulatory scenario, the rulemaking. The Agency analyzed costs drinking water. No health-related individual cancer risk is reduced so that and benefits for today's rule by using problems attributed to Class I injection approximately no facilities have the same approach and methodology were reported in the same study. individual cancer risk over 10-6. developed in the Regulatory Impact The economic analysis estimates that Using both sets of emission rates, non- Analysis of the Underground Injection none of the twenty-six publicly traded cancer dose exceeds the reference dose Control Program: Proposed Hazardous companies affected by the rule will be at only one facility; this occurs at both Waste Disposal Injection Restrictions significantly economically impacted. distances with Method 1, and only at used for the July 26, 1988, final rule (53 The limited data available for the 17 140 m using Method 2. For the post- FR 28118) and subsequent rulemaking. privately held companies suggests. regulatory scenario, for both options, the An analysis was performed to assess the however, that they may face significant highest individual risk is six times economic effect of associated impacts. Overall, the RIA assumes that 10-6. Doses of all non-carcinogens are compliance costs for the additional none of the companies affected will well below reference doses under both volumes of injected wastes attributable close as a result of the proposed Phase options. to this proposed rule. II rule. In general, Class I Injection facilities For the population risk estimates, the B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Agency determined that the central affected by the Phase 11 rule will have tendency incremental benefits are 0.033 several options. Some facilities will Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility (Method 1) and 0.0065 (Method 2). modify existing no migration petitions Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.. when already approved by the Agency, other an agency publishes a notice of 3. Regulatory Impact Analysis- facilities may submit entirely new rulemaking, for a rule that will have a Underground Injected Wastes petitions, and still others may accept the significant effect on a substantial The Agency has completed a separate prohibitions and either continue to number of small entities, the agency regulatory impact analysis for inject wastes after treatment or cease must prepare and make available for underground injected wastes affected by injection operations all together. public comment a regulatory flexibility the Phase 11proposed rule. The total annual no migration petition analysis that considers the effect of the This analysis describes and evaluates costs for facilities affected by the new rule on small entities (i.e.: Small the regulatory impacts only to the Class Phase I prohibitions is estimated to be businesses, small organizations, and I injection well universe. The Agency $858,000. The annual cost for affected small governmental jurisdictions).

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48151 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48152 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

Under the Agency's Revised Guidelines estimated to be 15 minutes per biodegrade organic contaminants into for Implementing the Regulatory respondent. methane, carbon dioxide, and cell Flexibility Act, dated May 4,1992, the Send comments regarding the burden protein. Agency committed to considering estimate or any other aspect of this Aerobic bioslurry treatment involves regulatory alternatives in rulemakings collection of information, including mixing contaminated material with when there were any economic impacts suggestions for reducing this burden to water to form a slurry in an enclosed estimated on any small entities. Chief, Information Policy Branch (PM- container. Nutrients and oxygen are Previous guidance required regulatory 223Y); U.S. Environmental Protection added to the water to provide alternatives to be examined only when Agency; 401 M St., SW.; Washington, microorganisms with the proper significant economic effects were DC 20406; and to the Office of environment to facilitate estimated on a substantiAl number of Information and Regulatory Affairs, biodegradation, and the slurry is mixed small entities. Office of Management and Budget, to keep the solids in suspension. In assessing the regulatory approach Washington DC 20503, marked Bioslurry treatment has the advantage of for dealing with small entities in today's "Attention: Desk Officer for EPA." The providing for careful process control, rule, for both surface disposal of wastes final rule will respond to any OMB or and increased contact between and underground injection control, the public comments on the information microorganisms and contaminants in Agency considered two factors. First, collection requirements contained in the slurry. data on potentially affected small this proposal. Aerobic biological treatment may also entities are unavailable. And second, be conducted in the solid-phase. Solid- due to the statutory requirements of the List of Subjects phase treatment activities include RCRA LDR program, no legal avenues 40 CFR Part 148 composting and prepared bed treatment. exist for the Agency to provide relief Optimized conditions for solid-phase from the LDR's for small entities. The Administrative practice and treatment are maintained by tilling the procedure, H ous waste, Reporting soil regularly for aeration and only relief available for small entities is and recordkeeping requirements, Water the existing small quantity generators contaminant mixing, addition of and conditionally exempt small supply. required nutrients for microbial quantity generator exemptions found in 40 CFR Part260 metabolism, and supplemental 40 CFR 262.11-12, and 261.5,. Administrative practice and irrigation for moisture control. Anaerobic biological treatment may respectively. These exemptions procedure, Hazardous waste. basically prescribe 100 kilograms (kg) be conducted in either a solid- or a per calendar month generation of 40 CFR Part261 slurry-phase, using equipment similar to hazardous waste as the limit below Hazardous waste, Recycling, that used for aerobic treatment. which one is exempted from complying Reporting and recordkeeping Anaerobic treatment typically requires with the RCRA standards. requirements. more time than aerobic treatment, due Given these two factors, the Agency to the slow growth rate of the was unable to frame a series of small 40 CFR Port 268 methanogenic (methane producing) entity options from which to select the Hazardous waste, Reporting and bacteria. Anaerobic treatment is most lowest cost approach; rather, the Agency recordkeeping requirements. effective on soils with a moderate to was legally bound to regulate the land high Ph, containing contaminants that disposal of the hazardous wastes 40 CFR Part 271 are nonhalogenated hydrocarbons, and covered in today's rule without regard Administrative practice and soils with low biochemical oxygen to the size of the entity being regulated. procedure, Hazardous materials demand. transportation, Hazardous waste, C. Paperwork Reduction Act Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 2. Chemical Extraction The information collection requirements. Extraction technologies are used to requirements in today's proposed rule treat wastes containing a variety of have been submitted for approval to the Dated: August 31, 1993. organic constituents and a broad range Office of Management and Budget Carol M. Browner, of total organic content. This method of (OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Administrator. treatment is accomplished using an Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Appendix A to the Preamble: organic solvent in the liquid phase to Information Collection Request (ICR) Description of Hazardous Soil solubilize contaminants for removal and document has been prepared by EPA Treatment Technologies and can be used on many solvent-soluble (ICR No. 1442.06) and a copy may be Performance Standards contaminants. The effectiveness of this obtained from SandyFarmer, technology depends on the solvent- Information Policy Branch (PM-223Y); 1. Biological Treatment contaminant match. Two general U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Biological treatment is a destruction extraction technologies are leaching and 401 M St., SW.; Washington, DC 20406 technology that uses microorganisms to immersion extraction. or by calling (202) 260-2740. degrade and transform hazardous In its most typical form, leaching is a The annual public reporting burden organic compounds into compounds of batch extraction operation in which an for this collection of information is reduced toxicity. Bacteria, fungi, and organic solvent is sprayed onto soil in estimated to average 2 hours per yeasts are the microorganisms most a tank, causing the contaminant to leach treatment facility and I to 52 hours per frequently employed for biodegradation from the soil. The solvent, containing generator, including time for reviewing of hazardous compounds. Under aerobic the contaminant(s), is collected at the instructions, searching existing data conditions (in the presence of oxygen), bottom of the tank after percolating sources, gathering and maintaining the microorganisms biodegrade organic through the soil. In the absence of required data, and completing and contaminants to carbon dioxide, water, agitation, the liquid-solid extraction is a reviewing the collection of information. nitrate, sulfate, and cell protein. Under slow and inefficient process. The annual recordkeeping burden for anaerobic conditions (in the absence of Channeling of the liquid solvent generators and treatment facilities is oxygen), microorganisms can through the soil can result in untreated

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48152 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 1 Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48153 portions of soil in the tank, further presence of UV radiation. The with treatment standards expressed as a lowering thaefficiency. Further, the photoreduction mechanism involves the concentration of constituents in an presence of fines can stop the substitution of hydrogen for chlorine, extract of the waste. (Stabilization of percolation process while the presence leading to the formation of detoxified wastes (or hazardous soil) that have of coarse. agglomerates with well- substances. treatment standards expressed solely as imbedded specific concentrations contaminants often can only 4. High-TemperatureMetals Recovery of constituents be treated at the surface. in the entire waste stream is not In immersion extraction, soil is High temperature metals recovery appropriate.)Three types of solidification/ suspended and thoroughly mixed in (HTMR) is a technology applicable to solvent baths operated at elevated or materials containing substantive stabilization processes are used for ambient temperatures to optimize amounts of metal oxides and metal salts treatment of soil. The first involves treatment. Secondary treatment (e.g., (including cadmium, chromium, lead, mixing the soil with cement, lime, fly distillation) is performed to separate the nickel, and zinc compounds) at ash, kiln dust, silicates, or other solvent from the contaminant. After concentrations ranging up to 70 percent pozzolanic-type materials, and water;, treatment, it is sometimes possible to with low levels (i.e., below 5 percent) of the mixture then goes through a curing reuse the solvent in the treatment organics and water in the wastes. There process. The second process involves system. are a number of different types of HTMR mixing the soil with asphalt and/or A wide variety of organic solvents are systems, which generally differ from plastic. In this process, the mixture is commonly used, depending on the soil one another in source of energy used heated to slightly above the melting contaminant being treated. The choice and the method of recovery. These point of the plastic or asphalt, which of suitable solvent depends primarily on HTMR systems include the rotary kiln causes the soil to be covered with a chemical structures of the contaminant, process, the plasma arc reactor, the polymeric or asphalt coating. The solubility of contaminants in the rotary hearth electric furnace system, mixture is then cooled and allowed to solvent, soil type, and equilibrium the molten slag reactor, and the flame cure prior to disposal. The third type of characteristics. Chemical extraction reactor. solidification/stabilization technologies treatment systems rely on differences The basic principle of operation for use proprietary additives. These between the boiling points of the HTMR is that metal oxides and salts are processes are fixtion technologies that contaminant and the solvent to facilitate separated from a waste through a high involve the addition of chemicals post-treatment separation (distillation). temperature thermal reduction process (reagents) to the contaminated matrix A primary advantage of chemical that uses carbon, limestone, and silica changing the form of the contaminant so extraction is the wide range of as raw materials. The carbon acts as a that it is no longer soluble in water. applicability for treating hazardous soil. reducing agent and reacts with metal Solidification/stabilization processes If the proper solvent is selected, oxides to generate carbon dioxide and increase the volume of treated material, treatment of many soil contaminants is free metal. The silica and limestone but leave no additional residuals. possible. Typical treatment times can serve as fluxing agents. This process To obtain a uniform stabilized range from several hours to several'days. yields a metal product for reuse and material, the particle size of the soil 3. Dechlorination reduces the concentration of metals in being stabilized should be kept fairly the residuals. The HTMR process small. Vendors of various solidification/ Dechlorination is a soil treatment consists of a mixing unit, a high stabilization processes have different process whereby contaminants in the temperature processing unit (kiln, size requirements, but the particular soil are chemically reacted to form less furnace, etc.), a product collection sizes generally range in diameter from toxic compounds. The soil is mixed system, and a residual treatment system. 6.35 to 1,00 mm. Sizing equipment, such with a chemical reagent and agitated to as ball mills or hammer mills, is increase the contact of reagent with the 5. Soil Washing commercially available to size most soil soil contaminant. The reaction that Soil washing is used to describe a particles to meet the requirements for takes place in the soil is a substitution number of techniques where microencapsulation processes. reaction, in which chlorine is removed1 contaminants are either separated or Currently, shredding equipment may he from the contaminant and substituted removed from soil with an aqueous used to process debris-like materials with a less toxic element (usually process. Soil washing has the potential such as large stones or rocks that may hydrogen). The contaminant and to be applicable to many different types be found in the soil. residual reagents that remain in the soil of contamination, including both 7. Thermal Desorption following the substitution reaction can organic and metallic contaminants. be removed in a subsequent step using In soil washing, soil is mixed with Thermal desorption systems employ an extraction process. water and the resulting solution is either a direct or an indirectly-fired Another type of dechlorination augmented with a basic or surfactant oven or heating chamber to volatilize treatment technology that is available agent that increases the solubility of the organic contaminants. Usually soil is (although not commonly used) to contaminant(s) in water. This is usually placed into the system and heated by dechlorinate chlorinated organic done to remove organics. Soil washing convection using heating fuel or an compounds in soil is photochemical may be done with an acidic solution or electric heating element, or heated by degradation. This type of treatment a chelating agent that chemically reacts radiation using infrared radiation or technology uses photochemical energy with metal ions and promotes their microwaves. For continuous operations, in the form of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, solubility. screw augers or rotary kilns are used to usually artificial, to degrade mix the soil while moving the halogenated contaminants such as 6. SolidificationlStabitization hazardous soil through the system. To polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and Solidification/stabilization is used to transfer heat to the soil in an auger polychlorinated dibenzodioxins convert soil into a matrix that prevents system, a heating fluid is passed (PCDDs), and polychlorinated contaminants from leaching. through the center of the auger. Heat dibenzofurans (PCDFs). These Stabilization techniques are most transferred to the soil volatilizes the compounds are quite reactive in the commonly used for hazardous wastes contaminants from the soil. Treatment

