37932 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. These

proposed findings are not subject to E.O.

13045 because they do not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s proposed

findings do not significantly or uniquely

affect the communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rulemaking.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. These

proposed findings will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities for the reasons

set forth in section VI.B. above.

Therefore, because these proposed

findings do not create any new

requirements, I certify that they will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the

proposed findings do not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector for the reasons set forth in

section IV.B. above. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from these actions.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic

compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: June 7, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–15391 Filed 6–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268

[FRL–6718–8]

RIN 2050–AE53

Land Disposal Restrictions: Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is giving advance notice

of issues and potential directions we are

considering for improving the Land

Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program for

treating hazardous waste under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). These issues and directions

arise from a number of internal and

external sources, including the

participants at two LDR roundtable

meetings. We are requesting comments

on all of these issues, directions, and

options. In some cases we are requesting

additional data that will allow us to

better evaluate possible changes to the

LDR regulations.

DATES: To make sure we consider your

comments we must receive them by

September 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on

this advanced notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM), you must send an

original and two copies of the comments

referencing Docket Number F–2000–

LRRP–FFFFF to: RCRA Docket

Information Center, Office of Solid

Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA

HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20460, or (2) if using

special delivery, such as overnight

express service. Hand deliveries of

comments should be made to the

Arlington, VA address listed below. You

may also submit comments

electronically by sending electronic

mail through the Internet to: rcradocket@epamail.epa.gov. You should

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37933

identify comments in electronic format

with the docket number F–2000–LRRP–

FFFFF. You must submit all electronic

comments as an ASCII (text) file,

avoiding the use of special characters or

any type of encryption. If you do not

submit comments electronically, EPA is

asking prospective commenters to

voluntarily submit one additional copy

of their comments on labeled personal

computer diskettes in ASCII (text)

format or a word processing format that

can be converted to ASCII (text). It is

essential to specify on the disk label the

word processing software and version/

edition as well as the commenter’s

name. This will allow EPA to convert

the comments into one of the word

processing formats utilized by the

Agency. Please use mailing envelopes

designed to physically protect the

submitted diskettes. EPA emphasizes

that submission of diskettes is not

mandatory, nor will it result in any

advantage or disadvantage to any

commenter.

You should not submit electronically

any confidential business information

(CBI). You must submit an original and

two copies of CBI under separate cover

to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer,

Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Headquarters (EPA HQ), Ariel Rios

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20460.

You may view public comments and

supporting materials in the RCRA

Information Center (RIC), located at

Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

The RIC is open from 9 am to 4 pm

Monday through Friday, excluding

federal holidays. To review docket

materials, we recommend that you make

an appointment by calling 703–603–

9230. You may copy up to 100 pages

from any regulatory document at no

charge. Additional copies cost $ 0.15

per page. (For info on accessing paper

and/or electronic copies of the

document, see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, call the RCRA

Hotline at 1–800–424–9346 or TDD 1–

800–553–7672 (hearing impaired).

Callers within the Washington

Metropolitan Area must dial 703–412–

9810 or TDD 703–412–3323 (hearing

impaired). The RCRA Hotline is open

Monday–Friday, 9 am to 6 pm, Eastern

Standard Time. For more information

on specific aspects of this ANPRM,

contact Josh Lewis at 703–308–7877,

lewis.josh@epa.gov, or write him at the

Office of Solid Waste (5302W), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Headquarters (EPA HQ), Ariel Rios

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

N.W., Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The index

and selected supporting materials are

available on the Internet. Follow these

instructions to access the information

electronically: WWW:http://

www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/

hazwaste.htm#ldr

The official record for this action will

be kept in the paper form. Accordingly,

EPA will transfer all comments received

electronically into paper form and place

them in the official record which will

also include all comments submitted

directly in writing. The official record is

the paper record maintained at the RIC

listed in the ADDRESSES section at the

beginning of this document.

Formal comment responses are not

typically required following an ANPRM.

However, EPA is considering the

preparation of a comment response

document. In the event that EPA

prepares such a document, EPA’s

responses will be placed in the official

record. EPA will not immediately reply

to commenters other than to perhaps

seek clarification of electronic

comments that may be garbled in

transmission or during conversion to

paper form, as discussed above.

Glossary of Acronyms

AEA—Atomic Energy Act

ALARA—As Low As Reasonably

Achievable

BDAT—Best Demonstrated Available

Technology

BRS—Biennial Reporting System

CWA—Clean Water Act

DET—Determination of Equivalent

Treatment

DOE—Department of Energy

ETC—Environmental Technology

Council

HDPE—High Density Polyethylene

HWIR—Hazardous Waste Identification

Rule

HSWA—Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments

HTMR—High Temperature Metals

Recovery

LDR—Land Disposal Restrictions

LDRite—LDR Innovative Technology

Evaluation

MSWL—Municipal Solid Waste

Leachate

NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System

NRC—Nuclear Regulatory Commission

PBT—Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and

Toxic

RCRA—Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act

RTHRM—Thermal Recovery (LDR

Specified Treatment Method)

STABL—Stabilization (LDR Specified

Treatment Method)

TC—Toxicity Characteristic

TCLP—Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure

TOC—Total Organic Carbon

UHC—Underlying Hazardous

Constituent

UTS—Universal Treatment Standard

WMNP—Waste Minimization National

Plan

Table of Contents

I. General Information

A. What is the LDR Program?

B. What is the purpose of this LDR

ANPRM?

C. What has led up to this ANPRM?

D. What issues does this ANPRM discuss?

E. Who will these issues affect?

F. How will this ANPRM impact small

businesses and state programs?

G. Will any potential changes arising from

this ANPRM be more stringent than

current requirements?

H. When will any potential changes to the

current LDR regulations take effect?

I. How do the issues presented in this

ANPRM relate to other recent EPA

notices?

II. Customer Service

A. How can you influence EPA’s thinking

on this ANPRM?

III. How Can the LDR Program Further

Encourage Source Reduction and

Recycling?

A. What does this section of the ANPRM

discuss?

B. Why do we want to further encourage

source reduction and recycling?

C. What are our ideas?

D. What incentives would there be to

choose source reduce and recycle?

E. What potential new requirements would

you have to satisfy?

F. How could these suggested action affect

current regulations?

G. Could there be non-regulatory changes?

H. Request for comment

IV. How Can the LDR Program Encourage the

Use of Innovative Waste Treatment

Technologies?

A. What is the LDR Innovative Technology

Evaluation (LDRite) Program?

1. Why develop LDRite at this time?

2. What are LDRite’s goals?

3. What is an innovative technology for

purposes of the LDRite program?

B. Who could be affected by LDRite?

C. What should you expect from LDRite?

D. What shouldn’t you expect from LDRite?

E. How will EPA ensure that innovative

technologies are environmentally

protective?

F. Will EPA fund innovative technology

development under LDRite?

G. Request for comment

V. Issues Regarding the Effectiveness of

Various Stabilization Practices Used to

Immobilize Metal Wastes

A. Background on LDR treatment standard

program

1. How have treatment standards been

established?

2. What improvements have been made to

the LDR program?

B. Background on treatment standards for

metal-bearing hazardous waste

37934 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1On January 13–14, 1993 EPA convened a

roundtable to discuss potential improvements to the

LDR program. The discussion topics included

monitoring, administrative requirements/

regulations, and treatment standards. Based on the

discussions at the roundtable and our follow-up

study of the issues from the roundtable, we made

a number of changes to the LDR program. One of

the changes involved the establishment of a single

universal treatment standard (UTS) for most LDRregulated constituents in wastewaters and

nonwastewaters. The UTS eliminated situations in

which a common constituent found in multiple

wastes carried different numerical treatment

standards (see 59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994).

1. What are the metal-bearing wastes we

regulate in the LDR program?

2. How were treatment standards for metals

established?

3. Relevant treatment-related definitions

C. Our questions about the metal treatment

standards

D. Current treatment processes used for the

immobilization of metal waste

1. Categories of treatment processes used to

meet the standards for metal wastes

2. Immobilization

3. Details on stabilization

4. Determining what type of stabilization is

appropriate

E. Specific metal treatment issues of

interest

1. Stabilization reagents—why are they a

metal treatment issue?

2. What is the importance of waste-toreagent and water-to-reagent ratios

during metal treatment?

3. How well is long-term immobilization

being achieved?

F. Potential changes based on these

concerns

1. Restricted disposal

2. Specified treatment technologies

3. pH controls

4. Demonstration of waste stability over a

pH range

G. Request for comment

VI. Re-examination of the Spent Solvent

(F001-F005) Treatment Standards

A. What is EPA considering with respect

to the treatment standards for spent

solvents?

B. Why is there a need to reexamine the

spent solvent treatment standards?

C. How does EPA regulate spent solvents?

D. What are the characteristics of spent

solvents and how do generators and

treaters manage them?

E. What are the levels of metal constituents

in F001-F005?

F. How might we change the regulations?

G. Request for comment

VII. Reactive Wastes: Possible Revisions to

Treatment Standards

A. What is EPA’s general concern?

B. What are reactive wastes?

C. What are the existing LDR treatment

standards for reactive wastes?

D. Are there specific reactive subcategories

that merit attention?

E. Request for comment

VIII. Public Input into Decisions on

Determinations of Equivalent Treatment

(DETs)

A. What are DETs and what is the current

system of considering DET petitions?

B. Is a regulatory change needed?

C. Request for comment

IX. Should EPA Revise the

Macroencapsulation Alternative

Treatment Standard for Hazardous

Debris?

A. What are the alternative treatment

standards for hazardous debris?

B. What is an HDPE vault?

C. What is the issue with the HDPE vaults?

D. Request for comment

X. Should EPA Establish a Special Category

for Incineration Ash?

A. What are we considering for

incineration ash?

B. What are the approaches we are

considering for regulating incineration

ash?

C. How should the dioxin waste codes be

regulated?

D. Should we regulate specific constituents

of concern in the ash?

E. Would the incineration ash waste code

be optional?

F. Are there ways to reduce the analytical

burden?

G. Request for comment

XI. Should EPA Establish Tailored Treatment

Standards for Mixed Wastes?

A. What are mixed wastes?

B. What are the issues associated with

regulating mixed wastes?

C. How has EPA responded to the issues

associated with regulating mixed waste?

D. What is EPA considering in this

ANPRM?

E. Request for comment

XII. Is EPA Addressing LDR Paperwork

Burden in this ANPRM?

XIII. What Issues Are Not Addressed in this

ANPRM?

XIV. Administrative Requirements

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

B. Executive Order 13045

I. General Information

A. What Is the LDR Program?

In 1984, Congress created EPA’s Land

Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program.

The LDR program ensures that toxic

constituents present in hazardous waste

are properly treated before the

hazardous waste is land disposed. The

LDR program has developed technologybased treatment standards that all

hazardous wastes must meet before they

can be placed in a landfill. These

standards help minimize short-term and

long-term threats to human health and

the environment.

B. What Is the Purpose of This LDR

ANPRM?

In this Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (ANPRM), EPA is giving

advance notice of issues and potential

directions we are considering for

improving the LDR program for treating

hazardous waste under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

We want to ensure that the LDR

program is minimizing threats to human

health and the environment in the most

appropriate way. By appropriate we

mean: (1) Environmentally protective;

(2) cost-effective; (3) flexible for

implementors and the regulated

community; and (4) clear and

enforceable.