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48153 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48154 - Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules systems have an oxygen deficient components and oxides, which then do halogenated pesticide wastes, and the atmosphere in order to prevent not reform upon cooling. At the high wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as contaminants and soil from combusting temperatures associated with EPA Hazardous waste numbers K141, or exploding. Volatilized contaminants vitrification, most inorganic K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, K148, can be separated from the gaseous constituents fuse and become K149, K150, and K151, are prohibited effluent by scrubbing or absorption, or chemically incorporated into the molten from underground injection. it may be incinerated. Thermal mass or simply become immobilized in desorption systems can be designed to the mass without chemically changing be run in either a batch or continuous form. The exceptions include the more PART 260--HAZARDOUS WASTE mode. volatile heavy metals (e.g., Hg) wvhich MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL 8. Thermal Destruction may not enter the molten liquid, but may be removed with the other off- 3. The authority citation for part 260 Thermal destruction includes gases. The organics are generally continues to read as follows: treatment in an incinerator operated in pyrolyzed or oxidized and come out of Authority: 42 U.SC. 6905,6912(a), 6921- accordance with the technical operating the process in the off-gases. Vitrification 6927, 6930,6934, 6935,6937, 6939,and requirements of 40 CFR part 264 subpart can be performed in a treatment reactor 6974. O and 40 CFR part 265 subpart 0,in at temperatures of up to 2000°C. This 4. In § 260.30, the introductory text boilers or industrial furnaces operating treatment is effective for soil containing under either interim status or a RCRA and paragraph (b) are revised to read as most RCRA hazardous constituents. follows: permit in accordance with the The temperatures required for requirements of 40 CFR part 266, vitrification (up to 2000°C) can be § 260.30 Variances from classification as a subpart H, or in other RCRA permitted generated a number of ways. These solid waste. thermal treatment devices, such as include: Joule heating by passing an In accordance with the standards and pyrolysis units operating under interim electric current through the waste; criteria in § 260.31 and the procedures status in accordance With the heating in an electric furnace; heating in § 260.33, the Administrator may .requirements of 40 CFR part 265, by introduction of a plasma torch to the determine on a case-by-case basis that subpart P. waste reactor; and heating in an the following recycled materials are not Thermal destruction uses heat to incinerator operating in a slagging solid wastes: cause contaminants to chemically react mode. With each of these methods, the to form nonhazardous chemicals. waste stream (and additives, if Thermal destruction units may use (b) Materials that are reclaimed and necessary) is heated until a molten then reused within the original either an oxidizing or a nonoxidizing liquid is formed. Additional wastes may atmosphere. Units in which an production process in which they were be introduced to the molten mass and generated; and oxidizing atmosphere is employed cause treated with the heat transferred from combustible contaminants'to oxidize to the liquid. The molten glass can be carbon dioxide and water. Units that 5. In § 260.31, paragraph (a) either quenched or allowed to cool more introductory text, and paragraph (b) is employ a non-oxidizing atmosphere slowly. In either case, an obsidian-like frequently employ a nitrogen glass is generated which can be in the revised to read as follows: atmosphere in the combustion chamber. form of a large monolith or any number § 260.31 Standards and criteria for In these units, contaminants are reacted of smaller sizes down to small granules. variances from classification as a solid to form carbon monoxide and methane Off-gases from vitrification may require waste. gas. Many incinerators require size- further treatment. (a) The Administrator may grant For the reasons set out in the requests for a variance from classifying reduction of soil or soil agitation during preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code incineration'in order to ensure that all as a solid waste those materials that are of Federal Regulations is proposed to be accumulated speculatively without of the soil being treated reaches the amended as follows: operating 'temperature of the unit. Units sufficient amounts being recycled if the can be run under a slightly negative applicant demonstrates that sufficient PART 148-HAZARDOUS WASTE amounts of the material will be-recycled. pressure to prevent emissions of INJECTION RESTRICTIONS volatilized or incompletely combusted or transferred for recycling in the contaminants. Thermal destruction 1. The authority citation for part 148 following year. If a variance is granted, units must also employ emission control continues to read as follows: it is valid only for the following year, devices to prevent emissions of a variety Authority: Sec. 3004, Resource .but can be renewed, on an annual basis, of combustion products including Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. by filing a new application. The particulate matter, oxides of sulfur and 6901, et seq. Administrator's decision will be based on the following criteria: nitrogen (SOx and NOx), and products 2. Section 148.17 is amended by of incomplete combustion. redesignating paragraphs (b)'and (c) as Treatment residuals from thermal (c) and (d) and by adding paragraph (b) (b) The Administrator may grant destruction units include effluent gas, to read as follows: requests for a variance from classifying wastewater and.sludges from air as a solid waste those materials that are pollution scrubbers, and residual ash, § 148.17 Waste specific prohibitions- reclaimed and then reused as feedstock which consists of the noncombustible Newly Listed Wastes. within the original production process portion-of soil and contaminants. in which the materials were generated if (b) Effective [Insert date. three months the reclamation operation is an essential 9. Vitrification from date of publication), the wastes part of the production process. This This technology, uses heat to specified in 40 CFR 261.24 as EPA determination will be based on the transform wastes into a glass and Hazardous waste numbers D012, D013, following criteria: crystalline mass. The heat causes soil to D014, D015,Do16, D017 thai are (1) How economically viable[the - be broken down into its mineral Toxicity Characteristic toxic production process would be if it were

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48154 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48155 to use virgin materials, rather than (b) The Administrator will evaluate decision, and provide the opportunity reclaimed materials; the application and issue a draft notice for the petitioner and the public to (2) The prevalence of the practice, on tentatively granting or denying the submit written comments within 30 an industry-wide basis; application. Notification of this days of the publication of the notice. (3) The extent to which the material tentative decision will be provided by After consideration of the.comments, is handled before reclamation to newspaper advertisement or radio the Regional Administrator will issue a minimize loss; broadcast in the locality where the final determination denying or (4) The time periods between recycler is located. The Administrator approving-the petition. generating the material and its will accept comment on the tentative (c) The Regional Administrator will reclamation, and between reclamation decision for 30 days, and may also hold consider waste- and site-specific and return to the original production a public hearing upon request or at his information in making such process- discretion. The Administrator will issue determinations. Such information may (5) The location of the reclamation include, but is not limited to: operation in relation a final decision after receipt of to the production comments and after the hearing (if any). (1) Characteristics of the debris, soil, process; or other media; (6) Whether the reclaimed material is 8. Section 260.42 is added to read as follows: (2) Waste constituent characteristics, used for the purpose for which it was such as solubility, mobility, toxicity, originally produced when it is returned § 260.42 Procedures for contained-in and interactive effects of constituents to the original process, and whether it determinations for hazardous debris, present in the contaminated debris, soil, is returned to the process in hazardous soil and other environmental or other media that may affect those substantially media. its original form; properties; (7) Whether the person who generates (a) Any person may petition the the material also reclaims it; (3) All possible exposure pathways, Regional Administrator to exclude, such as potential for direct human (8) In cases where the original process under § 261.3(f)(2) or § 261.3(g) of this to which the material is returned is a contact with the contaminated medium, chapter, hazardous debris and and potential adverse ecological secondary process, the extent to which hazardous soil or other environmental materials are managed before return in impacts; media, including but not limited. to, (4) An "acceptable" risk range of 10-4 a protective manner such that there will ground water, surface water, and to be little potential for release of the 10-6; sediments, from regulation as hazardous (5) Surface and subsurface material or its hazardous constituents to waste. (Such a petition is not necessary the environment (e.g., storage in tanks, characteristics such as topography, for remedial actions conducted pursuant hydraulic conductivity, permeability containers, and indoors such as to RCRA or CERCLA authorities containment buildings); and and porosity of soil, aquifer thickness, (9) Other relevant factors. provided that a similar determination is and other geologic and hydrogeologic made by the Regional Administrator characteristics that may influence based on information substantially constituent mobility and migration 6. In § 260.32, the introductory text is equivalent to the information listed revised to read as follows: potential at the surface and in the below including public notice and unsaturated and saturated zones. § 260.32 Variance to be classified as a comment requirements.) The petition (6) Climatic conditions; and boiler. for a contained-in determination must (7) Other site or waste-specific In accordance with the standards and include information sufficient to characteristics or conditions that may criteria in § 260.10 (definition of demonstrate that specific constituent affect the potential for constituents "boiler"), and the procedures in concentrations in the hazardous debris, present in the contaminated medium to § 260.33, the Administrator may hazardous soil, or other environmental migrate and/or pose a hazard to human determine on a case-by-case basis that media to be excluded do not pose a health or.the environment. certain enclosed devices using hazard to human health and the controlled flame combustion are boilers, environment at that site. Each petition PART 261-IDENTIFICATION AND even though they do.not otherwise meet must be submitted to the Regional LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE Administrator and must include: the definition of boiler contained in 9. The authority citation for part 261 (1) The petitioner's name and address. § 260.10, after considering the following- continues to read as follows: criteria: (2) An explanation, to the extent * * * * * possible, of the circumstances by which Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and .6938. 7. Section 260.33 is revised to read as the affected debris, soil, or other media follows: became contaminated with hazardous 10. Section 261.2 is amended by wastes. revising paragraph (e)(1)(iii) to read as § 260.33 Procedures for variances from (3) Information on waste and site follows: classification as a solid waste or to be characteristics and conditions, to classified as a boiler. include at a minimum, the type of §261.2 Definition of solid waste. The Administrator will use the information listed in paragraph (c) of * * * * * following procedures in evaluating this section. (e) * * * applications for variances from (4) After receiving a petition, the (1) * * * classification as a solid waste or Regional Administrator may request (iii) Returned to the original process applications to classify particular additional information which may be from which they are generated, without enclosed controlled flame combustion required in making a determination. first being reclaimed. The material must devices as boilers: The Regional Administrator will be returned as a substitute for feedstock (a) The applicant must apply to the make a tentative decision to grant or materials. In cases where the original Administrator for the variance. The deny a petition for a contained-in process to which the material is application must address the relevant determination after receipt of a returned is a secondary process, the criteria contained in § 260.31 or complete petition, and will publish a materials must be managed before § 260.32. newspaper notice of such tentative return in a protective manner (e.g.,