C. What Has Led Up to This ANPRM?

We interviewed representatives from

EPA Headquarters, EPA Regions, States,

and LDR experts in the regulated

community and in environmental

groups. These representatives identified

problems, issues, and possible

improvements to the LDR program.

Next, we examined the

recommendations made at the 1993 LDR

roundtable 1 to identify promising

implementation ideas that have not

been addressed. Finally, we conducted

site visits with nine generators and

treatment facilities to get first-hand

knowledge of LDR implementation.

Through initial scoping activities

described above, public comments

submitted on past LDR proposed rules,

public inquiries made to the Waste

Treatment Branch, general experience

working on LDR issues, and a second

LDR roundtable held in 1998, we have

compiled the issues, options, and

directions listed and discussed below.

D. What Issues Does This ANPRM

Discuss?

This ANPRM presents several issues,

options, and directions that could

potentially lead to changes in the LDR

regulations. Below is a list of issues that

we are considering in this notice.

(1) Ways for the LDR program to

encourage the use of source reduction

and recycling.

(2) Ways for the LDR program to

encourage innovative treatment

technologies and to incorporate these

technologies into the LDR program.

(3) The long-term effectiveness of

stabilization treatment for hazardous

metal wastes. In particular, we are

looking at whether metal constituents

leach out of stabilized wastes over time

and whether alternative approaches to

evaluating the effectiveness of treatment

by immobilization technologies exist.

(4) Whether to develop treatment

standards for additional constituents of

concern (e.g., metals) in listed solvent

wastes.

(5) Whether better ways exist to

ensure the treatment standards for

reactive wastes are adequately

protective.

(6) Ways to allow public input into

EPA’s decision on requests for

Determinations of Equivalent

Treatment.

(7) The appropriate regulatory

response regarding the treatment

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37935

standards for hazardous debris and, in

particular, look at whether

macroencapsulation is the most

appropriate treatment for debris

contaminated primarily with organic

compounds.

(8) Whether to establish treatment

standards for incineration ash to reduce

paperwork burden and possibly reduce

analytical costs associated with the

carry through of multiple waste codes.

(9) Whether to establish targeted

treatment standards for radioactive

mixed waste (i.e., wastes that are both

hazardous under RCRA and radioactive)

and consider other instances when it

might be appropriate to establish

methods of treatment rather than

concentration limits to avoid

radiological risks associated with

compliance monitoring.

E. Who Will These Issues Affect?

They potentially affect all those who

are subject to the land disposal

restrictions as well as implementors of

the LDR program.

F. How Will This ANPRM Impact Small

Businesses and State Programs?

Because we are not proposing any

new regulations in this notice, this

ANPRM will not impact small

businesses. We will, however, be

mindful of the impact that any potential

changes may have, and we are

requesting comment on the potential

costs and benefits to small businesses

should revisions be made to the LDR

program as described in this ANPRM.

Suggestions on ways we might mitigate

any adverse effects would also be

welcome.

We will also be cognizant of the

impact of any proposed revisions to the

LDR program on State programs, and we

encourage comments on this subject.

G. Will Any Potential Changes Arising

From This ANPRM Be More Stringent

Than Current Requirements?

It is premature to say at this point.

Some of the possible changes may be

more stringent, such as potentially

regulating metal constituents in solvent

wastes. Other potential changes may

provide some relief to the regulated

community, such as the possible

establishment of tailored treatment

standards for mixed wastes.

H. When Will Any Potential Changes to

the Current LDR Regulations Take

Effect?

Our time frame for action in part

depends on your comments and

suggestions. We will thoroughly review

your comments and suggestions to

determine their feasibility, and any

potential changes in the regulations will

be proposed in future rulemakings.

I. How Do the Issues Presented in This

ANPRM Relate to Other Recent EPA

Notices?

This ANPRM includes some issues

that affect other recently released EPA

notices. The following is a list of these

notices, including a brief description of

each notice and how it relates to this

ANPRM:

(1) ANPRM on potential revisions to

the LDR mercury treatment standards

(64 FR 28949, May 28, 1999)—gives

advance notice of EPA’s comprehensive

reevaluation of the treatment standards

for mercury-bearing hazardous wastes as

well as various options, issues, and data

needs related to potential revisions to

the mercury treatment standards. One of

the options the mercury ANPRM

discusses is the possibility of adding a

subcategory to the LDR treatment

standards for high mercury subcategory

wastes that are also radioactive. See the

section entitled ‘‘Should EPA Establish

Tailored Treatment Standards for Mixed

Wastes?’’ in this notice for more

information.

(2) Office of Solid Waste Burden

Reduction Project Notice of Data

Availability (64 FR 32859, June 19,

1999)—solicits comment on burden

reduction options. See the section

entitled ‘‘Is EPA Doing Anything in this

Rule to Decrease Paperwork Burden?’’

in this notice for further information.

(3) Hazardous Waste Identification

Rule (HWIR) proposed rule (64 FR

63381, November 19, 1999). HWIR

contains two important areas of overlap

with the RCRA LDR program. First,

HWIR is requesting comment on

whether HWIR exemption levels should

‘‘cap’’ existing technology-based LDR

standards, where the exemption levels

would be less stringent than the current

LDR values. If a waste contains only

constituents with ‘‘capped’’ LDR values,

it would satisfy LDR requirements and

become exempt from the definition of

hazardous waste for all other purposes

once the other requirements of the

HWIR exemption were satisfied.

Second, if a listed waste is below the

HWIR exemption concentrations where

the waste is ‘‘first’’ generated (the point

where a waste first meets the listing

description) and the waste meets all the

other requirements of the HWIR

exemption, then a hazardous waste

would never really be ‘‘generated’’ and

the LDR requirements would not attach

to the waste. In contrast, once a listed

waste is generated and managed, the

LDR requirements would attach, and the

waste would need to meet LDRs before

being disposed.

II. Customer Service

A. How Can You Influence EPA’s

Thinking on This ANPRM?

In developing this ANPRM, we tried

to address the concerns and viewpoints

of a wide variety of stakeholders. Your

comments will help us improve this

ANPRM. We invite you to provide

different views on options we describe,

new approaches we have not

considered, new data on how the

options we describe may affect you, or

other relevant information. We welcome

your views on all aspects of this

ANPRM and in particular on the items

described in the ‘‘Request for comment’’

subsection found at the end of each

preamble section. Your comments will

be most effective if you follow the

suggestions below:

• Explain your views as clearly as

possible and why you feel that way.

• Provide solid technical and cost

data to support your views. If you are

going to submit technical data, make

sure that it has been quality assured/

quality controlled (QA/QC).

• If you estimate potential costs,

explain how you arrived at the estimate.

• Tell us which parts you support, as

well as those you disagree with.

• Provide specific examples to

illustrate your concerns.

• Offer specific alternatives.

• Refer your comments to specific

sections of the ANPRM, such as the

units or page numbers of the preamble,

or the regulatory sections.

• Make sure to submit your

comments by the deadline in this

notice.

• Be sure to include the name, date,

and docket number with your

comments.

III. How Can the LDR Program Further

Encourage Source Reduction and

Recycling?

A. What Does This Section of the

ANPRM Discuss?

This section asks the question: How

can the LDR program further encourage

source reduction and recycling? We

request from you, the general public, (1)

comments on the Agency’s ideas to

encourage source reduction and

recycling; and (2) other suggestions on

how this program can further encourage

source reduction and recycling while

meeting the Agency’s policy objectives

and legal standards.

B. Why Do We Want to Further

Encourage Source Reduction and

Recycling?

One objective of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act

37936 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

2See Waste Minimization National Plan, USEPA,

1994, EPA530–R–94–045.

3PBT chemicals exhibit varying degrees of three

properties: Persistent (P) chemicals do not readily

breakdown in the environment; bioaccumulative (B)

chemicals are not easily metabolized and can

accumulate in human or ecological food chains

through consumption or uptake; toxic (T) chemicals

may be hazardous to human health or the

environment in a variety of ways, depending on the

chemical and the organism that is exposed. (63 FR

60332, November 9, 1998)

4 In 1990, Congress passed the Pollution

Prevention Act (PPA), in which they set forth the

hierarchy of waste management options: Source

reduction, recycling, treatment, disposal.

5Pollution Prevention Compliance Option

developed and finalized in the LDR Phase III rules

(Proposal 60 FR 11702, March 2, 1995 and Final 61

FR 15566, April 8, 1996).

6The seven waste codes that specify recycling as

the treatment standard are D006—cadmium

containing batteries, D008—lead acid batteries,

D009—high mercury subcategory of mercurybearing wastes, K069—emission control dust/sludge

from secondary lead smelting non-calcium sulfate

high lead subcategory, P015—beryllium dust,

P087—osmium tetroxide, and P113—thallic oxide.

7The seven waste codes that include recycling as

one of the specified treatment standard options are

D001—high total organic carbon (TOC), D001—high

TOC ignitable characteristic liquids, P115—

thallium (I) sulfate, U214—thallium (I) acetate,

U215—thallium (I) carbonate, U216—thallium (I)

chloride, and U217—thallium (I) nitrate).

(RCRA)—the major hazardous waste

statute—is to minimize the generation of

hazardous waste and the land disposal

of hazardous waste by encouraging

process substitution, materials recovery,

properly conducted recycling and reuse,

and treatment (see RCRA § 1003(a)(6)).

To further this objective, the Agency has

set as goals of its Waste Minimization

National Plan 2 (WMNP) to:

(1) Reduce, as a nation, the presence

of the most persistent, bioaccumulative,

and toxic (PBT) chemicals 3 in RCRA

hazardous wastes 10 percent by the year

2000, and at least 50 percent by the year

2005 (from a 1991 baseline);

(2) Promote source reduction (and

recycling where RCRA PBT chemicals

cannot be reduced at the source) over

treatment and disposal technologies;

and

(3) Avoid the transfer of RCRA PBT

chemicals across environmental media.

Consistent with the goals of RCRA

and the WMNP, we are seeking ideas on

how the LDR program can better or

more directly encourage the reduction

or elimination of hazardous waste

generation through source reduction

and recycling. Your comments and

suggestions will help us reach our

ultimate goal of incorporating source

reduction and recycling processes as

integral parts of our LDR program.

C. What Are Our Ideas?

(1) To Encourage Source Reduction: Set

a Two-Part LDR Treatment Standard

We are considering the usefulness and

appropriateness of a two-part LDR

treatment standard for wastes when we

are revising hazardous waste treatment

standards (such as with mercury

hazardous wastes) and when we are

setting treatment standards for newly

listed hazardous wastes. The first part

would be the establishment of a

traditional standard, developed from

data based on the best demonstrated

available treatment technologies. This is

essentially the way we set treatment

standards today. The second and novel

part would be to simultaneously

develop an alternative standard that

facilities could elect to use instead of

the first, more traditional standard. This

alternative standard would involve

installing source reduction-oriented

process changes that would reduce

either the volume of waste produced or

the concentration of the hazardous

constituent in the wastes or both. We

would develop incentives to encourage

companies to comply with the

alternative standard to move up the

RCRA hierarchy.4 For example, if the

alternative standard is elected, then as

an incentive we could extend the

effective date for a revised treatment

standard beyond the traditional 90 days

to allow time to implement the new

process. We would determine the length

of such an extension as we further

develop our ideas.