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48155 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48156 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules Auhrt:4 ... 9561() 92 storage in tanks, containers, and indoors Authority' 42 U.S.C 6905, 6912(a), 6921, or provided that the laboratory wastes' such as containment buildings) such and 6924. combined annualized average that there will be little potential for concentration does not exceed one part release of the material or its hazardous Subpart A-General per million in the facility's headwork. constituents to the environment. 14. In § 268.1, paragraphs * * * * * (c)(3)(ii), 15. Section 268.2 is amended by (e)(4) and (e)(5) are revised and redesignating paragraphs (i) as (j), (e)as 11. Section 261.3 is amended by paragraph (c)(3)(iii) is added to read as i), (h) as (e), Cd) as (h),(b) as (d), (g)as revising paragraph (f)(2) and adding follows: (b), (c) as (g), (a) as (c)and (f)as (k) and paragraph (g) to read as follows: by adding paragraphs (a) and (i) to read §268.1 Purpose, scope and applicability. as follows: § 261.3 Definition of hazardous waste. *f * * * * * * * * * (c)* * * § 268.2 Definitions applicable In this part. (3) * * * i* * * * * (2) Debris as defined in part 266 of (ii) Do not exhibit any prohibited (a) Constituents subject to regulation this chapter that the Regional characteristic of hazardous waste at the means those constituents for which Administrator determines under point of injection; and treatment standards are established in § 260.42 of this chapter is no longer (iii) If the injected wastes are D001 § 268.48 at levels above the universal contaminated with hazardous waste. High TOC subcategory wastes or D012- treatment standards. (g) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) D017 pesticide wastes, they have been * * *t * through (d) of this section, soil and treated to meet the treatment standards (0 other environmental media including, Hazardous soil means soil that of § 268.40 before the point of injection, contains RCRA hazardous waste(s) but not limited to, ground water, surface or they are disposed in an approved no- water, and sediments, that is listed in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D,or migration injection well as that contaminated or mixed with one or exhibits one or more of the demonstrated pursuant to § 148.20 of characteristics of a hazardous waste as more wastes listed in subpart D of this this chapter. part, or that exhibits a hazardous waste defined in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C. characteristic in subpart C of this part, are not subject to regulation under 40 (e) * * * 16. In § 268.7, paragraphs (a) CFR parts 260, 261 to 266, (4) De minimis losses to wastewater introductory text, (a)(1)(ii), and (a)(8) are or 270 treatment provided that: systems of commercial revised, paragraph (a)(9) is removed, (1) The Regional Administrator chemical product or chemical paragraph (a)(10) is redesignated as determines under § 260.42 of this intermediates that are ignitable (D001), paragraph (a)(9), paragraphs (a)(10) and chapter that the soil or other corrosive (13002), or are organic (a)(11) are added, paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) environmental media is no longer constituents that exhibit the and (d)introductory text are revised, contaminated with hazardous waste;, characteristic of toxicity (D012-D043) and paragraph (e)is added to read as and and that contain underlying hazardous follows: (2) The constituents as defined in § 268.2, are soil or other environmental § 268.7 Waste analysis and recordkeepng. media does not exhibit a hazardous not considered to be prohibited wastes. waste characteristic in subpart C of this De minimis is defined as losses from (a) Except as specified in § 268.32, if part. normal material handling operations a generator's waste is listed in 40 CFR (e.g. spills from the unloading or part 261, subpart D, the generator must 12. In § 261.4, paragraph (a)(13) is transfer of materials from bins or other test his waste, or test an extract using added to read as follows: containers, leaks from pipes, valves or test method 1311, the Toxicity §261.4 Exclusions. other devices used to transfer materials); Characteristic Leaching Procedure, (a) * * * minor leaks of process equipment, described in "'Test Methods for (13) Environmental media, including, storage tanks or containers; leaks from. Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ but not limited to soils, ground water, well-maintained pump packings and Chemical Methods," EPA Publication surface water, and sediments, that seals; sample purgings; and relief device SW 846 as incorporated by reference in exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic discharges. § 260.11, or use knowledge of the waste, in subpart C of this part, or that is (5) Land disposal prohibitions do not to determine if the waste is restricted contaminated or mixed with one or apply to laboratory wastes displaying from land disposal under this part. more wastes listed in subpart D of this the characteristic of ignitability (13001), Except as specified in § 268.32, if a part, or with residuals derived from the corrosivity (D002), or are organic generator's waste exhibits one or more treatment, storage, or disposal of a waste constituents that exhibit the of the characteristics set out at 40 CFR listed in subpart D of this part with characteristic of toxicity (D3012-D043), part 261, subpart C, the generator must constituent concentrations below those that are commingled with other plant test an extract using test method 1311, that are determined by the Regional wastewaters under designated the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Administrator to represent minimized circumstances: ignitable, corrosive, and Procedure, described in "Test Methods threats to human health and the TC organic laboratory wastes containing for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physicali environment. Such determinations will underlying hazardous constituents from Chemical Methods" (SW-846), or use be made in accordance with § 260.42 of laboratory operations, that are mixed knowledge of the waste, to determine if this chapter. with other plant wastewaters at facilities the waste is restricted from land * * * * *t whose ultimate discharge is subject to disposal under this part. Ifthe generator regulation under the CWA (including determines that his waste exhibits: PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL wastewaters at facilities which have (1) The characteristic of ignitability RESTRICTIONS eliminated the discharge of wastewater), (D001) (and is not in the High TOC r rovided that the annualized flow of Ignitable Liquids Subcategory or is not 13. The authority citation for part 268 aboratory wastewater into the facility's treated by INCIN, FSUBS, or RORGS of continues to read as fbllows headwork does not exceed one percent, § 268.42, Table 1), or the characteristic

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48156 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48157 of corrosivity (D002), and is prohibited standard by documenting the initial subject to the following notification and under S 268.37; and/or concentrations and the treated certification requirement: (2) The characteristic of toxicity, and concentrations of constituents subject to is prohibited under § 268.38, the treatment. (e) Generators or treaters who first generator must determine what (11) If a generator determines that he claim that hazardous debris or underlying-hazardous constituents (as is managing hazardous soil that is hazardous media is excluded from the de'fined in § 268.2), are reasonably restricted under this part, and definition of hazardous waste under expected to be present in the D001, determines that the hazardous soil can § 261.3(f)(2) or § 261.3(g) of this chapter, D002, or TC waste. * * * * * be land disposed without further must place a one-time notice stating the treatment, then, with each shipment of applicable exclusion and the disposition (1) * * * hazardous soil, the generator must of the waste in the facility's files, and (ii) The waste constituents for wastes certify and notify the treatment, storage, must retain such notices for at least five F001-F005, F039, wastes prohibited or land disposal facility in writing as years. pursuant to § 268.32 or RCRA section described in paragraph (a)(2) of this 17. In § 268.9, paragraphs (a), (d)(1) 3004(d), and for underlying hazardous section. To meet the requirements of introductory text, (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii) constituents (as defined in § 268.2), in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) of this section, the are revised and (d)(1)(iii) is removed to D001 and D002 wastes if those wastes generator must specify the appropriate read as follows: are prohibited under § 268.37, and treatment standard for the hazardous constituents subject to treatment in TC soil. If the universal treatment standards § 268.9 Special rules regarding wastes that wastes that are prohibited under are not specified as the appropriate exhibit a characteristic.. § 268.38. Also included must be the treatment standards, the generator must (a) The initial generator of a solid applicable wastewater (as defined in maintain documentation, in their files, waste must determine each EPA § 268.2(f)) or nonwastewater (as defined supporting the treatment standard Hazardous Waste Number (waste code) in § 268.2(d)) form and the applicable specified to the treatment facility. In applicable to the waste in order to subcategories made within a waste code lieu of the certification in paragraph determine the applicable treatment based on waste-specific criteria (such as (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the following standards under subpart D of this part. D003 reactive cyanides). certification must be signed by an For purposes of part 268, the waste will authorized representative: carry the waste code for any applicable listing under (8) If a generator is managing a lab I certify under penalty of law that I 40 CFR part 261, subpart pack that contains prohibited wastes, personally have examined and am familiar D. In addition, the waste will carry one and does not include any wastes found with the hazardous soil through analysis and or more of the waste codes under 40 at § 268.42(c)(2), and wishes to use the testing or through knowledge of the CFR part 261, subpart C, where the alternative treatment standard under hazardous soil to support this certification waste exhibits a characteristic, except in § 268.42, with each shipment of waste that the waste complies with the regulations the case when the treatment standard the generator must submit a notice to and requirements that apply to hazardous for the waste code listed in 40 CFR part the treatment facility in accordance with soil as specified in 40 CFR parts 260 through 261, subpart D operates in lieu of the paragraph (a)(1) of 268. I am aware that there are significant standard for the waste code under 40 this section. The penalties for submitting a false certification, generator must also comply with the including the possibility of a fine and CFR part 261, subpart C, as specified in requirements in paragraphs (a)(5) imprisonment. paragraph (b) of this section. If the through (a)(7) of this section, and must generator determines that his waste submit the following certification, (b)* * * displays the characteristic of ignitability which must be signed by an authorized (DO01) (and is not in the High TOC representative: (4) * * * Ignitable Liquids Subcategory or is not treated by IN(IN, FSUBS, or RORGS I certify under penalty of law that I (ii) The waste constituents for wastes of personally have examined and am familiar § 268.42, Table 1), or the characteristic F001-F005, F039, wastes prohibited of corrosivity (D002), and is prohibited with the waste and that the lab pack does not pursuant to § 268.32 or RCRA section contain any waste found at § 268.42(c)(2). I under § 268.37; or if the generator am aware that there are significant penalties 3004(d), and for underlying hazardous determines that his waste displays the for submitting a false certification, including constituents (as defined in § 268.2), in characteristic D001 and D002 of toxicity (D011-D043), the possibility of fine or imprisonment. wastes if those wastes and is prohibitedunder § 268.38; or if are prohibited under § 268.37, and the generator has characteristic (10) If a generator determines that he constituents subject to treatment in TC hazardous soil prohibited under is managing hazardous soil that does wastes that are prohibited under nol § 268.38. Also § 268.39, the generator must determine meet the treatment standards included must be the what underlying hazardous constituents established in § 268.47, then with each applicable wastewater (as defined in (as defined in § 268.2), are reasonably shipment of hazardous soil, the § 268.2(0) or nonwastewater (as defined expected to be present in the D001, generator must notify the treatment or in § 268.2(d)) form and the applicable D002, or TC waste. storage facility in writing of the subcategories made within a waste code constituents subject to treatment and the based on waste-specific-criteria (such as D003 reactive cyanides). (d) * * appropriate treatment standards as (1) The notification must include the described in §§ 268.47. If the treatment following information: standards specified on the notification (d) Generators or treaters who (i) Name and address of the Subtitle indicate that 90% treatment of the determine that hazardous debris is D facility receiving the waste shipment; initial concentrations of the constituents excluded from the definition of and subject to treatment has been performed, hazardous waste under § 261.3(f)(1) of (ii) A description of the waste as the generator must maintain this chapter (i.e., debris treated by an initially generated, including the documentation, in the facility operating extraction or destruction technology applicable EPA Hazardous Waste record, supporting the treatment ' provided by Table 1, § 268.45) are Number(s), treatability group(s), and

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48157 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48158 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules underlying hazardous constituents in waste, depending on whether the expressed as concentrations in the waste D001, D002, TC wastes, or characteristic treatment standards are expressed as extract or the waste, or the generator hazardous soil (it applicable). concentrations in the waste extract or may use knowledge of the waste. If the the waste, or the generator may use waste contains constituents in excess of knowledge of the waste. If the waste the applicable subpart D of this part Subpart C--Prohibitions on Land contains constituents in excess of the levels, the waste is prohibited from land Disposal applicable subpart D of this part levels, disposal, and all requirements of 40 CFR the waste is prohibited from land part 268 are applicable, except as 18. In Subpart C, § 268.38 is added to disposal, and all requirements of 40 CFR otherwise specified. read as follows: part 268 are applicable, except as § 268.38 Waste specific prohlbillons- otherwise specified. Subpart D-Treatment Standards newly listed and Identified wastes. 19. Section 268.39 is added to read as 20. Section 268.40 is revised to read (a) Effective [insert date 90 days from follows: as follows: date of publicationi, the following §268.39 Waste specifc prohibitions.- wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.24, § 268.40 Applicability of treatment Hazardous soil, and debris contaminated standards. Table I as EPA Hazardous Waste with certain newly listed wastes. (a) A waste identified in the Table numbers D012, D013, D014, D015, (a) Effective [insert date two years D016, D017, D018, and D019, D020, Treatment Standards for Hazardous from date of publication], soils that are Wastes in this section may be land D021, 13022, 1023, D024, 13025,D026, contaminated with F037, F038, K107- D027, D028, D029, D030, 13031, D032, disposed only if it meets the Kl12, K117, K118, K123-K126, K131, requirements D033, D034, 13035, 13036, D037, 13038, K132, K136, U328, U353, U359, D018- found in the table. For D039, D040,13041, 13042,13043 each waste, the table identifies one of D043, K141-145 and K147-151 wastes, three types of requirements ("treatment nonwastewaters; and the wastes soils that are contaminated with D012- specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA D017 that pass the EP toxicity test but standards"): Hazardous Waste numbers K141, K142, fail the TCLP test are prohibited from (1) All hazardous constituents in the K143, waste or in the treatment residue must K144,K145,K147,1K148,1K149, land disposal. K150, and K151 are prohibited from (b) Effective [insert date two years be at or below the values found in the land disposal. from date of publication, debris that are table for that waste ("total waste (b) Effective [insert date two years contaminated with D018-D043, K141- standards"); or from date of publication), radioactive K145, or K147-K151 wastes, and debris (2) The hazardous constituents in the wastes that are mixed with D018-D043 that are contaminated with D012-)017 extract of the waste or in the extract of nonwastewaters, D012-D017 wastes that wastes that pass the EP toxicity test but the treatment residue must be at or pass the EP toxicity test but fail the fail the TCLP test are prohibited from below the values found in the table TCLP test, K141-K145, and K147-K151 ("waste extract standards"); or land'disposal. (3) The waste must are prohibited from land disposal. (c) Between [insert date of be treated using (c) Between [insert date of publication] and [insert date two years the technology specified in the table publication) and [insert date two years from date of publication], the wastes ("technology standard"). from date of publication], the wastes included in paragraphs (a) and (b) of (b) For waste covered by the total included in paragraph (c) of this section this section may be disposed of in a waste standards and waste extract may be disposed of in a landfill or landfill or surface impoundment only if standards, compliance is based upon surface impoundment, only if such unit such unit is in compliance with the grab samples, unless otherwise noted in is in compliance with the requirements requirements specified in § 268.5(h)(2). the table. For wastes covered by the specified in § 268.5(h)(2). (d) The requirements of paragraphs (a) waste extract standards, the test Method (d) The requirements of paragraphs and (b) of this section do not apply if: 1311, the Toxicity Characteristic (a), (b), and (c) of this section do not (1) The wastes meet the applicable Leaching Procedure, must be used. An apply if: standards specified in subpart D of this exception is made for D004, 13008, (1) The wastes meet the applicable part; K031, K084, K101, K102, P010, Poll, standards specified in subpart D of this (2) Persons have been granted an P012, P036, P038, and U136 , for which part; exemption from a prohibition pursuant either of two test methods may be used: (2) Persons have been granted an to a petition under § 268.6, with respect Method 1311, or Method 1310, the exemption from a prohibition pursuant to those wastes and units covered by the Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test, both to a petition under § 268.6, with respect petition; found in "Test Methods for Evaluating to those wastes and units covered by the (3) The wastes meet the applicable Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical petition; alternate standards established pursuant Methods", EPA Publication SW 846 as (3) The wastes meet the applicable to a petition granted under § 268.44; incorporated by reference in § 260.11 of alternate standards established pursuant (4) Persons have been granted an this chapter. For wastes covered by a to a petition granted under § 268.44; extension to the effective date of a technology standard, the wastes may be (4) Persons have been granted an prohibition pursuant to § 268.5, with land disposed after it is treated using extension to the effective date of a respect to those wastes covered by the that specified technology or an prohibition pursuant to § 268.5, with extension. equivalent treatment technology respect to these wastes covered by the (e) To determine whether a hazardous approved by the Administrator under extension. waste identified in this section exceeds the procedures set forth in § 268.42(b). (e) To determine whether a hazardous the applicable treatment standards (c) When wastes with differing waste identified in this section exceeds specified in §§ 268.40 and 268.48, the treatment standards for a constituent of the applicable treatment standards initial generator must test a concern are combined for purposes of specified in § 268.40, the initial representative sample of the waste treatment, the treatment residue must generator must test a representative extract or the entire waste, depending meet the lowest treatment standard for samvle of the waste extract or the entire on whether the treatment standards are the constituent of concern.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48158 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48159