This source reduction treatment

standard option is similar to a Pollution

Prevention Compliance Option 5

developed for characteristic wastewaters

injected into Class I nonhazardous

injection wells in the LDR Phase III rule.

Under this alternative, mass reductions

can be achieved by removing hazardous

constituents from any of the waste

streams that are going to be injected,

and these reductions in mass loadings

can be accomplished by means of source

reduction (i.e., equipment or technology

modifications, process or procedure

modifications, reformulation or redesign

of products, substitution of raw

materials, and improvements in

housekeeping, maintenance, training, or

inventory control), recycling, or

conventional treatment. This regulation

along with others promulgated in the

Phase III rule were superseded when the

Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act

of 1996 was signed. This statutory

provision allows the land disposal of

formerly characteristic wastewaters so

long as they are not hazardous at the

point they are land disposed.

(2) To Encourage Source Reduction for

Wastes With Existing Treatment

Standards: Establish a New Basis for

Granting Treatment Variances

We are considering adding a new

basis for granting treatment variances.

This new basis would allow facilities to

petition for an alternative LDR treatment

standard based on installing source

reduction-oriented process changes. The

petitioner would have to demonstrate

the specific environmental benefits

gained from the incorporation of the

source reduction processes. This

variance basis may lead to better overall

environmental results (for example by

reducing the amount of hazardous waste

generated, by reducing the toxic

constituent concentrations in the

hazardous waste, or both).

(3) To Encourage recycling: (a) set

Recycling as a Treatment Method for

Certain Wastes or (b) Include Recycling

as an Alternative Treatment Option for

Certain Wastes

We have developed a treatment

standard for each hazardous waste code.

Each treatment standard is either a set

of maximum numerical concentration

levels for the constituents in the waste,

or a specified treatment technology. See

40 CFR 268.40(a). For seven waste

codes,6 the treatment standards

specifically require recycling. For

example, RLEAD, or recovery of lead, is

the required technology for the lead acid

battery subcategory of D008

characteristic lead wastes. For seven

other waste codes,7 the treatment

standards include recycling as one of

the treatment options. For example, in

addition to STABL (stabilization),

RTHRM (thermal recovery) is a

specified treatment technology for P015,

beryllium dust.

We would like to revisit the standards

that specify a recycling technology and

investigate whether they are effective. If

they are effective, we would consider

adding recycling as a treatment method

for other waste streams that have

recoverable levels of constituents. For

example, we could revise the LDR

treatment standards for K171-spent

hydrotreating catalyst from petroleum

refining operations and K172-spent

hydrorefining catalyst from petroleum

refining operations to require either

metals recovery for vanadium and

nickel or to include metals recovery as

a treatment option to the current

concentration-based standards. On the

other hand, if problems exist with the

current recycling requirements, we

would consider making useful

adjustments as warranted.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37937

D. What Incentives Would There Be To

Choose Source Reduce and Recycle?

As previously mentioned, one

potential incentive we would consider

is extending the effective date of the

revised treatment standard beyond the

traditional 90 days if we set an

alternative two-part LDR treatment

standard and you chose the source

reduction part of the standard. We may

also consider providing other types of

incentives.

One potentially positive outcome if

we look into setting recycling as a

treatment method is that we could

investigate whether any recycling

residues should remain hazardous

wastes.

We solicit your comments on

additional incentives that could be

provided.

E. What Potential New Requirements

Would You Have To Satisfy?

One potential avenue we could elect

is to revise the treatment standards to

encourage source reduction and

recycling. Therefore, you might be

subject to a revised set of treatment

standards. In addition, for the treatment

standards based on source reductionoriented processes, we would consider

requiring new administrative

requirements such as contracts,

milestones, or progress reports. These

requirements would help us keep track

of your implementation of source

reduction processes at your facility.

F. How Could These Suggested Actions

Affect Current Regulations?

As a result of your comments and

suggestions, some of the LDR treatment

standards could change, while others

might not. If we make regulatory

changes, such as revising the treatment

standards, then the treatment standards

table at 40 CFR 40 CFR 268.40 may have

additional subcategories. For example,

the lead acid battery subcategory of

D008 characteristic lead wastes would

not be changed so long as it remains

environmentally beneficial to recover

lead. We might choose to further

subcategorize the general D008

characteristic lead wastes category into

high and low categories. This new

categorization could be based on the

total lead concentration of the waste.

We would then require a recycling

treatment method for the high

subcategory lead waste, while the low

subcategory lead waste would remain

subject to a numerical treatment

standard.

Also, we could make the LDR

regulations more industry-specific for

characteristic wastes. For example, we

could set tailored source reduction and

recycling-based treatment standards for

arsenic characteristic wastes generated

by the wood preserving industry. These

are just a few of the impacts the

Agency’s potential actions could have

on current regulations. At this early

stage, we cannot completely anticipate

the potential impacts various actions

could have on current regulations. We

solicit your comments on potential

impacts.

G. Could There Be Non-Regulatory

Changes?

Our findings from this notice may or

may not result in regulatory changes.

We may instead choose to publish a

guidance document with our findings

and recommendations. Your comments

and suggestions would help us to

determine whether you would be more

inclined to implement the ideas on your

own using guidance or whether

regulatory requirements would be

needed to effect a change in your LDR

compliance strategies.

H. Request for Comment

Your comments and suggestions

would help us to assess the feasibility

of our ideas and where they could be

most sensibly applied. Specifically, we

request comment on (1) setting a twopart LDR standard; (2) establishing a

new basis for granting treatment

variances that sets alternative standards

based on source reduction-oriented

processes; and (3) setting or including

recycling as a treatment method for

certain wastes.

Also, we would like comment on the

best way to begin our efforts on

encouraging source reduction and

recycling. Should we start with a pilot

project for source reduction and another

for recycling? Do you know of any

industries or waste codes that would be

good candidates? Should we focus on

waste codes or industries? Should we

select those industries generating

persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic

chemicals? Should we target our efforts

by volume of waste generated or focus

on wastes that are generated by a

significant number of generators?

Should we target those wastes where a

technology, such as stabilization, may

not effectively treat a waste? What

criteria should we use to assess

recycling technologies? What criteria

should we use to assess source

reduction-oriented processes? What

criteria should we use to establish a

baseline for measuring the source

reduction-oriented processes?

Also, please include any other ideas

on how the LDR program can further

encourage source reduction and

recycling. You should provide us with

a detailed description of your idea,

including process parameters, key

limitations, time frame for

implementation, company’s corporate

rate of return requirements, viable

markets for the recycled product and if

possible the potential industries or

hazardous waste streams to which your

idea could be applied. For any source

reduction or recycling technology

information that you submit, please

include analytical performance data, if

available. We will review your ideas

and possibly develop further those ideas

which are most feasible. Our next steps

possibly could include either proposing

those ideas in a future proposed

rulemaking (if regulatory changes are

required) or publishing a resource

document.

IV. How Can The LDR Program

Encourage The Use of Innovative Waste

Treatment Technologies?

A. What Is the LDR Innovative

Technology Evaluation (LDRite)

Program?

EPA’s LDR program wants to explore

how best to open the door to new and

innovative waste treatment technologies

that protect the environment and

efficiently manage hazardous waste. Our

venue for doing this will be under the

aegis of a project we call LDR Innovative

Technology Evaluation, or LDRite. This

project has two basic near-term

objectives—first, to help technology

developers understand how their

treatment systems could fit into the LDR

waste treatment program and, second, to

identify the most promising avenue for

evaluating innovative waste treatment

technologies—either formally or

informally—that could help to further

minimize threats to human health and

the environment. Ultimately, we hope

that LDRite will encourage the

development of innovative waste

treatment technologies that will offer us

feasible regulatory alternatives to the

technologies currently used to establish

LDR treatment standards.

1. Why Develop LDRite at This Time?

Before a hazardous waste is land

disposed, organic and inorganic

constituents of concern as well as

hazardous waste characteristics (such as

ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity) must

meet standards that sufficiently

minimize threats to human health and

the environment. Our program

accomplishes these goals by establishing

technology-based treatment standards

for hazardous wastes destined for land

disposal. These LDR treatment

standards are based on the performance

37938 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

8The legislative history accompanying the 1984

Hazardous Solid Waste Amendment (HSWA) to

RCRA states that a hazardous waste treatment

method should be ‘‘the best that has been

demonstrated to be achievable.’’ It also notes that

Congress’ intent is ‘‘to require utilization of

available technology’’ and not a ‘‘process which

contemplates technology-forcing standards’’ (Vol.

130 Cong. Rec. S9178 (daily edition, July 25, 1984)).

The evident intent is to base treatment standards on

the best technologies commonly in use and thus

reasonably available to any generator. LDR

treatment standards are generally based on the

performance of the ‘‘best demonstrated available

technology,’’ or BDAT. This approach involves

identifying applicable treatment systems for

individual wastes or for groups of wastes;

determining whether these systems are

‘‘demonstrated’’ to achieve acceptably low effluent

contaminant concentrations; and, determining if

they are ‘‘available’’ commercially. For more

information on this process, see the Final Best

Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT)

Document for Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Procedures and Methodology, USEPA, October 23,

1991.

9 Generally, we prefer to set concentration-based

treatment standards rather than technology-based

treatment standards. Concentration-based treatment

standards potentially offer the regulated community

greater flexibility when developing and

implementing hazardous waste compliance

strategies. To meet concentration-based standards,

waste treaters may use any technology method to

treat their hazardous waste, as long as they comply

with the numerical treatment standard. When

complying with technology-based treatment

standards, however, treaters must treat the waste

using the established technology. EPA intended the

numeric-based standards to encourage development

of innovative waste treatment technologies. We

realize, however, that more incentives may be

necessary.

10When determining applicable treatment

technologies, wastes (i.e., waste streams or waste

codes) may be clustered into so-called ‘‘treatability’’

groups that have similar parameters which affect

treatment success. These parameters can include

physical state, water content, presence of similar

hazardous and nonhazardous contaminants, organic

content, heat content, pH, etc. Information on the

waste characteristics of the treatability group are

used to determine the applicable treatment

technologies. The term ‘‘new’’ refers to a waste

stream that a BDAT technology did not treat when

LDR treatment standards were originally developed.

The term ‘‘old’’ refers to a waste stream that was

originally treated by BDAT technology used to

develop the standard.

of best demonstrated available treatment

(or BDAT) technologies 8 and specify

either numerical concentration-based

performance standards or specified

methods of treatment.9

LDR treatment standards are currently

based mainly on two dominant

treatment technologies: incineration of

organics and stabilization of metals. We

recognize that the two technologies used

to develop our treatment standards are

quite traditional in character, which by

itself is not necessarily a disadvantage

and may reflect an expectable interplay

between technical capability and

economics. However, the field of

hazardous waste treatment and

recycling technologies is not static, and

new technologies are being developed

continually.