(d)Notwithstanding the prohibitions (2) The treatment or disposal facility debris, the waste is subject to those specified in paragraph (a) of this has used the methoa1s referenced in standards rather than the standards for section. treatment and disposal facilities paragraph (c)(1) of this section to treat hazardous debris under § 268.45. may demonstrate (and certify pursuant the organic constituents; and (M Hazardous soil may be land to § 268.7(b)(5)) compliance with the (3) The treatment or disposal facility disposed in a subtitle C treatment standards for organic has been unable to detect the organic unit only if all constituents specified by a footnote in constituents despite using its best good- constituents subject to treatment in the the Table Treatment Standards for faith efforts as defined by applicable hazardous soil are equal to or less than Hazardous Wastes in this section, Agency guidance or standards. Until applicable total (for organics) or provided the following conditions are such guidance or standards are leachate (for metals) concentrations satisfied: developed, the treatment or disposal found in § 268.47. (1) The treatment standards for the facility may demonstrate such good- (g) Soils that are hazardous solely organic constituents were established faith efforts by achieving detection because they exhibit the characteristics based on incineration in units operated limits for the regulated organic of ignitability. corrosivity, or reactivity. in accordance with the technical constituents that do not exceed the must be treated by deactivation requirements of 40 CFR part 264, treatment standards specified in this technologies which eliminate these subpart 0. or 40 CFR part 265, subpart section by an order of magnitude. characteristics. If other constituents 0, or based on combustion in fuel (el If a treatment standard has been subject to treatment are also present, substitution units operating in established in the Table Treatment they must be treated to achieve the accordance with applicable technical Standards for Hazardous Wastes for a technology-based treatment standards requirements; hazardous waste that is itself hazardous found in §268.48.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48159 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48160 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

E c E (< co 4: 4: z z -Z

i E

- a LL w w oi a a I

A2

CD 4:4

f .0 . 4: LO~4 z z z z z z z z aD aD C

E Ez

0 0 Q Z 0 cc z 2-

0 N'% ZZ Z L to A 4:

Z E

"E "E C: -, (D D 4:~~ 4 : 4 ~5: . -' e~4: C z z z Z Z Z ZZ 0 0 <: z t

C.) 0) -- to ~ 0 ~V LO

-0c 4 COcAj=h U 60 .. _- C-0.C- C- I-- Cor ED2z- - C4 C4 02 0'r 0 T 0E 0 a, :SOWE)C. E C 0p cc 008 0 C O D 4:) ca .g, C Cl : .-.. *0? '2 0 - 1. 12'j3: C %I< IDg0 ~ ED ED ED'oD.. '0 -a c 2 -aC a&' C" -- 36 CD'Da) C C Cr a, .5 C-,00 0 (n -1- -0 to = __ _ W, V( r- 0: 4 0

(D

o o 00 oN o 0 o Q .ao 0 0 a 0 0

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48160 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 176 t Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48161

0. .4: z t-zz z i -z z z z . - 4: -J >. c 0:. 00 ww x > - w

Z "Z" C' z Dz z D Z z z z4

Dz z z z

< <: z Z OZ

7 7 cl0, co 0)

.z

* o

0m o : o0 a

EZ E 0Z0: W0D 00 z z ~ z z

g0

31Ka 0 Ka z 04) a

:c i:

LL :.0 .2. e o i.OC

C 00 0 0 0 0 .0 8§8 8 00C 0 0.0 000 c0 OD 0 0

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48161 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48162 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 1 Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

Ma

E Er= E, E~ r: E E E E C- 0--., . - 0 .

04) -6 6 -- 6- - 6- i ~:c •:.:".: E . E E

o : cue LDI'00 DD 00 00 EO EDE00 E0 " Co E 0

-0 . . . *O *. * * * 33r C D . 00 :* co . .q 10 E -u c.

C0 ..

* . i. zz- a . ct zz 1 . zz z 15o c " :! - - - -• - : "

: i a : " -:

- x C C> 00C IC6 00 0 0 E6

z 0 -00

- "C zoo -z 8 b

c r M S 000

LU z t o co Fa oc o •-1a----- cuca io0 0ITa)r- .. Nr- CO0 :: .. .. o)" ..* * * * -*- -

0 0

cc O0)'"0 CC

' z L 4 0 0 z~ '2 E > 0 0. >~ CcO,~O~.. az C a

: -.- i > ._ ._ > _.,_.,,. 0 _ 00 0 0N

, C. C * .~ . C

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48162 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48163

0 ) ) )0D0C" ( Mcm ( mc 0)0 0) D)0m 0)CM:

o 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0

-0 0-6- - - -6 6 06 -06- -0 z000 00 000- 00S 0.00 00 M) M d z00 - V - Z? z a E WO 0 E)V5 (E 0) E0 EOW 0z Z;0 E EU o 0U 0 a) )0 ' )0 4 )U N-~ 0 ~0)

It q') ,' CDT11 0 a ED E -011 1L) 11 .0 "

.0 .0 ,,0 .0

a 0

- 0 .0

0 o U) 0 o 0 0 q 0q LO 11 0 0

"CD N O. N 0) -) 0 .

L~e C') 0 0 ") 2 2

:9o .5 o

0) 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 6 C - 0 0 0 X C A (D 0 0 0 0 0 Q. o Cl -CI "*- .C - C' C) 0

o o 0 , 20o 0 0 0 0 0

- I"- .. .. 9S a Y - - : 2- - c c~2~~ 2 2 02 2- 2 2 2?~ cc 0? 0? 02 - COE02. 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .Gc a c C 0~ C c ~ a .s C r 0- c c

a) C. .8 ) 0 g -8 g I g , , EE- EZ2Z ' g -" = Z = "= . = E = ." = Z "= 0 0 9 0. 0 00 " W 5 M1 vLO P- c M~ 0 E E ~~0~~r- CD 0) 01 0~j M> 8>M 2 v~.

U U N N CN . 40 o . .1a o.0l o a a a a a 0,

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48163 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48164 Federal Register / VoL 5. No. 176 1 Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules'

0+ 0; 0 0.--- 04- .oo.0oo .b~ . .o..o....o..o..< ~- II -- - ZI- --Z I- --I- • ,. --J 1- (I)

+ .. . .. 2 O "+ O :+"' " - ,o Z . o .

CDN ( - .-+++-+.01 00.0+ + ( +.- -+ 0 0 -I0CJU+ N(J £0.I <

E 0 0 9+ 0 0 r 0 { (00000000 ( 0.000< 009r Z z0z3.0. -t

f- ODj • °...... 2LO N . ..0+ . 'T + .to + . +W) +(0. +. +...... + C14C 0 0 0 N do (0- C£4 N 0 0 8r . o.o o o. wZo o.o.ooo o .... o

z ... .. * .. C 0 k2 cbf? ll 01 to O D, -- - ,-(0 O NN, .-O .- , N N , - ND N 0 I

C

0 8 o o 0 0 I- I- ,,. ,'-" .S

3: . 0 •O

i .1

- -- g o "2- 2 a

GLU.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48164 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. :176 I Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 448165

~!V U V

:214.

: : 2: : : : : : : : : : : : : :.:: : : : : :

6 zz o-dLo64 6 )zdLb zVo)oo0Uzz)W) z0 Zo v v v v

121 j2 -9 U

2 <: 000 0 Q iii i i i i ii i! i i i... i ii~ i ~l( .. -

0I 0 D 0 .., °° , , , ...... Z° o).. .. .I. . . .0.o ° ° , . °-

Cc? N?

CY NI O 11 < <

r-NI L L) Lf U N W)) - L)W)z r- -r N OLf L '5 z

0

w

0 A of 1 .0 o L/. IU-. U.-

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48165 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

481466 Federal fingister V Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 1 Proposed Rules

W) ......

CU Z Za - 40- IL El, . i § 0_j o000 O 5 00000 I- I - -- Z -912 -4~+-+0 +0- k+- 0-- 2j- ; - -. 6.0)

C

- ......

(vvvCO .C!,q 4q---- 4R 0~ qtI1C4 IC)E(DIR~1 CR CtJN cN"O -4-,

01) ...... = = .~ ...... V) HEIM W (4) () a 0 E&aEU c 0 0 co Caa ca)QE&Epa.a E8aaaa.a E CO co 8 U 0 "0co to E Ewto 0 a 'tozOO~O~~~oo&0'101811IsIG 8Bi 0is1;)i S'0S is~3o.to O 1 ..~ ~ ~~~~......

ca ., L. .E

0 z:

Io E 0 E; .11 -v .-v . -V w .0 4 w -u t-3-%D '0?10 D . ,0 ..0 )0

" ,oD :I _ " CIl ID

-- N :2:

- '- '' - -D"m~ ""ol t-- O-ZI ,C aFa.;, ;

z ) ( 2 Z5z:

caC c .2 0

VU co

+

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48166 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48167

......

Z Z0-0-4. *cUCUM ~ 0UUCU( D"H UC UCU(M UC EEU( 50

...... , . ... < .. O, . . , ...... , , , , ...... OD

MM.,N000to~~) a'a...... 0 to 000)0 V,', Z 08 ...... 0000000-00(0030008CO0008 Nf .

c(0000 e000000 00000000000000 000000000 000

ozooooooooo66 zooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooouoo

04 O O OD O O y)0)0)CDr-0O~O ~ 0 O , J ; ) O ) O ) 0 O*OOO**Oooc.-oooco.OcooC)',(D------0 Mv N O M O(D)Ln C.U t -co ...... < 0,qq~ , I . ,q c . ., . °. . . . q q q ° q , , q......

LO I c? I C'IO~ N ~ N- OO O) 'J*N N------O O ...... :: : :...... C 0• 'O. !•

0 ::.: . * E ...... ~00* ...... E ...... ~~r ° . . , ° , .. ..v., ...... , . .. f. .. E.. 0 .,

. t5. 5.i

-IO g G)U1DO0 01

g Zfl c0Ou.O Zg.N cm oanw

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48167 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48168 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

MA S ...... x

CL .EEEEEEEEEEEEE EE EE EEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEE E. cc c (44* * .( 4C((4 C( (( (o 5zz 5UU6,5ggO~z~g00 gz Og-- _F F- -

0 .2 0000 000000D00

r O0 02. •nz wO100 o.oo0Z . , mM------o C J

CD

CL E EEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEE EE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE (n 000000000000000000000000 00 8000000000000000 00000 100UL000 0000 00 000 0000 000000000 00

0.

.' '.... ' . ' ... 1:1; 0 -N N O-OOOO o jr ...... 0&C ...... '. . ...in 0 (0C'J0C'JJCOf4"00.. 0 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 00 OOO~OOOOOOOOO~OOOOOOOO

. .* . . . .. J 0 < 0 (b*5 'T LOr oZ ,C CMc.JN .c' 04 4 iti c cIc < C, 40I I100NNO 0 - N -N

...... cc 4)...... (D . (D 0:4): 0) : : : : 0 I . P . • R 2)"

4) (4C: 0) 4) ::)- G :-6t- ) >, : m .2 26 :o :) : CM(D r- ""'a) 4 )4)4a " 0 . a .. "x " ...... - C)k ' " " .... ,4) -- o. 4 : ' .. : • • ..: . )Cc r-, CC, ,- -- -" ). E 0 -~ E0 0) - 0 CMt N N (a "0 cr 4 4 ) a 0)~ 0 E 0 0 0 2 .) 00022. 4 ) 0Z tr 0 0000o0,,cc.r 0 E 0 G)9 8~ . . 2.20a 0. "-*z-z E Eo . " M 00oo 0oo,o 9 6 o- . o (D O8 .... E . So.. W . -. ,'=>

ca- -. A6 LO)r-2 2 c5 m: 1>I-? c-

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48168 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48169

.° ...... ooooo-coo......

88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888-CYIJCJ--Z -MCM-Z- oo d 04 - Z4 C"Dq* 0 ') ' D0 0 6 C( fD 6C) - Z.- 0 CO) -Zq 0) .,...... ,, ..... : .O ...... :,.,,,,,.

000008880000800000 00 000 0000000 000 000000 00 -rrazro aAZZU)) U )0 o0-

...... o ......

c! C4 - : . .U'3 . . . . : . . Il ! q i l qc l~ lq iq'7 . .

.... .~~~ .... ~~...... cM0E;OR2wNCD*mw~.0: .~~~ ~. . ..."...:0 0)0: .:: : .~~~~~~~.°...... o...... o...... o.0 . .. 2 . .. .. o.. . CM 0? O OCX, "j 0 04 C00 00 0 00 00C) 00 0 00 .0 0 000 0 0 0 000 C 0 0 0 0 0CD00 0 00 r-- cj 7-N

No !Cgm =®®®

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48169 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48170 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tue4day, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

......

- oo-cZoa M - - o0 o oo o oo - 0 ) '

ca0 co0 0<0 fl C 0 i iC qi ' iI C') i

0 00 0 0 0 0

to E EEEEEEEE EEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEE C -CJCUOOOOyyv~o.- o.*U)O )C% ,CO - C U)OU)U)U')rCVOU) tocMNC4Z0Y Z I-.w.080000800 000 0000O0000 00000 0000000 0000

0OC8008L*q9000009qoo~o o 00 00L a)0 ......

d . . . . C , : : :...... 0 1 .. ', , ...... , (a

......

: : o0 ...... U i c!i "tiI "t!I 1i . q qq iq q i q ...... qi! " ".....! ...... ciclc

Cl) co :f 1 : 0CX) O t - . .( C )Ln v *k

CO.

...... N . . . . . C......

.o i . . . .. • -- 4,, .'. .. .. zc E= 4c) u . ....

7Z '05- -ZZ2 0Z-A, 8 .24- 2-4)e 01 > '- 1% M c4) --. 2 - 2 C'

4)a

00

1 CU

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48170 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48171

~

4...... D: ...... :C:, ...... -L . .-Z . -4 . .,-L-: . .4 . . . - .4 ...... -j ...... _•_j _j _j 4 ' -i i -i... j -i i -i -i -i -i -i -•J - _j•i _

222E 2EEta . 22Ek 22 f2 ffEE 2E...... EF E ....E x . .

00040 <8~~ Q05''5'bCb5'5

...... c o r .

zzo")z',zooD (D '0o dzzz#Kooo- dd0odo)d'z 0d) d 0. 0 0 0o-6 d0

: . . . ". ...O ...... :. :.

0080 8000 088 880 8 0 00 88000000 ( 80 00 0 (D0a0DO0 0 a CO

:: : : 00: : : : : I::

= 0 = r-- = COLn LO 2 a) r M C\8 = = = = =D =y== =' = = = = (D= =y Uc') q-?- - - -lRr', R R p-.qst l " " /@"o .,' ,- C , , ,"9 (9,"D.. /Il l/Il . .•"i

: = -2 : : : : : c::: : : : : (D: :0 : ::g-?: : : : : : : :Q : :*: E , 'C :O : : : ::=:=:E: : : : : : : : : : : : 0 : : : : : Rr:: : : : : : : : : : : : : : 00>.0wii~0 00 c4 0 ~:0 b2~ 02* 8 i? E E E : 'E :E-0 i32 ' .2 A?-0 E .) E . ' :.2 i.2 OuR 0): O ' -E

0 C, 0 C 0 0 0 0 000 Y .- 0 x" x0 Y0 x0 x0 x0 0 x, oooc

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48171 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48172 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

EO EEE EE H ~ ------~1------w co 00 0oo 0 0 0

0-0 ...... If.

...... C40- ftC DqqG*qDD~ qOPG Q ~ q

MA......

...... E ......

C 0 0

20Y n 0 n t . 00 L U t f 0- 9 0 c n t oci4 i nL ,6 C ~ - '~ 0 U 3 ) O O ~ t l 1 0 -T ~ '( f

~ < 0 )f Q).ffi:.A

c -) - OR . O r

co Oo cN C~~ ca ccC o< ;( N N 0 ~ 6 U. - '20o'j0 z ~ ......

...... :) :0 . . Sa . . . . . 9? ...... cc 0 5 - 0

01 2 ::: oO e2 - MZ5- : E 0 :o ro0 r 9. AR -' :0E' r E. -o :' 0 C30 -B. 0 M :-0r

ca E Z 0 3

0. Z, 2~0 00 2~ ez '7 - '2 r E r -.-. wOO..-zzO.- 60 0-2& 0. : d- C IP . 3 ' 6 X X4DC y : ELn 0. t2C4: caC42 4 ) c

(D 0N

C)0 0 0> 0 0 0C

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48172 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 I Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48173

t M0cmD(MDM0, -4-4- --O~)0-

ZZI--Z - -- : E

0 z Z. :: : : : :: :: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :C : : : : : : : :

O. C Z Z COO N - - ..(6 CO Ny W) CO)U) to (0 zoo0 0 0 D D (0w00 Z Z 0 N - N. 0. W.- N 00.0 N.. N M n M M M n

• . • .. •5 • • • • .. "-• .- • " . • .- " .(3 O." ®4O < ee,,,mEEEEEEE'E:E'i 0009( (90( z z 22 z to r .z z oz , , , T r9 r9r z , ( oooooo0(<

(n n)Q z CD C) U%Ln Ln N r- (0 N tn Lno ac 0

C~~~t: :~CL . ,CN OC) 0) 0CD N-"n (D 8 p K a: S O U S , 0 i 0 0 i 9 Ni i i O i i 8C S CD0CLD in CO '(D ,do"0 6o -w Z z 0 66oooo~ooooo, o,:Z:00. C ct,:,o : "o ".Co oeooooo6do6ZZooodd6ooooZoZ "0 0 : : :0,Za0 0, c0 000004404 0o : 6Zo6_Z_004

Vo "r < < < occc < ccU o cc~~~oVV c C>c - 4C~Dz mooooqooo1-' ozz'A82 ' Qz' C11

99 ,N -71 U r,

N N co CZ zZ Z IZDf. 0NCN NNr- N N NNNNNMD-DCO0CDa)- NNCON- kNOD-CU O CoC- : 0: : :cc : N: : • : " : ! ! " " ! .

.o o : : : : .. .. : : : ...: .. : : "0) - : : • 0 0) . 0 0- 0T

o 0.= (a a0 ) 0...2 _ : c.--055 - CLrO -Ez 5-- ")' 4)60 ) 0 ~ o =c -,5 o .. - - ,5 :oo o-__ d

Oz- -.cr ~ z z z ,-~a-- .. oo--r.i-. -> .0 ,"r'za nRa- oI-,- 4' 4,m moo ,'T'--

.2~ o' : 0z'.'S 2 . '!~ - C-6 L0 E.0 2,.1 2

0N .a r-C0 E E .8 o--Bi Mw2 . o~ore2 u

CC4tv)k. ," V U) ,1,.-" . vv'v'

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48173 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48174 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

-4. *- 04 0 -. Z -Z. - EEEE O

0 - < -----~ g 000 Et000O----- a, I- -Ri 1-Zl-- 2 -- -4 Z

c! to-c ' y q co Zc~c'~a~ocsjUZ : 0 ° 2 : 2 : : 2: : ::c: - -O d CL ..... 0 ° .6...... 0 .0......

E 8gEE E E E ' c 8 3c38 E 8 8 88 8 8 8z ooooooo0000o00o00Oo30z z z 0o888o08 , -4

:2 .Z::::::::::::::: : : ::::: .II : : :.::::: .... .:...... o:2o q< : q : cq

0 00 06 6 0c;60 odddooddoodacic Zo oooD o 0 0 0o0oooooo CDPo -- i - --. ---

r,Z1 O ICO ceC ......

I ° : ...-"0,

'0)~ . z......

2..

. . . . . y 0 . . . D 0> r-:20 c ::- -o . . .,

0. 22:. r : i 0 > .0 i

8 a 8v 0 ..

~8- . 0 •4 0 = .

n §1 Egg

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48174 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48175

I,-Z I,-- I--,- I- l,,I,- I-, Z I,,--I,- I,,,

......

: : :: : ::: : c : *::: :: ,:: .-. . . .

...... 0~ • - ....O)O 0 0 ...... z. ° ..zO O ...oo sO... .. O • 0 • ...... 1 • • •~

-B-a-U -a ~ .- 'aIs-ITa - ~ 0 )~ L O ' . . O

05 05 V< o- 0 (3 o o o 5o ...... ,8 8 8 . . 0 6 8 c a ...... 80 . ..0 .2 ..8 .0 ..0 .2 ..8 8 . . . 0 UO !. "m- ", ~oew . o ".U :x :..o) c Uo)Za"oOO)il.z.o) o o ) "co " j a a V"k A

• ii...... i i. i• ..... i i i..i . i .i...... i i i .. ..i i.. i i...... i i i i. . i .. i i

!F to . '' o"""a CO -, ac -

0' *, :..-a i : i .) * .: -c - ."s?( -.,g .c , - o . ,® ""N , .01- =, .0 . ..." . ED, re- Z r , u, ..v-,,r

a) 0 - 0 000

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48175 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48176 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday" September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

Mo 0)0)~~~~ C. .C- .~ .C .C .C .C......

DC: EE-M EME-EEEEEEnn~ EEa EE------M EE t.E E-EE~ --E ='- ( C c La a. a. a . ..0.0.0a. . 0Lc0 . .c Ca-u -a- - . ',', 00000B U) - .. I-- --

...... ::: ......

- N . ... . 0-"C'Iso CD :IT' 0 Zoo 6oo~oooo6uoooZoo 0DoC'CDD(vZZ- - It Z 0 L) .4' -I-I.

...u ...... ,...... ~~u~C:::: : .0 a ::::::: ::: :: ::: :::: ::::: : : : : : : :: :: ::C CL : :80 0 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 0 : 0: : 0 0 : : : U : :9:9 U:D : : E (a co 0 0 0 0 0 8 ~~T c (308< 0"-"00O

666666O : : :. . ..C : ...... : : :: : :..". ".. " ".: o ......

z ... z, ... . o U1oooooooo to co)(0 r, 0) LOU .0040<-00~(01 <

. . .. . " :7: : : : : ::%: :Z : . : .c : C : : : , : .2 . . . ? , : NOC\,. C, 0)0.) . , , -' ~~~CDN~~sNNcD CC N Ns'l---rI.N N N Z u)DD NDLJ Z C , .- N

......

c C : 0) : : (D (D0 ' : : :

...... :: E C:: : :...... : ...... Cu .. " : •...... -- C t > ":::: b. :0:: Co 0.0 - •:-

0 * § : - , E : •" :0 " "0 " :"0 L.' - 0.0~ - -, E E- E .= E -'E •0 " " C -- 0 . ) _* cu- u.'- .- ., , ® )_ ,. - . < _ - a0 >,.>-. .- - . ,_00 E E o

0 0 0 ...... c

4)c 0~~~ E .26 f2 . 6: * _ e-Cu <2-0Nu -0 .2 01

_)t.0 4) ~~ r- 4)~0 ~20 .aowCo=*~ Hx

- CM 0) 0) C' G (D co to Iz(s 0 0 0 0 O0

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48176 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday,' September 14, 1993 I Proposed Rules 48177

...... - .. 1 . ° 4 4 4 . ..

CV) (U (U( (U( ( 4M 4M MU(U ( ow 01 Ca)0 ) 0 Y AIMc 0 ------

E MH 2 0 0000

......

. .. .: . .°.. '. " . : : ' : : ' : ' ° ' . °. °.

EE EEEE EEEEEE E E EEE EEE2EEEEEEE EEEEEEEEr 0 -Q

...... 00 00 ......