For a number of reasons that we may

understand and for others that we now

may not, our historical experience in

being able to incorporate technology

innovations and evolutions into the LDR

treatment standards has been quite

limited. For example, the 1984

Hazardous Solid Waste Amendment to

RCRA required EPA, in essence, to

prohibit virtually all hazardous wastes

from land disposal unless the waste first

meets treatment standards established

by EPA. In the 1984 Amendments,

Congress gave us strict and tight

deadlines for developing this myriad of

treatment standards. It was not until

May 26, 1998, some 14 years and over

a dozen rulemakings later, that EPA

concluded this task when we adopted

the so-called Phase IV LDR rulemaking.

See 63 FR 28556. Because of the sheer

magnitude of this effort, our ability to

search out, support, and incorporate

innovative or non-traditional

technologies were significantly

constrained.

Now, with the completion of the

rulemakings needed to implement the

1984 Amendments, we are in a better

position to:

• Reassess BDAT technological

frameworks used to establish the

treatment standards to see if they still

coincide with recent technology

innovations,

• As appropriate, rethink earlier

technical and policy decisions in light

of recent and ongoing developments in

the hazardous waste management field,

and

• Refocus efforts to provide customeroriented resources that help ensure

hazardous waste destined for land

disposal is managed in the most

acceptable manner.

2. What Are LDRite’s Goals?

In pursuing these overall LDR goals,

LDRite will create an environment more

conducive to technology developers in

the hazardous waste treatment arena by:

• Identifying the knowledge barriers

that technology developers may

encounter in looking at our RCRA waste

treatment regulatory program,

• Taking concrete steps to ensure that

the technology developers better

understand the avenues by which EPA

can learn about and evaluate their

technologies; and ultimately

• Providing a well-defined process

through which we may be able to

incorporate improvements in waste

treatment technology into our LDR

program.

As another potential benefit of the

LDRite project, we would hope that

innovative treatment and recycling

technologies would also offer economic,

cost-saving alternatives to hazardous

waste facilities that need to be in

compliance with our LDR treatment

standards. Finally, we wish to build

upon the successes of existing programs

for technology innovation, such as the

Environmental Technology Verification

(http://www.epa.gov/etv) and the Small

Business Innovative Research (http://

www.epa.gov/ncerqa/sbir) programs.

These are described in detail below.

One of the key questions to be discussed

between stakeholders and EPA is

whether these programs offer as yet

unrealized opportunities for technology

developers to have an impact on the

RCRA LDR treatment standards program

or whether LDRite needs to be focused

in a different manner.

3. What Is An Innovative Technology for

the Purposes of the LDRite Program?

We will generally consider a

treatment technology to be innovative

when:

• An existing BDAT technology is

applied to a ‘‘new’’ hazardous waste

stream 10 and successfully treats or

recycles this waste stream to meet or

exceed existing treatment standards;

• An existing BDAT technology is

modified and successfully treats or

recycles hazardous waste streams

(‘‘new’’ and ‘‘old’’) to meet or exceed

existing treatment standards; or

• A new technology is developed to

treat or recycle a hazardous waste

stream to levels that meet or exceed

existing treatment standards.

The criteria used to define innovative

technologies are meant to be general and

non-exclusionary. Our intention is not

to create narrow windows of

opportunity but rather to provide a

framework to understand our use of this

term for LDR purposes in a fairly broad

and unrestrictive way.

B. Who Could Be Affected by LDRite?

This renewed emphasis on innovative

technology development could affect

any of the many entities that currently

manage hazardous waste. We expect,

however, that a partnership-oriented

effort will provide positive impacts for

everyone involved. For instance, as a

hazardous waste:

• Generator you might choose an

‘‘alternative’’ innovative technology to

manage your hazardous waste at lower

cost,

• Treater you might adopt a more cost

effective treatment process, and

• Innovative technology developer

you might now have a way to further

develop, refine, or market your

technology.

LDRite therefore has the potential to

provide a platform from which we can

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37939

establish a solid understanding and

common path forward with many types

of stakeholders.

C. What Should You Expect From

LDRite?

We intend this preamble to lay out

our LDRite objectives and also some

potential avenues by which a greater use

of innovative technologies in the RCRA

waste treatment program could be

achieved. We expect to engage in an

open dialogue with technology

developers, generators, treaters,

disposers, federal and state agencies,

and the public. We encourage you to

comment on the objectives of LDRite,

the suggestions and avenues that we

identify below, and to add your ideas on

how best to develop the LDRite project.

We emphasize that, if our plans to move

forward can be improved or even

significantly redirected, we are willing

to look closely at all suggestions in this

regard. We hope to pool our thoughts

and resources with yours, and to

generate the most promising ways the

LDR program and LDRite can encourage

innovative technologies that protect the

environment and that efficiently and

economically manage hazardous waste.

In an attempt to jump start your

thinking and to elicit the most

meaningful comments on this ANPRM,

we are identifying below some steps

that could be taken in the near future.

Again, we emphasize that these steps

are open to full discussion and can be

modified or changed by your comments.

Currently, EPA is looking into:

• Developing a ‘‘match-making’’

database system for the Internet—This

database would allow innovative

technology developers an opportunity to

present their technologies (e.g., the type

of waste the technology can treat, any

available test data, etc.). Hazardous

waste generators and treaters would also

have a resource to research viable

alternative treatment technologies using

waste code and hazardous constituent

information. One possibility is to

expand an existing system, the

Remediation and Characterization

Innovative Technologies (REACH IT)

database. The general vendor

information provided for each

technology could include:

Vendor name

Technology type

Trade name

Vendor address

Contact name and phone number

Patent and trademark information

Scale of technology (bench, pilot, or

full)

The type of waste the technology could

treat

• Linking current EPA technology

advancement programs with innovative

technology developers—These programs

would help developers verify

technology performance or finance

technology development. Currently, the

Environmental Technology Verification

(ETV) program provides a mechanism

for third-party verification of innovative

technology performance. The Small

Business Innovative Research (SBIR)

program makes’ awards to small firms

for research and development of cuttingedge technologies.

Of course, our ultimate step would be

to modify current LDR treatment

standards to incorporate or encourage

the use of innovative technologies. We

expect the LDRite project to illuminate

ways in which this could be done in an

effective and efficient manner. This is

particularly important because pursuing

a rulemaking effort to change LDR

regulatory standards for waste treatment

is a resource-intensive and timeconsuming endeavor that cannot be

undertaken lightly, especially in this era

of constrained resources.

D. What Shouldn’t You Expect From

LDRite?

We want to encourage development

and promotion of innovative technology

to meet environmental goals and

standards. EPA cannot, however,

commercially endorse specific

technologies or promote specific

companies even if they are acceptable or

promising. Rather, we more

appropriately set performance criteria

and allow the regulated community

flexibility in selecting among

technologies.

E. How Will EPA Ensure That

Innovative Technologies Are

Environmentally Protective?

EPA’s mission is to protect human

health and the environment. We want to

encourage innovative technologies that

promote the most effective and efficient

protection of the environment possible.

If current treatment technologies

provide the best possible hazardous

waste management option, then we

would have significant difficulty

changing our current LDR treatment

standards absent a corresponding and

substantial benefit (perhaps promoting

greater source reduction).

However, we want to keep pace with

new technological advancements in the

hazardous waste management field and

to find opportunities to stimulate this

field, whether they be regulatory or nonregulatory. One starting point, it would

seem, is to make sure that technology

developers understand how they could

fit into the RCRA LDR regulatory

development process. A clearly

articulated and developer-friendly

innovative technology evaluation

process could help in this regard. As

noted earlier, we will be examining how

well other existing technology

evaluation programs could serve the

specific interest at issue here—keeping

the RCRA LDR treatment program

current with waste treatment technology

development. On the other hand, we do

not need to be constrained by the

parameters of those programs, especially

if they serve needs that differ from ours.

For example, selecting a remediation

technology for a particular site of

contamination may present a different

set of considerations than developing

nationally applicable LDR treatment

standards for a given set of hazardous

constituents. We hope to be able to

identify both areas of commonality with

and areas of difference from other

existing programs.

F. Will EPA Fund Innovative

Technology Development Under LDRite?

The answer at this time is no.

However, the following programs are

designed to facilitate the development

of new technologies in a variety of ways:

• The Environmental Technology

Verification program (http://

www.epa.gov/etv): ETV verifies the

performance of commercial-ready

technologies through the evaluation of

objective and quality-assured data so

that potential purchasers and permitters

are provided with an independent and

credible assessment of what they are

buying and permitting. The ETV

program is operated by EPA’s Office of

Research and Development and was

created to substantially accelerate the

entrance of environmental technologies

into the domestic and international

marketplace. EPA has selected

‘‘verification partners’’ to oversee and

conduct the technology verification

activities. These partners work with

EPA technology experts and a variety of

public and private stakeholders to

develop procedures for verifying

technology performance. For each

technology verified, the partner

develops a test plan, in conjunction

with the developer, and the test is

conducted by an independent third

party. Following the test, a verification

statement of 3–5 pages is issued by EPA,

along with a data report.

• Small Business Innovative Research

(http://www.epa.gov/ncerqa/sbir): For

developers of technologies at the early

stages of development and testing,

EPA’s SBIR program makes awards to

small firms for research and

development of cutting-edge

technologies. The SBIR program is

37940 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

11President Bill Clinton’s remarks announcing

the National Performance Review, March 3, 1993.

intended to spawn commercial ventures

that improve our environment and

quality of life, create jobs, increase

productivity and economic growth, and

improve the international

competitiveness of the U.S. technology

industry. Over the past decade, dozens

of innovative technologies and

processes have emerged from this

program. A number of these have moved

quickly from ‘‘proof of concept’’ to

commercialization. In other cases,

companies are still seeking the start-up

capital or other support needed to

achieve commercialization of their

technologies.

G. Request for Comment

We recognize that the current

regulatory environment, including the

LDR treatment standards, may create

unintentional barriers to innovative

technology development in the

hazardous waste arena. We want to

know how you perceive this. Please tell

us what part(s) of the LDR program you

think inhibit innovative technology

development and use, and what new

initiatives would be beneficial in light

of the goals and objectives set out above.

For instance, you should think about the

following points in preparing your

comments:

• How can EPA help encourage

innovative technology development via

the LDR program, particularly with

respect to what technology developers

do or don’t understand about the LDR

program and the BDAT process by

which our technology-based standards

are developed from actual performance

data?

• Will a ‘‘match-making’’ database

system on the Internet facilitate the use

of innovative technologies, and if so,

what technology data should be

included?

• Which existing EPA programs (e.g.,

ETV, SBIR) or parts of those programs

would be useful in evaluating

innovative technologies in the context

of the LDR national treatment standards

and of the BDAT concept that underlies

these standards?

• Do technology developers have

sufficiently detailed information on

hazardous waste streams and the

current cost of treatment to determine

the most promising markets for new

technologies? If not, what type of

information is missing or hard to find

for the developers?

• Are there ways, either formal or

informal, in which we could better

ensure that the hazardous waste

treatment program evolves along with

advancements in the hazardous waste

treatment industry?

• How can the LDR program more

effectively move up the hierarchy of

hazardous waste management in

conjunction with encouraging

innovative technologies?

We encourage you to submit your

insights on areas within the LDR

program that can potentially serve as

vehicles to encourage innovative

technology development. Your input

will help us adjust, as appropriate,

certain aspects of our program to

encourage innovative technologies.