W U3 . ..(D O GO. . . 0 CO 0 ...... 0 . w t ...... N -q q q ...Rq q

LCCo

:CMN 6===E1 0 N (Um . co" :: ::: ::::::: : : !O® w

, ...... C e,. " " :C (UN"" . 0 (U (U 0 42 c.0~ a00,11 E -%ai ,. t --- .- t I W O : - .2 . .2.r

N C) ~IO CD O)CD.a) 0 00.0

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48177 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48178 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

• M - -O - F M -- -- F i ------C- C-- L 0. L h- - - H -F ------

0 0

z

wn 0 CDDC C3 %00 inNf,toaU1(~~~~~~~i~~~~~~( (0 U) LO CF) 00 00 U) 0.D U) Z Z ZD U)ZZZU D 0 )UD)UC, C ) C) 0 0 N 0 000 0~iiia

0 ......

00 0 : " : " 4 M " Q C, . ".. q " (. r:"

z ......

(A 0

cr V)~ 0

,) ...... P-- Z "- ...... :...... ITC) ) -T 04 C.. - .. U -) 0 ) -~( _=0 _lC • -DO ....:~ , ...... U)U.U o)U) U) 0..® 000 . :- . : . :,,: , ., _

®o <: J J J "oJ J...... 4 U®® CA 0220 2C-JO) q)C0 C? I'.-CD.li' 0 i- U Z - ,,2Icoo',1.-_ i oU m cr-. ZZ'Z'ZN o '- --,oc.-C= 1 ) DU . O,

Z-, VO-O I 629= DV 04! U " : - D il 66 6 S .. (DE: -222 D-28i ii '

o o 0990 2 ,68 E :F r 4 : : .: o ~00o

& q t: i5.2 ... F-0 ' CD. 0 CA c 0 L v: ,-4 ,., ,, togq ca'-2 0)>. C) 00'

0~~ . C' . ..

Ii; x .. x.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48178 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48179

0 . 0.0

0000 00 z z i0: 4

q:: 0 z CY z z z z M m0 oz z 13(1)z 00 Z3 (j) N LL L c;.O- IL

SC) 0 Z Z Z Z Z D0Z Z Z 0 Z o a a aa zz z ...... _. 0. _ zz () a) .6jcai CMz (M U Q co a Z 0

:-04: 4 CC cc : -

Z~ Z ~ Z ZA cjcj 6M Z ZZ

05 .g ' - .® " " U) C< ts <- I< ..

- .,TC% oU iOLO Y.- -

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48179 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

4818*) Federal Register / Vol 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

CL -- D-M-cm---- M I--in': 0) I-%0) in0)0I-4 - .- E c Boo 00 00000 ' 000000 z z z o F- 1oo - o 00 e

."z te t-l (CO0 c, 'I (0 -4'I .H

0~00000~ -t C a a x. z 00 :00 0 z oZ jig ! !n ~~3~2 ~36 z z~g 6Z " Ia 6..c; 6c; 0) ) to ~.00-0 0 6660 60 C -I-.,

a)- AinN 1N - , ( N. z z -4

C

2'0 2 < S ® (D C• ,,, '- e0- (3E •6:-6C' : . I :e 00 .L00 Z' z 00*0OM2(CoE S (D x.UMC S 414o ocg ) cas-

-p

coE- : &"

0 e-arL._. f

a S- E'. F o-B 0- =500,,,, 0.G

Sn4T E..

toJ coa ;; C') (D

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48180 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48181

00000 OOM0000000 000000n 0000 0M30 M 0 0c

U): : .~. . . . U * ......

. 0 ) G *0US 0) 0D 0)- *0 0M - * 0) 0 ) LO 0 LO -W(0 3 0 OU)DL -- (D.--) c c;dooSooo;6 00000c;0 0000000 000000 0 0000 C00D 0 0 00 00

0 C0

__ 5

E- 2-ci=0 Aez 8 cj A t;=0

3 )W W 064 0 0N S 6-

IC4 N -ff

v.v-

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48181 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48182 Federal Register f VoL 58, No. 176 t Tuesday, September 14, 1993 f Proposed Rules

400 c m00 000000o 00 v00ZZ0 v: ff fif 000000a -

: ::6: : ::O:

0 9 O O oov qcN.0q o 0 ovq

. LO..... t C•Co MC3- -n, W....S > C -C 0 0o . 80 0 C >CCC>

:• : a!!Ne = :-: : :0

0-a..- ,- = o=- 2 , -. .

0-.

-020'

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48182 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 /.Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48I83

:z z z O ZW Z Z 0 c

zO z ::

E5 0 o U 5M 0 _. _ VC) (1 xLU Cf Rn

LL z L U. C. Z z . w w _ K3 - -0

z Z OOZOOZ z 000~

ww at~ bc am: a ~~QZ.~~~OZo ;siz oi 0 Z~

0*b - a - . a :- 8 E z

4 .i c; C

C S Q 0~.~E

0 .0

c .2 .2 2

O-NM ft U~ CD CL CLa.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48183 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48184 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

MI) C-a CL

z z i- 1 lii z3i z zz z i-z -d z z .1 0 0 Z z X~z D•) u,. " 'z z '-0- Z U) I

0i

z z C)~ ~ a4:04 (D00 Dzz z z zz - 4- z z z :0 0 z 0 c z ;5 X0_6' o, . •ccx, = k zoo"r0X 0Xz 0 0 < t 0 -- ,o - :)CJ : Z rum< 0 - '-0 o0 0) oo <)3 . ) -4.-.

cJC%jCC ' NI'LI, WN L0 -I

2 0 LL E 01 . 3) 3§ E .2 f M 0 8 4- C 0 0 ~

• . 0FE ".

* * U.

0: 0 : 0 ! : L9 *~ ~C g. CO .5 C 10 CL

Li_ ____ g O O~oO 05

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48184 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48185

E EE E r E EC)C E E L

I.-z 1- Z B- B o<- I? z zz<< z z 6 I-0- z 1-- F-- z

! i i " " :: : ,- : : :: :

z : :z:Z :z : : :Z! z ,w c, o : : z ,0 0-- , oO ooi 5 o3- C;- - z < z _z toooou. z CoZ o

,_io:.0o :,.co : ,CO - o >: : S 0:o 0< oz ooaoz0 DW( :~ oooza )4 : : z .

xZ a " " D .CZ 0 "

OXmZ U :zU -Z zz zz " :O- : r C-c .. c. 0.- : -r :, : -r - : oL o o ) og " z oo o0.- . o 6D

1- -- , . ~ 8 a

6CC ":> C 6 6 7: C C 6 . : :S -: C

E

, , C ; - : . . o o ,_,m - : , E & 6 E -- - • : .* oo-- :>.c, . L",

E 12IL : :¢)WM .0 0

0~~~4 0 O~-.'

Z " ~ : ~~~~ " "0 ,La. rg b .:"-. E - :

E~~~~~-- -= ,0- : r0 ),

C) 0 C00 0 a CL a. 9 a- a- 0. a-MMa M- a. a. 0

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48185 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48186 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

a. a z z z z z z Z --00< Z<, _ 7zz z:- z

." d : z 0 0 . :00:::. : ::0 0

0. _ _J Z Z ••- n &W

C ...... o- . ~- zz .

w0- CZxz6 5 MC cz z z z z z O zZz z czz cr

O 5X5Wz -z zX z

0 L 0 0 -0 Z Y .I . (" :x :X i i : : : : : : :I:

( 0 .p. p...... :

cc 0M5xM 0 0 cc 0c ) << 0c 0 < oE < co

0 0 0S 6-6 < 0

4 0Z &Z Z . : i c . . . ;. ..co .0 z: - - 0 00 co2 'I-Lz, 0 z x0EDC ,, , , . - -°

z zz

~? (0

cc 0 75 :5 00

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48186 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48187

CP) C) 0) 0) -C S -, D0O E E - EE E-EEE 0. a. CL a..

0 000 Z 2 Z z r ,: : : :O : : ZFzOI Oo-

zl X -- : : :0e ",ni, 00 :0 Z::: : 0 "00n -

0 .,-0:, . .t 0 ,. .9 0 r 6 c) 6 c c cN 0Y 0 0 D 0 -CC U-00 0 cc 0 z 0 ,-0 0 ; 6C) - .LA : :0 LL. -0)

< 0 0~*-0

.OZ. : : : :.Z, Xxzz 0 l 9 z z X z z C.9 : : z : (9 z ..x< 0o : .,xZ

) ......

r~ r 0 o t) < U)= zc 00zUI L c W CYw5~ ~ ~ ~ L 0 a: 0 a: x L 0 c _ • CC 0 C 0 LU 0

mt* D D L y U O f- t :W ) i ) I-~~~~L? I I YN Y . 1C A> .L. 00 %V o 1 0Y N 0 0 co O OC W C000C12C0 00 0 m UW . - -- V.. LU,.o ~ ......

LU .. E D E= •0: . .. 2 LU : . : : LU.C LU LUI E• • • •:•0 " ,LUC V LUN ~ L : : ® gC : ~c.i: LU

... nJ.-r,- CD -- E o . "'-:. •0..... 0--., C 0 0 .CLt . . L ., Uo . ) W ,L -U,) • CD Q C'E a C_. x v 2-, .. - -° 0. . cc k cc cc =d -0, W - ID3 ®0)'- < --- 0 r (D 0lO OX = c~~~~~ t: LU.-- t - > LU- L U O 0 - U C . o.', .q o Z -. -z r - =t. 0- ,,.CAo u

rot,- coCO 0) C-4 NY N C- CD N CD 0) o 0 CD 0) 0) a) 0) 0) 0)0) 0) 00 0 C'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 a . C- a 0. 0. 0.0. 0.. 0. o- a.0a. 0.

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48187 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48188 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

MO

0 ="D (U . U E z 1-.- Z CL) nz Z to cc z z z z z1 -t Zd o :xT z M : -. z~z =a o ° z, o io P < - I :n : z z! OC uiz 0X: i C.8 za 4:I-4:i; - i 7(Z( ZEm LZEm : ZU)U) 0)0 -u z zi

LL U.. -t

ca 0. O: : :0: Q) :0 : : : : CL " . 0 : : : 0 E 0 c • (/) (U 0Z0Z013"2 o4:4:2OZ : :o .4 0 ,4 4:.04: E EZ .oo (oz z -t

r Z .. * i . 0. -o 0 .-.. 0 0 Oz 0 0 cco__(a 0 0 ZuZo cr 3Z -Q 01 cr o 0 o 0 DZ <4 066, XKR. 0 .- oZ -t t

C' ' (D IT 01 'T NCD L)LI Cl) P' U) (D r- ) - 1~

U). E 0) 0. O : E 2 :> c ) 00 CL 04 :0 0E ca 0 no a)o E -0e C c. :0)0z - • .2 (U :-c c:O -- :(co 2x EE' 0 cE o E 0 .C. CD)0 .C.C a.-. .2 ><>>OON O ooo - ca c ( > > t-I-- -WI-- I- ><> 0 0 F44<

0 0

2~ .2) CD

.: . ~ ~ 04 ( (D: )g~C :U U( : : 0 : :

.0 E :2 Z - (D 0(U CL 4) M M 0 E E E 2o > 0.C (D C: =c ==oE 0 .C.C~ C 0 U 2CDUr a) . M 0 0 ' ,(D -C-a' co(U cc 0 E0 CC 0-0-0 (D (a =U) :2 '@a~~~.2 a 8 2 cc .5 6- -4 ! U) I-ii - <:> N N F-4< < < < & <

0)9 0, rPN -- 0) 04M CI C)- C' c) ItLOCO N- Sc2 V 00000-2O 0 0 0.0000 0 0. ( a. a. 0.. a. a. M = )

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48188 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48189

0)M 4)0 0)0)

0. --- -. z Z z Z z zz Z 1zz 12Z ggg -z z 0

Z Z ::::::: N z

Un C.) 5 . NU -- .< <

• - r

S...... z uz z czlaz zz z 0 oz . .c .. z 0 6 E Ey 06i0

R 0 cc - :00CCC)P~~~craF. 0 m ZT LJXz 0UzFO 0 mz xmMzm zx z 0 zxzU .r I .cC-R0c>

in CY 0):.