If you have developed a technology

that effectively reclaims, recycles, or

treats regulated constituents in

hazardous waste streams, please let us

know. Information on your technology

will keep us up-to-date on new

treatment options. You might also want

to examine technologies we have

identified to treat specific waste streams

in EPA’s Treatment Technology

Background Document, January 1991.

This may help you to demonstrate how

your technology outperforms a

technology used to establish a current

LDR treatment standard.

V. Issues Regarding the Effectiveness of

Various Stabilization Practices Used to

Immobilize Metal Wastes

A. Background on LDR Treatment

Standard Program

1. How Have Treatment Standards Been

Established?

The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments (HSWA) require that

treatment standards must substantially

diminish the toxicity or mobility of

hazardous waste, so that short- and

long-term threats to human health and

the environment are minimized. (RCRA

Section 3004(m)(1), 42 U.S.C.

6924(m)(1)). We interpret long-term

threats to be the residual hazards of a

waste that will continue even after

treatment, disposal, and the ultimate

capping of the filled landfill cell. With

regard to metals, treatment should

impart a lasting measure of immobility

to the metals of concern.

Under EPA’s LDR program, we have

established treatment standards to

implement the RCRA 3004(m)

requirements. As mentioned in an

earlier section of this notice, we have

established two types of treatment

standards: (1) a numerical

concentration-based treatment limit for

each constituent of concern, or (2) a

method of treatment that must be used

to treat a particular constituent or group

of constituents. In either case, the

treatment standard is based on a

technology determined to be the ‘‘Best

Demonstrated Available Technology’’ or

BDAT.

2. What Improvements Have Been Made

to the LDR Program?

‘‘Our goal is to make the entire federal

government both less expensive and

more efficient * * * we intend to

redesign, reinvent, to reinvigorate the

entire national government. 11

Over the last seven years, we have

worked hard to find ways to improve

the effectiveness of our work while still

protecting human health and the

environment. We believe that great

strides have been made. One of our

biggest LDR accomplishments has been

the establishment of Universal

Treatment Standards (UTS) (59 FR

47982, September 19, 1994). This effort

greatly simplified both compliance and

enforcement with the LDRs without

sacrificing protection of the

environment or human health. The rule

replaced multiple concentration levels

for the same constituent across the LDR

treatment standards with a uniform set

of levels for each constituent. Another

improvement to the program was the

creation of alternative treatment

standards for debris contaminated with

hazardous waste (57 FR 37221, August

18, 1992). These treatment standards

were tailored to address the specific

problems encountered when

manufactured objects, plant or animal

matter, or natural geologic material (e.g.,

cobbles and boulders) become

contaminated with a hazardous waste

and are subsequently subject to LDR

requirements.

However, our work is not done. We

remain committed to making quality

improvements that will further improve

the overall effectiveness and efficiency

of the LDR program. Last July, EPA

began implementation of a new set of

administrative reforms, known as the

RCRA Cleanup Reforms. These reforms

are designed to achieve faster, more

efficient cleanups at RCRA sites that

treat, store, or dispose of hazardous

waste and that have the potential for

environmental contamination. The

reforms are our comprehensive effort to

address the key impediments to

cleanups, maximize program flexibility,

and spur progress toward a set of

ambitious national cleanup goals.

We are committed to ensuring that the

LDR program incorporates these goals

within its regulatory and policy

framework. We have identified areas

that need to be examined more carefully

and we are working towards finding

solutions to areas that may affect the

accelerated and effective cleanups at

corrective action sites. Progress has

already been made. Early on we realized

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37941

12 If the metal concentration is high enough, the

waste may be characteristically hazardous for that

metal. See the characteristic levels in 40 CFR

261.24. If the waste is characteristic for other

reasons (e.g., organically toxic, corrosive, ignitable,

or reactive) but not due to the metals, then a lesser

concentration of metals may cause them to be

subject to LDR standards as ‘‘underlying hazardous

constituents (UHCs).’’

13A treatment standard for zinc has been

established only for K061 waste. Zinc is not

regulated in any other RCRA hazardous waste.

Similarly, vanadium is a regulated constituent only

in P119, P120,K171, and K172 wastes. Although

zinc, vanadium, fluoride, and sulfide have UTS

levels, they are not UHCs. However, EPA has

required that some wastes meet UTS for these

constituents because reaching these levels is

additional evidence that treatment is effective.

14The Third Third Rule (55 FR 22520, June 1,

1990) required that characteristic metal wastes be

treated to the characteristic level before disposal.

Prior to that date, metal characteristic waste could

be disposed in hazardous waste land disposal units

without prior treatment. The recent Phase IV Rule

(63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998) required that these

same wastes now meet the more stringent UTS

listed at 40 CFR 268.48 before land disposal.

15See ‘‘ Land Disposal Restrictions For Third

Third Scheduled Wastes: Final Rule,’’ 55 FR 22520,

June 1, 1990; ‘‘Land Disposal Restrictions Phase II—

Universal Treatment Standards, and Treatment

Standards for Organic Toxicity Characteristic

Wastes and Newly Listed Wastes: Final Rule,’’ 59

FR 47980, September 19, 1994; and ‘‘Land Disposal

Restrictions Phase IV: Final Rule Promulgating

Treatment Standards for Metal Wastes and Mineral

Processing Wastes; Mineral Processing Secondary

Materials and Bevill Exclusion Issues; Treatment

Standards for Hazardous Soils, and Exclusion of

Recycled Wood Preserving Wastewaters: Final

Rule,’’ 63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998.

16Regulatory definitions for stabilization and

macroencapsulation (40 CFR 268.42) have been

developed as part of the LDR program because for

some RCRA hazardous waste codes a method of

treatment has been set as the treatment standard.

When a method of treatment is set, one must use

the treatment defined in 40 CFR 268.42. However,

if a numerical concentration-based treatment

standard has been set, compliance with this

standard can be achieved using any type of

treatment other than impermissible dilution as

defined in 40 CFR 268.3.

17The Treatment Technology Background

Document, USEPA, January 1991 can be found in

the RCRA docket supporting this rule.

that the treatment standards

promulgated for as-generated waste

would not always be achievable or

appropriate for soil contaminated with

hazardous waste and that the

development of less stringent treatment

standards was needed (59 FR 47980,

September 19, 1994). In May 1998, we

promulgated alternative treatment

standards for contaminated soils subject

to LDR. (See 63 FR 28556, May 26,

1998). The alternative soil standards

provide the flexibility needed for

achieving our cleanup goals. In the

future, any additional revisions to the

LDR program must be evaluated

thoroughly to ensure that protection of

human health and the environment is

maintained and that efforts to facilitate

cleanups are not compromised.

B. Background on Treatment Standards

for Metal-Bearing Hazardous Waste

1. What Are the Metal-Bearing Wastes

We Regulate in the LDR Program?

In EPA’s LDR program, we regulate

two different types of metal-bearing

wastes: ‘‘listed’’ wastes with metals as

regulated constituents; and

‘‘characteristic’’ metal wastes, which are

regulated because they contain

significant concentrations of mobile

metal(s).12

Listed metal-bearing wastes are

identified with a U, P, F, or K

designation and contain one or more of

the 14 metal constituents of concern

identified in 40 CFR 268.40. Regulated

metal constituents of concern are

antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium,

cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury,

nickel, selenium, silver, thallium,

vanadium, and zinc.13

Characteristic metal wastes, identified

as D004–D011, are defined as

characteristic because the concentration

of the toxic metal in the waste equals or

exceeds a specified leachate

concentration that is known to be a

threat to human health and the

environment. For example, a waste

designated as ‘‘D008’’ is a waste which

leaches lead at a concentration of 5 mg/

L or greater using the Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure

(TCLP). The other RCRA characteristic

metals are arsenic (D004), barium

(D005), cadmium (D006), chromium

(D007), mercury (D009), selenium

(D010), and silver (D011). Since May

1990, characteristic metal wastes have

had to undergo some type of treatment

prior to land disposal.14

2. How Were the Treatment Standards

for Metals Established?

For metal-bearing wastes, we

developed numerical, concentrationbased treatment standards based on

performance data from two BDAT

technologies: High temperature metals

recovery (HTMR) and stabilization.15

We compared the performance of the

two technologies and promulgated

numerical treatment standards based on

the higher of the calculated treatment

standards to allow for waste variability

and detection limit difficulties (63 FR

28561, May 26, 1998). By setting a

standard as a numerical concentration

limit, as opposed to a method of

treatment, any type of treatment

technology other than impermissible

dilution can be used to achieve the

standard (40 CFR 268.3).

Please note that the discussion in this

part of the notice refers primarily to asgenerated process waste. A specific

discussion of how this issue may or may

not relate to the alternative treatment

standards for soil and debris is not

presented, but we welcome comments

on this subject.

3. Relevant Treatment-Related

Definitions

As mentioned earlier, an array of

treatment technologies are capable of

immobilizing metals in hazardous

waste. For regulatory purposes,

however, the LDR program has only

defined two immobilization

technologies: stabilization and

macroencapsulation.16 Other

technologies that perform

immobilization functions are discussed

in EPA’s Treatment Technology

Background Document 17 and the

descriptions used in that document will

be followed in today’s discussion. Other

practices, however, have not been

defined to date by EPA. We discuss

these practices today in narrative form

with as much detail as possible to

accurately describe the process.

The following terms are used in the

notice. Definitions printed in italics are

regulatory terms (in 40 CFR 260.10 or 40

CFR 268.42) while the terms in standard

typeface are not. We encourage you to

provide us with any changes to the nonregulatory terms you think would be

helpful. We are not, however, taking

comment on the regulatory terms at this

time. Additionally, you may submit

information on any terms that we have

neglected to present.

Definitions of Selected Terms

Treatment—means any method,

technique or process, including

neutralization, designed to change the

physical, chemical, or biological

character or composition of any

hazardous waste so as to neutralize such

waste, or so as to recover energy or

material resources from the waste, or so

as to render such waste non-hazardous,

or less hazardous; safer to transport,

store, or dispose of; or amenable for

recovery, amenable for storage, or

reduced in volume.

Immobilization—A broad class of

technologies that reduces the solubility

or leachability of the metal in the waste

prior to land disposal. These

technologies are designed to fix in place

or position a metal constituent or

constituents in a waste using physical,

chemical or biological means so as to

render such waste non-hazardous or less

hazardous.

Encapsulation—A family of processes

wherein high-solids nonwastewaters are

mixed with an organic polymeric

substance or with asphalt. Mixtures are

37942 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

18Of course, a facility’s individual choice of

removal over immobilization will also involve nontechnical considerations, such as economics.

19See the capacity and economic analyses for the

Phase IV metal treatment standards which can be

found in the Phase IV final rule docket (docket

number F–98–2P4F–FFFFF).

then allowed to cure into a solid mass

prior to disposal.

Macroencapsulation—

Macroencapsulation with surface

coating materials such as polymeric

organics (e.g., resins and plastics) or

with a jacket of inert inorganic materials

to substantially reduce surface exposure

to potential leaching media.

Macroencapsulation specifically does

not include any material that would be

classified as a tank or container

according to 40 CFR 260.10.

Neutralization—Means treatment with

the following reagents (or waste

reagents) or combinations of reagents:

(1) Acids; (2) bases; or (3) water

(including wastewaters) resulting in a

pH greater than 2 but less than 12.5 as

measured in the aqueous residuals.