U:0) o6 -- :'

-0-

0) (D 0 0D 0 0 f "0 :E -S? _ 4)Mc w.)a 0 ._ 0 ~ 0'5 "c m. 0

E N) _) 0) 4) 02.0- 0~ a) U.nM A )0 c o=c:33

0 :00:

20 •0'-0-- 0) 00 o < < << < m Mammm m mm Mo (mmmDoo

0 D CD cli co LO CO If=(00o-C'Jc 0-0) (0 -(0) CI -? I 00 0 00 0 C~j CYJ (N 04JCJ C~j N c) n ) 00 0 0 9000000 0 000 0 D 00D

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48189 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48190 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 1 Proposed Rules

a, Co 0)0) .0 C 0) ~ C *0) )C = .0) 1-- Z-Z -.E" 0. c ECU CU z z z z Z (38 zz I0M0t CUs z C; Uz OD- -- C14V) 0 L CI) LA- O C.C 0 4)

0) (D ) 0u0: aTa E EEEE2 c2 EEE EE CfU < 0 O0< 000< 00< Z 0 U ()Z 00z 0000000~O000z

0.L :-a 0 0 '- 0 os.0 o0sy . 0 S CoZ. I . .. ia~. E ... iz- 0 6: 0 Ei oz.:Q2Q :.Dz : : z . : .::: : :: : ::. : : X X _ xi 2 QiZxc 2

C;OOiO 6OO 6O 6 C4 C0 Q OOOOOOOOO0 ::,W66- Qu- z -1.-C

0)) CO) 1 to ° •

LO-o.- o 0))') -C

.> . 0

0, .0 2 0...... CU E C C 0 :0.) :: : 00 : 2 C 0 2 0)° .. b...).0 0 Z5: 4) (D:: ) . 0 CL w -=cw• ",e• 00 "0 0000 WZ 0 4) q 4)0 :3jC.. .ZCX >0003 999 0) - 2 ) § N m I 0Ma~. x 6 ( 0

E C 0m 0 0)

. *0 00 E E

(D 0 0 OO 200 .>_"00 ZU >. 0 0 999 N- N 'r

CorSaW). ml4lrow r, M 0 G LO LO 00000 0000 000> 00C 0 D0D 0

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48190 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48191,

fffff I IH

ZZZ Z !: . 0z: :: i : i0 ii Xz, z Z . .. . . cnc Z tCO ttt Q :t : :: :1 2 2: : :: : : :: 'T{) D biDZb 1 o " - . a CDDCCZ. CD . U)

:3:D oo co .~~~~U qq . o o U)0 z De c'j

(::0OOo0 0 0 0 00000000000000

.. " ...... " ...... : . .." I " az 080~88 88o'z 8 ae8 8 ( 8 ~88 00 8 8 8 8

. 0z

~cc 21L~ ~ o 0Z D O );

......

CY 'o o oo o o ooo 0

::i XX::D2: : - . N~~ A 0) 0)N < ' _ - XX02 9 -OM 0'0 o- 0TC- (

0_

00000000 : c 60 C, _0 . . :0. . : - . . C: .

-- 99990. . , .9 =a. =__ -9.29

-a C) 0 0, - 0 0I. . dX T

c i......

- , .. .. ,- 0 , , .- _h - ,. ,-Z0

l0 D ,.CD 0 " . La 8 0000000 CN§2 C - C 00 0o 0> :)D:D :3 D, *:

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48191 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48192 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

CE

z z zz 0i jZ x x x 00. o 00. 00o . 00.

(0 0 z'0 F_ ,zo- a:a cu-C0 LWL o04 oNi U. U. LL -tcyLL E E e -

8o 8 0 HA z z Z z

0 cc0 0000:9..

- N

'-0)

CD U)

0 C: 2 7

2

1- E E:

0. N6 Z -6

9 000 9

CC c .2 xli 4il OnCL U)

0ci:c a • °0 cc a di5

age 8 i,-*- C9 DMD

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48192 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48193

ooooooo o ooooo)

zzz z z z z z 0 z Zzz z 0 :. .. .0 0 0 C. 0 i i i

ZZ Z Z°°°Z Zooo :3 C: C3 (0 O Dt o D

oU " z z 6 T z 0CC'00800c

E

0 ; 0

6CO~~XC~z. :XCOZixxca;. :XXCOZ :X>(COZ : : . Z . OZ -;OXXCZXZ 000000 !!! 1ma 0 EDxmz 0 z: xO0iZ30d z Uj m Z :ROaj :U:0m 00a q q6 :5z 000 o 0 m ~ 0 m -~ U( z )qm q iwo

C0<9 - 0 (DC003(oc CI z a0 LO

0 6 0 0

* . __ ~ E : .. .. * : : : : CN N A 6yI? 0.. . .:_

CO~~~ 0) COC OV .- 0t

cr E C: ',

0" 0 0 0:. : : : -- c cx

0 ED

0) 0 8

00 05010 2 K 0 - 3T xc= C9 COZE MC M0 4) CD00 6 C LX c s E 0 0 3 4) (D.2Z

._ m ® IV - c 8 tw W UJUJ I.-L U-. I-L

0

-"l'JC ) co I5-COO) 0 5( ICM) M c.. JC550D

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48193 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48194 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 I Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

CL ))00 0.

I.- 0z -J Z Z Z Z I-

o : 0 : : ':" . Z .

M. : ..... z .Z. Mx Q -Z H.: :,: c z z z LO 1 _l :8wwQ 3: z z o o,_, C0 04 CY . z<< ooo,. z z z o e • .

z OZ 88 Z .9.. z z z 1- 42 cc- a ! . a-,6 9 - : : :: 0~ -- ccO6 ou~o. oo~ 0

.... : . .. , r I

do a.": : " : : : : :O

M _) 2 i 2 2 xa 49 0 ...... :xci C &

z 6. o .

: ' " (i : : : ' .

. - U._ (UCO C C'~

) : : :: .. ) U _

(Us) *, . .- :C o 0.. .oa U0 00 - 0

14 I 0 00- %

(0 N co

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48194 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48195

0, ) ) MO) 0) 0 0) 0)

z z Z z z .. z Z z Z-1 to :0 cc:

0 0 ::: : 0: w :

C - a: g :. oa...0 . 8

0< 2< .- 0E EE000E z z oz 8 z z oz z oooz c3z c

cc Z : : : : : :z:(m z ::M CO z z z Z

D : :00:D: . 0:

ww

:E : EE E : E , E E EEEE E, E-- cc < -0I z c) co 000 z vi0- LL z.- C" CO> Od( .0 Z ~ cm~~J W.z (0

0 Z-- : 0-

0 0 0 0 - 0 -T _ n ZCU4 0f ,o N~ 00 X X M X.oit X- C) ° N (7 L

*0o~ ~o>.o0~ 6 00. 0~ .. 2 E 3: •) -: 4 C41L (D. )Za E22 - o, Z o .~ -~a

r- - 0 jF:= .

r ® .2. --- g e : - .. E - _ o_ .- _ o-

IT LO CO r- c CF -5ci 5 ' t2 U1 G(00 ... 5555 D :3 D D :)

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48195 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48196 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

0 • . . - - . co

CO) S< o< 12z Z Z z -Z z Z 0

.Z

cqo U) U)0 C ) co) Cl) C\I U. 'w U.

E I 0 0 04 ooo)Qz 00z0 Z -t

-I-'

Uo,. .4.

.0)0).- (0r.- 0)

w .

0 E * . E 0 oo :.2 0 0 " - 0- S0

S 0 L "-- Eo 2S6 Ck 6 L6a. 0.-z

.:.: : : - W . a E

0

0 M0o: - M) :) 0 a

is w- NXO) 0 F.-90) co D 0)0) ) - -- r - v-

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48196 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 Tuesday, September 14, 1993 Proposed Rules 48197

IV

E EE EE

-- ,--I z z< zz< zz

Z4: Z ii4: : :mz 4 4:4< 4:4 4:4 4:4z z

z _j z __ _j :zz ca~JUUL z o c; Zo c< z cr a:

LL ~ ~ ~ DL ~ aaOinL czca-N a: zcc L azI4L

0 0 C. 0 .0 " 0)C--". ...' 0 -- E < < 00000E EE: E~ E E E Z E z z z z (DC)(DZ 00000Z

. .:cc.u :: az ~ z

~Z~Z<

0 o:--j .- o o.. Z . .. z

LU~~~C - 0 L C' 3:0 45l~- LO )0-U 1 n I-CD I-I <) I-C zL Z (UC00- 0C' .. .. .

0 c ° . , : -

0-r 4 YC - n r

Lf LO : : : : : : Sc.0 ...... e"eo e 0"- c . '' E E EE EE Eo 4 9...EL E E E),.cE E E E EoZ ) )

cac(D00

ca 0 00

cc r U) ) (0 U -----

0 0 .2-2~ (D 0 c 0 cc : 0)0= . (a VV v C : 0 E 0c

&~~. 00 ' o .2 ~ o

CY CM4 1 YC- C C :3 ) ) 000DD-3 -)

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48197 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48198 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

V)

E E E°E CD E- z" zgz aCO z z z z z < o> z SZ .... xZ Z z 60' 0 2 oo K :6i z z z 0 ca~ 6002 0 u.o --O ) DU) WU-- z z CO Z 0 C oz

U') Ma c.

C E cis 4)EEEE"M 0 8 CO

- •• 0= 0 -I 0 . .~ x8°". " .:- . 3-oz Occr O-0or- 0 cc--r 0,0 0 x_ 0 cc x LZ rq: . cc _0 Z 0 Q8 LU mZo C 0 co ,,0;; .- _, F 0o. _,'<0 , Z0 o ~ ~ ~ 0 F :o0r L Eg M < J

z ) .. .r- Zo j:

;z N c :.~ cJ

(D a~C< Q l 0)V) CY -- NP) (0 UO)LO NC

CL E 0. C)

:0o:

0 E" .r 0. E : 0 0 2 - E .0c 0 ._2.2_CL C. 60 0 : ' ' ED9 -5" q

cu 0 ~ m 0: : :C: 0* :0:

0 0 :00

8-V .22 0 z E0 0. 00

0 0E.e E i5 2 Z :2 '~~~ -- -->0-o '' 0 -"x '.r ,r - 0.. . .r >WU 0CC

CO) U) (0 N O r- G 0) 00C 4 CD N O 0) Go N1 N\ N NC Nl N1 N NN 04 0 N N 04 N C% N NNC =) D

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48198 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline. Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48199

z z

73U) E m

0 _Q z Z Z

z z

ZC C z z 0 0 MZqSo:zaz 0 ,rZO_o 5zz 0 zY

* .C. (1 CC

S 0x 04 _0 N

1 NR

4)

,.

00

"0 CM

Cu

0 -U is 00 LON

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48199 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48200 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48200 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules § 268.41 .[Reserved] §268.43 [Reserved) 25. In subpart D, § 268.48 is added to 21. Section 268.41 in subpart D is 23. Section 268.43 in Subpart D is read as follows: removed and reserved. removed and reserved. 22. Section 268.42 is amended by 24. In subpart D, § 268.47 is added to §268.48 Universal treatment standards. removing Table 2 and Table 3, and read as follows: (a) Table UTS identifies the hazardous revising paragraphs (a) introductory § 268.47 Treatment standards for constituents associated with restricted text, (c)(2) and (d) to read as follows: hazardous soil. hazardous wastes regulated under this § 268.42 Treatment standards expressed (a) Treatment standards for the part. It also establishes the as specified technologies. organic and inorganic constituents concentrations of those constituents that may not be exceeded in the waste or (a) The following wastes in listed in § 268.48, Table UTS, Universal treatment residual, or in an extract of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this Treatment Standards, an:ppplicable to such waste or residual, if so specified in section and in the Table of Treatment RCRA hazardous soil befo4he soil is Table UTS. Standards for which standards are land disposed. expressed as a treatment method rather (b) Hazardous soil may be land (1) Compliance with these treatment than a concentration must be treated disposed if the concentration of each standards is measured by an analysis of using the technology or technologies constituent found on Table UTS in the grab samples, unless otherwise noted in specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) soil is equal to or less than: the following Table UTS. (1) A 90% reduction of the initial and Table I of this section. (2) The constituent-specific treatment untreated concentration, provided that the resulting treated concentration is standards in Table UTS supersede the (c) * * * less than or equal to ten times the treatment standards found at §§ 268.41 (2) The lab pack does not contain the universal treatment standard; or and 268.43, when such constituents are following wastes: DOO9, F019, K003, (2) The concentration is less than or regulated in wastes listed as hazardous K004, K005, K006, K062, K071, K100, equal to ten times the universal under 40 CFR part 261, subpart D, of K106, PO10, P011, P012,P076, P078, treatment standard; or this chapter. U134, U151. (3) A 90% reduction of the initial (3) The requirements of paragraph untreated concentration unless such (a)(2) of this section do not apply to the (d) Hazardous debris containing would result in a treatment level below hazardous waste specified in §§ 268.41 radioactive waste is subject to the the universal treatment standard for that and 268.43 as F024. This waste is treatment standards specified in constituent, in which case the universal subject to the treatment standards in § 268.45. treatment standard would apply. §§ 268.41 and 268.43.