Precipitation—Chemical precipitation

of metals or other inorganics as

insoluble precipitates of oxides,

hydroxides, carbonates, sulfides,

sulfates, chlorides, fluorides, or

phosphates. The following reagents (or

waste reagents) are typically used alone

or in combination: (1) Lime (i.e.,

containing oxides and/or hydroxides of

calcium and/or magnesium); (2) caustic

(i.e., sodium and/or potassium

hydroxides); (3) soda ash (i.e., sodium

carbonate); (4) sodium sulfide; (5) ferric

sulfate or ferric chloride; (6) alum; or (7)

sodium sulfate. Additional floculating,

coagulation or similar reagents/

processes that enhance sludge

dewatering characteristics are not

precluded from use.

Solidification—Techniques that

encapsulate the waste, forming a solid

material of high structural integrity, and

does not necessarily involve a chemical

interaction between the contaminants

and the solidifying additives.

Stabilization—Stabilization with the

following reagents (or waste reagents) or

combination of reagents: (1) Portland

cement; or (2) lime/pozzolans (e.g., fly

ash and cement kiln dust)—this does

not preclude the addition of reagents

(e.g., iron salts, silicates, and clays)

designed to enhance the set/cure time

and/or compressive strength, or to

overall reduce the leachability of the

metal or inorganic.

Vitrification—A process involving the

dissolution of waste at high

temperatures with hazardous

constituents incorporated into a glass or

a glass-like matrix.

C. Our Questions About the Metal

Treatment Standards

Even though metals are land disposed

within current regulatory requirements,

their toxic properties make it imperative

that they remain immobilized long after

disposal, even after current land

disposal cells have long ceased

operation. Long-term stability of metal

constituents in a land disposal

environment is therefore a primary

objective when determining the type of

immobilization technology to be used.

Our goals in this notice are to

scrutinize specific immobilization

activities as they pertain to metal

bearing wastes, and also to:

(1) Gather additional information on

techniques currently being used to

immobilize metals in both listed and

characteristic wastes;

(2) Identify additional cost-effective

ways, if any, beyond current compliance

testing by which both short-term and

long-term effectiveness of immobilized

waste can be assured; and

(3) Solicit comment, information, and

data on the observations, issues, and

questions we present in this notice. In

particular, we would like comments on

alternative approaches to evaluating the

effectiveness of treatment by

immobilization technologies. We would

also like comment on the amount of

immobilization of metal-contaminated

soils that takes place at corrective action

sites and whether the points raised in

this notice could adversely effect

current efforts to encourage and

facilitate cleanups.

D. Current Treatment Processes Used for

the Immobilization of Metal Waste

1. Categories of Treatment Processes

Used to Meet the Standards for Metal

Wastes

In meeting the numerical treatment

standards, facilities generally employ

two different categories of treatment

processes for hazardous wastes

containing metals: (1) Removal

technologies that separate and recover

metals contained in the hazardous waste

for some type of reuse; and (2)

Immobilization technologies that

physically or chemically reduce the

solubility or leachability of metals in the

hazardous waste prior to land disposal.

Removal technologies include

treatments such as acid leaching,

filtration, high temperature metals

recovery (HTMR), ion exchange, and

retorting. These technologies are

generally conducted on wastes with

metal concentrations greater than 1%.

The choice of any one of these removal

technologies is governed by the

properties of the metal to be recovered

as well as the actual physical and

chemical characteristics of the waste

itself.18 All of these technologies can be

highly effective in the recovery of

metals when properly applied.

Immobilization technologies are those

technologies that reduce the solubility

or leachability of the metal in the waste

prior to land disposal. They do not

remove the metal from the waste.

Immobilization technologies typically

promote physical and/or chemical

changes within the waste to render the

metals significantly less mobile and

more resistant to leaching. Vitrification,

macroencapsulation, and stabilization

are examples of immobilization

technologies. Usually, a metalcontaining waste is treated with one of

these technologies when the metal

cannot be recovered or the

concentration of the metal in the waste

is too low to use a removal technology.

In certain situations, however, the

application of a removal technology can

also require additional treatment of the

residual (e.g., slag generated from high

temperature metals recovery) by some

type of immobilization. This type of

immobilization is also the subject of this

notice.

2. Immobilization

As discussed above, immobilization is

defined as a broad class of treatment

methods designed to fix in place or

position metal constituent(s) in a waste.

To ensure treatment of a regulated

constituent, any immobilization practice

must impart a physical, chemical, or

biological change to the metal or waste

to render the waste non-hazardous or

less hazardous. A variety of treatment

technologies fall within the category of

immobilization and are applicable to

metal waste treatment.

Analyses conducted for the LDR

Phase IV rule suggest that treatment

with cement or lime/pozzolans as well

as other reagents (i.e., ‘‘stabilization’’ as

defined in 40 CFR 268.42) is the

primary method of immobilization for

the treatment of metal-bearing wastes.19

In the Phase IV final rule (63 FR 28556,

May 26, 1998), we identified

stabilization as the BDAT for metal

wastes, and it is therefore the basis

(along with HTMR) of our current

numerical treatment standards for

metals.

3. Details on Stabilization

The basic principle of stabilization is

that leachable metals in a waste are

immobilized. For stabilization, this

occurs following the addition of

reagents, such as Portland cement, and

other chemicals. Metal leachability is

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37943

20For additional information on immobilization

technologies, see the Treatment Technology

Background Document, USEPA, January 1991,

which is in the docket supporting this notice. See

also ‘‘Solidification/Stabilization and its

Application to Waste Materials,’’ EPA/530/R–93/

012, June 1993.

21See ‘‘Handbook for Stabilization/Solidification

of Hazardous Wastes,’’ EPA/540–2–86/001, Table

2–7, June 1986.

22The environment of the disposal facility may

affect the long-term immobilization of metals in

stabilized waste (e.g., the pH of the material in the

disposal unit, buffering capacity, redox state,

infiltration/rainfall rate, freeze/thaw potential.)

reduced by the formation of a lattice

structure and chemical bonds that bind

the metals in the solid matrix, and

thereby limit the amount of metal

constituents that can be leached when

water or a mild acid solution comes into

contact with the treated waste material.

Stabilization is most effective when the

waste metal is in its least soluble state,

thereby decreasing the potential for

leaching. Pretreatment may be required

to chemically reduce or oxidize the

metal to a lower solubility state and

achieve maximum stabilization

performance. For example, hexavalent

chromium is much more soluble and

more difficult to stabilize than trivalent

chromium.

The two principal stabilization

processes used are cement-based and

lime/pozzolan-based processes.

Stabilization processes can be modified

through the use of additives, such as

silicates, that control curing rates,

reduce permeability, and enhance the

immobilization properties of the solid

material. Portland cement is a mixture

of powdered oxides of calcium, silica,

aluminum and iron produced by kiln

burning of material rich in calcium and

silica at high temperatures (i.e., 1400–

1500°C). When the anhydrous powder is

mixed with water, hydration occurs and

the cement begins to set. The chemistry

involved is complex because many

different reactions occur depending on

the composition of the cement mixture.

As the cement begins to set, a

colloidal gel of indefinite composition

and structure is formed. Over time, the

gel swells and forms a matrix composed

of thin, interlacing, densely packed

silicate fibrils. Constituents present in

the waste (e.g., dissolved metals and

hydroxides and carbonates of various

metals) are incorporated into the

interstices of the cement matrix. The

high pH of the cement mixture (i.e., pH

of 9–12) can keep some metals in the

form of insoluble hydroxide and

carbonate salts. It has been

hypothesized that metal ions may also

be incorporated into the crystal

structure of the cement matrix.

Oxoanionic metals (metals that form

negative ions with oxygen), like arsenic

and selenium, and divalent metals, like

lead and cadmium, may not be as

insoluble at high pHs.

Pozzolan, which contains finely

divided, noncrystalline silica (e.g., fly

ash or components of cement kiln dust),

is a material that is not itself

cementitious, but becomes so upon the

addition of lime. Metals in the waste are

converted to insoluble silicates or

hydroxides and are incorporated into

interstices of the binder matrix, thereby

inhibiting leaching.20

4. Determining What Type of

Stabilization Is Appropriate

In determining whether a particular

stabilization treatment will meet the

LDR treatment standards, several

technical and practical considerations

are relevant. For example, the following

waste properties influence whether

stabilization will be appropriate and

effective long-term treatment for a

waste: (1) Concentration of fine

particulates; (2) the concentration of oil

and grease; (3) the concentration of

organic compounds; (4) the

concentration of oxidizing, halide,

sulfate and chloride compounds; (5) the

solubility of the metal compound(s);

and (6) other waste matrix

constituents.21

Equally important is an examination

of the design and operation of the

stabilization process itself. To determine

the effectiveness of a particular

stabilization process, the following

parameters need to be assessed: (1) The

amount and type of stabilizing agent

and additives; (2) the degree of mixing;

(3) the residence time; (4) the

stabilization temperature and humidity;

and (5) the form of the metal compound.

Optimization of all these factors (and

perhaps others) can be necessary for

effective treatment to occur.

Because of these numerous technical

and practical factors, it is obvious that

effective metal stabilization is not a

simple matter. Adding to this

complexity are additional vagaries

associated with the environmental

conditions of the disposal site into

which the stabilized metal matrix will

be placed.22 For these reasons, we think

an inquiry into current field practices

and metal waste disposal sites is

warranted to determine whether our

current regulations and industry’s

current compliance practices are still

minimizing threats to human health and

the environment by substantially

diminishing the toxicity of the waste or

substantially reducing the likelihood of

migration of metal constituents from the

waste.

E. Specific Metal Treatment Issues of

Interest

1. Stabilization Reagents—Why Are

They a Metal Treatment Issue?

The term stabilization is often used

loosely in practice to refer to techniques

that chemically reduce the hazard

potential of a waste by converting the

contaminants into less soluble, mobile,

or toxic forms, either temporarily or

permanently. The physical nature and

handling characteristics of the waste are

not necessarily changed. Some of these

practices, while called stabilization,

may not coincide with the concept of

permanent treatment used by the

Agency in the LDR program and

discussed earlier in this notice.

Stabilization, as per our regulatory

definition, is a distinct treatment

process defined primarily by the use of

Portland cement or lime/pozzolans

under specific operational conditions.

Conversely, the term stabilization, as

more broadly used in practice, can

encompass the use of myriad other

reagents including lime, cement kiln

dust, phosphates, clay, modified clays,

sulfide, activated carbon, and ferrous

sulfate that can be used individually or

in combination. Such reagents are

intended to chemically alter the

speciation of the metals to decrease

solubility or aid subsequent treatment

steps. Issues may therefore arise

regarding the performance of various

practices nominally regarded by

industry as stabilization.

For example, questions regarding

actual chemical reactions occurring

during treatment can emerge when longterm effectiveness is considered. In the

Phase IV rule, the Agency codified the

principle that the addition of iron metal

in the form of fines, filings, or dust for

the purpose of achieving a treatment

standard for lead is ‘‘impermissible

dilution’’ under 40 CFR 268.3(d) (63 FR

28566, May 26, 1998). We determined

that this waste management practice,

deemed stabilization by at least one

industry, did not minimize threats

posed by the land disposal of leadcontaining hazardous waste.

Specifically, we found that no chemical

or pozzolanic reactions from the iron

dust or filings occurred, and standard

chemistry showed that metals, such as

lead, were not bound into a nonleachable matrix when using iron dust

or filings as a stabilizing agent. (See 63

FR 28566–69)

This instance, as well as other

anecdotal information, has raised the

issue of appropriate use of stabilization

37944 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

23Final Best Demonstrated Available Technology

(BDAT) Background Document for K031, K084,

K101, K102, Characteristic Arsenic Wastes (D004),

P and U Wastes Containing Arsenic and Selenium

listing Constituents, USEPA, May 1990, page 4–9.

reagents in general. EPA is concerned

that reliance may be currently placed on

technologies that only temporarily

immobilize the hazardous metals in asgenerated waste through the addition of

solubility-modifying or pH-adjusting

chemicals, which may enable the

treated waste to pass the TCLP

compliance test but do not actually

immobilize the metals over the long

term. Consequently, the choice of

reagent can raise a question as to

whether the mandate established by

HSWA of minimizing short-term and

long-term threats to human health and

the environment is being satisfied.

We therefore wish to inquire further

about the use of reagents other than

Portland cement and lime/pozzolans—

such as phosphate- and silica-based

reagents—and whether actual treatment

occurs in a manner that in fact

minimizes short-term and long-term

threats to human health and the

environment. It may well be that, upon

closer scrutiny, use of these other

reagents is, in fact, acceptable treatment

for as-generated wastes under the LDR

program. On the other hand, it is

possible that, in some cases, the only

effect of the reagent and stabilization

process on the metal waste has been to

show temporary immobility under the

Agency’s performance measure, the

TCLP test conditions, prior to land

disposal.

The Agency’s hypothesis is that

reagents used in immobilization

technologies differ in their ability to

provide effective long-term treatment of

metals in the treated waste. We have the

following questions:

• What is the extent of the difference

in immobilization technologies?

• Do certain immobilization

technologies and reagents lose their

ability to immobilize metals after land

disposal has occurred?

• Alternatively, does the Agency’s

treatment measure, the TCLP, differ

from actual management conditions to

the degree that metals are never

effectively mobilized under disposal

conditions?

Concerns about long-term stability

and the waste’s increase in volume also

have been factors in past determinations

of BDAT. For example, in the

determination of the BDAT for arsenic

wastes, volume increase, particularly

with ferric co-precipitation, resulted in

the selection of a different type of

treatment technology as BDAT (55 FR

22552, June 1, 1990). Data obtained

during the development of the standards

demonstrated that significantly high

reagent to waste ratios would be

required to maintain arsenic stability

under alkaline pH conditions.23

We also wish to raise another concern

about the use of treatment reagents that

may impact operations beyond just

those associated with stabilization.

Reagents can also be used in a variety

of other treatment settings, for example,

as metal precipitation agents for

incinerator scrubber water. At least one

reagent being used in this context is

itself a hazardous constituent,

dithiocarbamate. This may not be a

matter of concern in some situations

since the point of compliance with LDR

treatment standards for any underlying

hazardous constituent is at the point of

placement on the land.

However, two scenarios may result in

hazardous treatment reagents being

placed on the land without being

subject to testing for compliance with

LDR standards. The first is when the

reagent contains a hazardous

constituent that is not identified as an

underlying hazardous constituent in the

original characteristic waste. The

second is when the reagent contains a

hazardous constituent that is not a

regulated constituent for a listed waste.

Similar to the issue regarding

stabilization reagents that is discussed

above, we are inquiring whether the use

of reagents containing hazardous

constituents is consistent with the shortterm and long-term protection of human

health and the environment, at least

when LDR compliance does not take

into account the levels of those

constituents that are being placed on the

land. We, of course, recognize the

engineering value that these

constituents may provide in a waste

treatment train. Thus, we are

particularly interested in comment on

the levels of total and leachable

hazardous constituent reagents being

placed on the land and whether

additional attention to this issue is

warranted from the standpoint of

treatment efficacy and protection of

human health and the environment.

2. What Is the Importance of Waste to

Reagent and Water to Reagent Ratios

During Metal Treatment?

Along with the selection of treatment

reagents, the waste to reagent ratio is a

critical performance parameter for

effective stabilization to take place.

Sufficient stabilizing material is

necessary to facilitate the proper

chemical reactions that allow for the

binding of the waste constituents of

concern (i.e., metals) into a treated

matrix, making them less susceptible to

leaching. The ratio of water to

stabilizing agent (including water in the

waste) is also important, impacting the

strength and permeability

characteristics of the stabilized material.

Too much water will cause low

strength; too little will make mixing

difficult and, most importantly, may not

allow the chemical reactions that bind

the metals to be fully completed.

We wish to inquire how reagent to

waste ratios are being handled in

practice during waste treatment

operations. The use of excessive

amounts of reagents (i.e., over

treatment) may not be an appropriate or

effective waste management practice,

either from a technical or an economic

standpoint. Excessive use of reagents

can also lead to questions of

impermissible dilution, i.e., whether

concentration-based treatment standards

are being met simply through physical

dilution of the constituents, by the

addition of inordinate amounts of

reagent, in lieu of actual treatment

involving chemical reactions between

the reagent and the waste constituent.

We request information on the waste to

reagent ratios found in today’s treatment

operations in the field.

Similarly, the amount of water used to

facilitate the reaction is equally

important and is an area of our inquiry.

Certain practices, apparently, forego the

use of any water to initiate a chemical

reaction between the reagents and the

waste. Thus, prior to the TCLP

compliance test, the chemical reaction

between the reagents and the waste does

not occur. By definition, regulatory

treatment also has not occurred in this

instance. We request information on

how much water is typically used to

facilitate stabilization reactions. We also

request information on practices that do

not use water at all prior to the

compliance test.

3. How Well is Long-Term

Immobilization Being Achieved?

Absent long-term studies on the

stability of metal wastes in disposal

units and in light of potential issues on

the selection of reagents, we wish to

inquire further about the long-term

effectiveness and environmental

benefits of certain immobilization

technologies. The TCLP is the current

compliance test, but this test was not

specifically developed to be a

performance measure of chemical

precipitation procedures, of the longterm effectiveness of chemical

additions, or of the potential for

formation of toxic degradation products

from added chelating agents. In

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37945

24The data originally complied by Dr. Robert D.

Gibbons of the University of Illinois at Chicago for

Waste Management, Inc. is available in the docket

for this notice.

25See Environmental Science & Technology, Vol.

32 No. 23, pp. 3825–3830, December 1, 1998.

addition, flocculating agents such as

dithiocarbamates, which form toxic

complexes (detrimental to aquatic

ecosystems) and has the potential to

degrade to toxic carbon disulfide, are

not precluded from use by existing

regulation. These situations need to be

further studied and evaluated by the

Agency particularly in respect to the

long-term effectiveness of the various

treatment methods.

As a preliminary step, we evaluated

landfill leachate collection system data

from 161 landfill cells operated by

Waste Management, Inc. across the

nation.24 The Waste Management, Inc.

landfills receive predominately

hazardous wastes. However, some sites

receive only sanitary wastes, or a

combination of sanitary and industrial

wastes. We also evaluated data from the

Reynolds Metals Company’s facility in

Gum Springs, Arkansas and Envirosafe

Services of Ohio’s facility in Oregon,

Ohio.

About 28% of the landfill cells from

which we obtained data have actual

leachate measurements in excess of the

levels that would identify the leachates

as characteristic hazardous wastes.

Among the toxic metals, arsenic and

cadmium have been most frequently

observed at hazardous concentrations

on both a total and dissolved

constituent basis. In the long-term, these

actual leachate concentrations suggest

that significant groundwater

contamination may result after the

eventual failure of liners and other

containment controls. Logic suggests

that if compliance with the minimized

threat standards were being achieved,

leachate levels in excess of hazardous

characteristic levels should not be

observed in wastes that have met

treatment standards before land

disposal. However, actual disposal

conditions may differ from those

projected from the TCLP, and in part

due to the influence of typical sitespecific conditions.

At Envirosafe’s industrial waste

landfill, which accepts predominantly

stabilized K061 waste, high arsenic,

cadmium, and zinc leachate levels were

found. Similarly, arsenic and fluoride

were observed at significant levels and

pH was quite high in the leachate from

the Reynolds’ monofill receiving treated

K088 waste (although fluoride and

cyanide levels are significantly lower

than leachate levels from untreated

K088 wastes).

Table 1 indicates the very limited and

incomplete data currently in hand from

these three sources. Although the TCLP

is based on total metals analysis, we

have provided both dissolved and total

metal concentrations data in this table

as reported in the data sources.

Depending on how the metals analyses

were conducted, total levels reported

may not be directly comparable to the

TCLP, as particulates may have been

entrained in the samples. This could

cause total metals analyses to show

more metals than would leach if the

tests were conducted in compliance

with TCLP QA/QC protocols.

TABLE 1.—OBSERVATION OF LANDFILL LEACHATE PROPERTIES a

Parameter Number of

cells

Number of

cells

>TCLP

Percentage

of Cells

>TCLP

Maximum leachate concentration

(mg/L)

pH ....................................................... ............................................................. 213 5 (>12.5) 2.8 13.1

........................................................ 1 (<2.5) 1.81

Arsenic ................................................ Dissolved ............................................ 80 9 11.3 120

Total .................................................... 152 29 19.1 1610

Barium ................................................. Dissolved ............................................ 66 0 0 9.7

Total .................................................... 91 0 0 43.8

Cadmium ............................................. Dissolved ............................................ 85 9 10.5 790

Total .................................................... 153 14 9.1 800

Chromium ........................................... Hexavalent .......................................... 29 1 2.7 5.2

Dissolved ............................................ 73 2 3.4 9.1

Total .................................................... 161 12 7.5 102

Lead .................................................... Dissolved ............................................ 84 1 1.2 8.9

Total .................................................... 125 5 4 72

Mercury ............................................... Dissolved ............................................ 125 0 0 0.05

Total .................................................... 152 7 4.6 2.3

Selenium ............................................. Dissolved ............................................ 90 1 1.1 12

Total .................................................... 157 6 3.8 5.2

Silver ................................................... Dissolved ............................................ 79 0 0 0.05

Total .................................................... 120 0 0 0.42

Total Number of Individual cells with

metals data.

............................................................. .................... 46 b 28.2 ..............................

a Landfills operated by Waste Management, Inc. receive hazardous, sanitary, and mixtures of hazardous and sanitary wastes.

b Calculation based on 163 cells with some metals data.

A recent study published by

researchers at California’s Department of

Toxic Substances Control 25 found that

the leachate concentrations of metals

that form oxoanionic species (e.g.,

antimony, arsenic, molybdenum,

selenium, and vanadium) in several

leach tests (including the TCLP) did not

always correlate closely with leachate

concentrations obtained with actual

municipal solid waste leachate (MSWL).

For arsenic, molybdenum, and selenium

the concentration levels in the leachate

from the TCLP test were lower than the

actual constituent concentrations found

in the leachate extracted by the MSWL.

For other metals, TCLP produced results

approximately the same as the MSWL

leachate results.