§ 268.48 TABLE UTS-UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS

WastewaterWasteatercon- con.- concentrationNonwastewater total Regulated hazardous constituent centration total com- composition tmta positionompositionpositon(rg/I)kg) (g/

Acenaphthalene ...... 0.059 3.4 Acenaphthene ...... 0.059 3.4 Acetone ...... 0.28 160 Acetonitrile...... 0.17 NR Acetophenone ...... 0.010 9.7 2-Acetylaminofluorene ...... 0.059 140 Acrolein ...... 0.29 NR Acrylonitrile ...... 0.24 84 Aldrin ...... 0.021 0.0664 4-Am inobiphenyl ...... 0.13 NR Aniline ...... 0.81 14 Anthracene ...... 0.059 3.4 Aram ite...... 0.36 NR Aroclor 1016 ...... 0.013 0.92 Aroclor 1221 ...... 0.014 0.92 Aroclor 1232 ...... 0.013 0.92 Aroclor 1242 ...... 0.017 0.92 Aroclor 1248 ...... 0.013 0.92 Aroclor 1254 ...... 0.014 1.8 Aroclor 1260 ...... 0.014. 1.8 alpha-BHC ...... 0.00014 0.066 beta-BHC ...... 0.00014 0.066 delta-BHC ...... 0.023 0.066 gamma-BHC ...... 0.0017 0.066 Benz(a)anthracene ...... 0.059 3.4 Benzal chloride ...... 0.055 6.0 Benzene ...... 0.14 10 Benzo(a)pyrene ...... 0.061 3.4 Benzo-(b)fluoranthene ...... 0.11 6.8 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ...... 0.0055 1.8 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ...... 0.11 6.8 Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane ...... 0.036 7.2 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether ...... 0.033 6.0

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48200 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline. Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48201

§ 268.48 TABLE UTS-UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS-Continued con- Nonwastewater Regulated hazardous constituent centrationWastewater total corn-coenrtntta composition (mg/ posiionpositon(g/I)kg)mgn)

Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether ...... 0.055 7.2 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ...... 0.28 28 Bromoedichloromethane ...... 0.35 15 Bromomethane ...... 0 .11 15 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ...... 0.055 - 15 n-Butyl alcohol ...... 5.6 2.6 Butyl benzyl phthalate ...... 0.017 28 2-sec-Butyl-4,6- dinitrophenol ...... 0.066 2.5 Carbon disulfide ...... 0.014 4.81 Carbon tetrachloride ...... 0.057 6.0 Chlordane ...... 0.0033 0.26 p-Chloroaniline ...... 0.46 16 Chlorobenzene ...... 0.057 6.0 Chlorobenzilate ...... 0.10 NR 2-Chloro-1,3-butAadiene ...... 0.057 NR Chlorodibromomethane ...... 0.057 15 Chloroethane ...... 0.27 6.0 Chloroform ...... 0.046 6.0 p-Chloro-m-cresol ...... 0.018 14 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether ...... 0.062 NR Chloromethane (Methyl chloride) ...... 0.19 30 2-Chloronaphthalene ...... 0.055 5.6 2-Chlorophenol ...... 0.044 5.7 3-Chloropropylene ...... 0.036 30 Chrysene ...... 0.059 3.4 Cresol (m- and p-isomers) ...... 0.77 3.2 o-Cresol ...... 0.11 5.6 Cyclohexanone ...... 0.36 0.75 o,p'-DDD ...... 0.023 0.087 p,p'-DDD ...... 0.023 0.087 o,p DDE .-...... 0.031 0.087 p,p'-DDE ...... 0.03 1 0.087 o,p'-DDT ...... 0.0039 0.087 p,p'-DDT ...... 0.0039 0.087 Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene ...... 0.061 NR Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ...... 0.055 8.2 tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl) phosphate ...... 0.11 NR 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ...... 0.11 15 1,2-Dibromoethane ...... 0.028 15 Dibromomethane ...... 0.11 15 m Dichlorobenzene ...... 0.036 6.0 o-Dichlorobenzene ...... 0.088 6.0 p-Dichlorobenzene ...... 0.090 6.0 Dichlorodifluoromethane ...... 0.23 7.2 1,1-Dichloroethane ...... 0.059 6.0 1,2-Dichloroethane ...... 0.21 6.0 1.1-Dichloroethylene ...... 0.025 6.0 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene ...... 0.054 30 .2,4-Dichlorophenol ...... 0.044 14 2,6-Dichlorophenol ...... 0.044 14 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) ...... 0.72 10 1,2-Dichloropropane ...... 0.85 18 cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene ...... 0.036 18 trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene ...... 0.036 18 Dieldrin ...... 0.017 0.13 Diethyl phthalate ...... 0.20 28 p-Dimethylaminoazo-benzene ...... 0.13 NR 2,4-Dime thylphenol ...... 0.036 14 Dimethyl phthalatel ...... 0.047 28 Di-n-butyl phthalate ...... 0.05 7 28 1,4-Dinitrobenzene ...... 0.32 2.3 4,6-Diitrocresol ...... 0.28 160 2,4-Dinitrophenol ...... 0.12 160 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ...... 0.32 140 2,6-Dinitrotoluene ...... 0.55 28 Di-n-octyl phthalate ...... 0.017 28 Di-n-propylnitrosamine ...... 0.40 14 Diphenylam ine ...... 0.92 13 1,2-Diphenyl hydrazine ...... 0.087 NR

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48201 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48202 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

§ 268.48 TABLE UTS-UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS-Continued

Wastewater con- Nonwastewater Regulated hazardous constituent centration total corn- concentration total position (mg/I) composition (mg/

Diphenylnitrosoam ine ...... 0.92 13 1,4-Dioxane ...... 0.12 170 Disulfoton ...... 0.017 6.2 Endosulfan I ...... 0.023 0.066 Endosuffan II ...... 0.029 0.13 Endosulfan sulfate ...... 0.029 0.13 Endrin ...... 0.0028 0.13 Endrin aldehyde ...... 0.025 0.13 Ethyl acetate ...... 0.34 33 Ethyl benzene ...... 0.057 10 Ethyl ether ...... 0.12 160 Ethyl methacrylate ...... 0.14 160 Ethylene oxide ...... 0.12 NR Fam rphur...... 0.017 15 Fluoranthene ...... 0.068 3.4 Fluorene ...... 0.059 3.4 Heptachlor ...... 0.0012 0.066 Heptachlor epoxide ...... 0.016 0.066 Hexachlorobenzene ...... : ...... 0.055 10 Hexachlorobutadiene ...... 0.055 5.6 Hexachlorodibenzoturans ...... 0.000063 0.001 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ...... 0.000063 0.001 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ...... 0.057 2.4 Hexachloroethane ...... 0.055 30 Hexachloropropylene ...... 0.035 30 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ...... 0.0055 3.4 lodomethane ...... 0.19 65 Isobutyl alcohol ...... 5.6 170 Isodrin ...... 0.021 0.066 Isosafrole ...... ;...... 0.081 2.6 Kepo ne ...... 0.0011 0.13 Methacrylonitrile ...... 0.24 84 Methanol ...... 5.6 0.75 Methapyrilene ...... 0.081 1.5 Methoxychlor ...... 0.25 0.18 3-Methylchloanthrene ...... 0.0055 15 4,4-Methylene-bis-(2-chloraniline) ...... 0.50 30 Methylene chloride ...... 0.089 30 Methyl ethyl ketone ...... 0.28 36 Methyl isobutyl ketone ...... 0.14 33 Methyl methacrylate ...... 0.14 160 Methyl methansulfonate ...... 0.018 NR Methyl parathion ...... 0.014 4.6 Naphthalene ...... 0.059 5.6 2-Naphthylamine ...... 0.52 NR p-Nitroaniline ...... 0.0 28 o-Nitroaniline ...... NR 14 Nitrobenzene ...... 0.068 14 5-Nitro-o-toluidine ...... 0.32 28 o-Nitrophenol ...... NR 13 p-Nitrophenol ...... 0.12 29 N-Nitrosodiethylamine ...... 0.40 28 N-Nitrosodimethylam ine ...... 0.40 2.3 N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine ...... 0.40 17 N-Nitrosomethylethylamine ...... 0.40 2.3 N-Nitrosomorpholine ...... 0.40 2.3 N-Nitrosopipeddine ...... 0.013 35 N-Nitrosopyrrolidine ...... 0.013 35 Parathion ...... 0.014 4.6 Pentachlorobenzene ...... 0.055 10 Pentachlorodibenzofurans ...... 0.000035 0.001 Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins...... 0.000063 0.001 Pentachloroethane ...... I...... NR 6 Pentachloronitrobenzene ...... 0.055 4.8 Pentachlorophenol ...... :...... 0.089 7.4 Phenacetin ...... 0.081 16 Phenanthrene ...... I...... 0.059 5.6 Phenol ...... 0.039 6.2 Phorate ...... 0.021 4.6

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48202 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48203

§268.48 TABLE UTS-UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS-Continued

Wastewater on- Nonwastewater Regulated hazardous constituent centration total concentration total position (mg/) kmpositin(mg/

Phthalic acid ...... 0.055* 28 Phthalic anhydride ...... 0.055 28 Pronamide ...... 0.093 1.5 Propanenitrile ...... 0.24 360 Pyre ne ...... 0.067 8.2 Pyridine...... 0.014 16 Safrole ...... 0.081 22 Silvex (2,4,5-TP) ...... 0.72 7.9 2,4,5,-T ...... 0.72 7.9 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene ...... 0.055 14 Tetrachlorodibenzofurans ...... 0.000063 0.001 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dibxins ...... 0.000063 0.001 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ...... 0.057 6.0 1.1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ...... 0.057 6.0 Tetrachloroethylene ...... 0.056 6.0 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ...... 0.030 7.4 Toluene ...... 0.080 10 Toxaphene ...... 0.0095 2.6 Tribrom om ethane (Brom oform ) ...... 0.63 15 1.2,4-Trichlorobenzene ...... 0.055 19 1,1,1 -T rchloroethane ...... 0,054 6.0 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ...... 0.054 6.0 Trichloroethylene ...... 0.054 6.0 Trichlorom onofluorom ethane ...... 0.020 30 2,4,5-Trchlorophenol ...... 0.18 7.4 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ...... 0.035 7.4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid ...... 0.72 7.9 1,2,3-Tchloropropane ...... 0.85 30 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trfluoroethane ...... 0.057 30 Vinyl chloride ...... 0.27 6.0 Xylenes (total) ...... 0.32 30 Total PCBs ...... 0.1 10

Wastewater con- Nonwastewater Regulated hazardous constituent centration total concentration composition (mgI) TCLP (mg/I)

Antim ony ...... 1.9 2.1 Arsenic ...... 1.4 5.0 Barium ...... 1.2 7.6 Beryllium ...... 0.82 0.014 Cadm ium ...... 0.20 0.19 Chrom ium (total) ...... 0.37 0.33 Cyanide (total) ...... 1.9 1590 Cyanide (amenable) ...... I...... NR 130 Lead ...... 0.28 0.37 Mercury ...... 0.15 0.009 Nickel ...... 0.55 5.0 Selenium ...... 0.82 0.16 Silver ...... 029 0.30 Thallium ...... 1.4 0.078 Vanadium ...... ;0...... ! ...... 0.042 0.23 Zinc ...... 1.0 5.3 As analyzed using SW-846 Method 9010 or 9012; sample size 10 gram; distillation time one hour and fifteen minutes.

PART 271-REQUIREMENTS FOR Subpart A--Requirements for Final 2 in chronological order by effective AUTHORIZATION OF STATE Authorization date in the Federal Register: HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS 27. Section 271.1(j) is amended by §271.1 Purpose and scope. 26. The authority citation for part 271 adding the following entries toTable I * * *. * * continues to read as follows: in chronological order by date of (j), .• Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), and Sublication in the Federal Register. and 6926. y adding the following entries to Table

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48203 1993 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

48204 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1 .- REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Promulgation date Title of regulation FEDERAL REGISTER Effective date reference

[Insert date of publica- Land disposal restrictions for newy listed and identified wastes in [insert FR page num- [Insert date of signa- tion in the Federal §268.38 and hazardous soil in §268.47, and universal treatment bers]. ture of final rule]. Register (FR)]. standards in §268.48.

TABLE 2.--SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOUD WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

FEDERAL. REGISTER Effective date Self-implementing provision RCRA citation F reference

[Insert date of signa- Prohibition on land disposal of newly listed wastes and treatment 3004(g)(6)(A) and [Insert date of publica- ture of final rule]. standards for hazardous soil in §268.47 and universal standards in 3004(m). tion] 58 FR [insert §268.48. page numbers].

* a*

[FR Doc. 93-21703 Filed 9-13-93: 8:45 am] BLNM OOOE 0 60-4

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48204 1993