The Agency has initiated additional

research focused on understanding the

aspects of these tests (including the

effects of pH and the chelating effects of

the acetate and citrate used in the leach

solutions) that can lead to over-or under

prediction of results. In addition to our

37946 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

26Note that, even if these wastes no longer exhibit

a characteristic, they cannot be land disposed

anywhere until they satisfy LDR requirements.

Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F.2d 2

(D.C. Cir. 1992).

27H. Lawrence Clever, Susan A. Johnson, and M.

Elizabeth Derrick, The Solubility of Mercury and

Some Sparingly Soluble Mercury Salts in Water and

Aqueous Electrolyte Solutions, J. Phys. Chem. Ref.

Data, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1985, page 652.

28Arsenic-Chemical Behavior and Treatment,

David B. Vance. Can be found in the docket to

today’s notice and at http://flash.net/∼nm2the4/

arsenicart.htm.

29Leaching Test Protocols; David Kosson,

Andrew Garrabrants, Florence Sanchez, and Urshila

Gulgule, Rutgers University, March 1999. Can be

found in the docket to today’s notice.

own work, we wish to inquire further.

We seek data and comment on metals in

leachate from landfill cells, including

the amounts of metal being disposed,

the stabilization process used (and all

key parameters such as reagent to waste

ratios), and disposal conditions (i.e.,

waste pH, landfill leachate pH, amount

of water infiltration, and cap integrity).

We would also like leachate metals data

from groundwater wells downgradient

of the landfills, and any data on

groundwater pH and groundwater net

alkalinity over time. To date, we have

only limited information on the specific

wastes and associated treatment for

individual landfill cells.

F. Potential Changes Based on These

Concerns

Below is a discussion of several

approaches and areas in which we need

additional information. We request

comments on these approaches

(individually or in combination) and

data in support of your views, as well

as any other information that addresses

the issues and concerns identified in the

preceding sections. Note that we are

only asking for comments and

information on these possible

approaches, and that there are presently

no plans to change the current LDR

program as it pertains to metal

treatment. If, however, proposed

changes were to be developed, we

would have to evaluate how any

proposed changes would affect, if at all,

the alternative treatment standards for

soil and debris. Also, note that the

primary focus of this notice is on asgenerated process waste. We do,

however, encourage comments on how

any of these approaches could possibly

affect the rapid cleanup of RCRA

corrective action sites and CERCLA

sites.

1. Restricted Disposal

Heavy metals are generally toxic and

certain metals (i.e., arsenic, selenium,

and mercury) can be chemically altered

(e.g., methylated by bacteria) into even

more toxic and mobile species. To help

insure the long-term immobility of

metals, control of disposal conditions

for the treated waste is an avenue to

explore. Current regulations allow

characteristic metal wastes to be

disposed in nonhazardous waste

landfills once the characteristic

constituent(s), and any UHCs, meet UTS

(40 CFR 268.40 and 40 CFR 268.44).26

To ensure disposal in more controlled

conditions, one approach would be to

confine disposal of these metal-bearing

wastes to Subtitle C hazardous waste

units, although, as just noted, this

would significantly alter current rules

regarding disposal of decharacterized

waste.

Furthermore, it may be appropriate to

consider the pH of the waste and the

landfill. It may be necessary to prohibit

the disposal of a waste if it would cause

the mobilization of hazardous

constituents in the wastes that were

previously disposed in the landfill. It

may also be necessary to prohibit such

a waste if the existing landfill

conditions may cause the waste’s toxic

constituents to be mobilized. For

example, mercury sulfide has been

shown to be mobilized in the presence

of excess sulfides in alkaline

conditions.27 To maintain the long-term

stability of these wastes, wastes that

could create such conditions would

have to be excluded from the disposal

site, and the waste itself may have to be

further treated to remove excess sulfides

from the waste.

2. Specified Treatment Technologies

Another approach could be a

limitation of allowable treatment

technologies for metal-bearing wastes.

By specifying more definitively the

types of treatment allowed for metal asgenerated wastes, we would no longer

have concentration-based numerical

treatment standards but specified

methods of treatment. For example, if a

treatment standard were based on

stabilization using Portland cement as

BDAT, we would specify that this is the

only treatment reagent and process that

could be used. The Agency is hesitant

to implement this type of option, as we

prefer to retain numerical,

concentration-based standards.

Retention of a performance-based

approach, however, may require the

development of additional testing

requirements and land disposal

standards based on these new tests if we

conclude that long-term effectiveness of

stabilization is not being achieved under

current industry practices. Potentially,

performance criteria could also be

required to demonstrate adequate

treatment by a specified technology.

3. pH Controls

To achieve long-term stability and

immobility of metal-bearing wastes,

extreme pH conditions must be avoided.

In certain situations, extremely alkaline

wastes have not provided long-term

treatment, but provided the appearance

of treatment during compliance testing

with the TCLP. In another example,

arsenate species must be maintained

between pH 3.0 and pH 8.0 under

oxidizing conditions or arsenic species

will be mobile in groundwater.28

Therefore, if arsenic-bearing materials

are disposed with materials or reagents

that are highly alkaline or acidic, then

the potential for groundwater

contamination would be greatly

enhanced. Maintaining metal-bearing

waste residuals between a pH 5.0 and

pH 8.0 would help maintain immobility

of such arsenic-bearing wastes, but may

be unsuitable for other wastes.

4. Demonstration of Waste Stability

Over a pH Range

Current regulations only require that

wastes be tested under one set of

conditions. Because of the range of

conditions that exist in landfill cells, a

demonstration at a number of pH values

covering the expected range of

conditions could be required. Protocols

may be developed that determine

analyte solubility over the pH range.

Compliance could be based in part on

the solubility curve obtained from four

parallel extractions using deionized

water with nitric acid or sodium

hydroxide. The extraction conditions

could be as proposed by one group of

researchers: 29

At a liquid to solids ratio of 5

• If natural pH<5, then pH = 7, 9;

• If natural pH is between 5 and 9,

then pH = 5, 7, 9;

• Extraction at natural pH.

• At a liquid to solids ratio of 0.5

• If natural pH>9, then pH = 5, 7,

natural.

More pH conditions could also be

required for the construction of the

apparent solubility curve as a function

of pH, or extrapolated for each

constituent using the above procedure.

Mobility in the expected pH range of

disposal above numerical limits could

be prohibited. Again, we seek comment

and data on the viability of such an

option.

G. Request for Comment

We desire long-term data for wastes

treated by various technologies. We

prefer actual field performance data, but

we may be able to use bench

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37947

30See the Memo from Michael Shapiro, USEPA,

to the Hazardous Waste Management Division

Directors, USEPA Regions I-X, March 24, 1994, for

further clarification on the definition of spent

material.

31 If a waste is both listed and characteristic, and

one of the regulated constituents in the listing is

also the basis for the characteristic, 40 CFR 268.9(b)

states that the listed waste code will operate in lieu

of the standard for the characteristic provided the

treatment standard for the listed waste includes a

treatment standard for the constituent that causes

the waste to exhibit the characteristic. Otherwise,

the waste must meet the treatment standards for all

applicable listed and characteristic codes. For

example, consider a K100 waste with cadmium and

chromium at levels above UTS but below

characteristic levels, and lead above characteristic

level. This waste would be classified as both K100

and D008. Since K100 is listed for cadmium,

chromium, and lead, these three constituents must

be treated to UTS. However, none of the other UHCs

that may be present need to be treated to UTS.

32See the analyses in the BDAT Background

Documents for each listed waste.

performance data, with initial and later

characterization with standard leach

protocols.

We specifically request data from the

landfill operators, including leachate

collection system metal concentrations

and pH, process descriptions, and

associated treatability/performance

testing data. As with any data submittal

to EPA, well-documented Quality

Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) is

critical to the Agency in evaluating and

assessing the credibility of the data.

We also seek your comments on the

potential actions discussed herein that

we could take to ensure that

stabilization and immobilization

practices are properly used to treat

metal wastes. We want to make sure that

threats to human health and the

environment are minimized by the longterm stability and immobilization of

metals in RCRA hazardous waste.

VI. Re-examination of the Spent Solvent

(F001–F005) Treatment Standards

A. What is EPA Considering With

Respect to the Treatment Standards for

Spent Solvents?

The classification of waste as an

F001–F005 spent solvent waste is based

upon two criteria: The concentration of

the solvent in the virgin solvent

mixture, and how the solvent is used.

The virgin solvent must have been

comprised of any solvent mixture or

blend which contains at least, in total,

10% by volume of one or more listed

solvents. See the F001–F005 listing

descriptions (40 CFR 261.31). Also, the

solvent must be ‘‘spent’’ and have been

used for its ‘‘solvent’’ properties. A

solvent is considered ‘‘spent’’ when it

‘‘has been used and as a result of

contamination can no longer serve the

purpose for which it was produced

without further processing.’’ 30

In this section, we are revisiting the

LDR treatment standards applicable to

F001–F005 spent solvents to investigate

whether we should require treatment of

some (i.e., metals) or all hazardous

constituents to their universal treatment

standards (UTS) before land disposal.

This section includes spent solvent

characterization information, a

discussion of the current solvent

treatment standards, and a description

of one option for revising the spent

solvent regulations. A second related

inquiry, which we discuss in another

section of this ANPRM, is to add an

F040 incinerator ash waste code with

corresponding treatment standards. This

ash code would presumably address the

underlying hazardous constituents in

the treatment residuals from the

incineration of spent solvents.

B. Why Is There a Need To Reexamine

the Spent Solvent Treatment Standards?

When we established the treatment

standards for listed solvent wastes in

1986, we did not also adopt treatment

standards for metals or other hazardous

constituents (e.g., organics other than

those listed in the Table in 40 CFR

268.40). Therefore, under the current

regulations, if a listed solvent waste is

not also characteristic (i.e., the waste is

not classified as any of the waste codes

D001-D043), then treaters only have to

treat the regulated constituents specified

in the LDR table in 40 CFR 268.40. This

means that they do not have to treat

other hazardous constituents to the UTS

levels set forth in the 40 CFR 268.48

UTS table. Thus, the potential exists for

some solvent wastes that contain other

hazardous constituents above UTS to be

treated only for the organics listed in the

LDR table in 40 CFR 268.40. The

treatment residuals would then be land

disposed with these other hazardous

constituents still above UTS. Note that

a waste that exhibits a characteristic

must be treated for underlying

hazardous constituents (UHCs) prior to

land disposal, so this same potential

does not exist for listed spent solvents

that are also characteristic wastes.31

EPA typically does not require

treatment of other hazardous

constituents in listed wastes because in

the listing and in the development of

the treatment standards we have

determined all of the hazardous

constituents which are likely to be

present.32 In these investigations,

however, we have not accounted for the

fact that solvents can mobilize, and

therefore become contaminated with,

significant concentrations of the other

hazardous constituents they contact.

Therefore, we are investigating whether

we need to regulate metals and other

hazardous constituents in F001–F005

spent solvent wastes to better protect

human health and the environment.

C. How Does EPA Regulate Spent

Solvents?

Spent solvents are listed hazardous

wastes carrying the waste codes F001–

F005. Thirty-two solvents are listed in

the table in 40 CFR 268.40. Thirty of

these solvents have numerical treatment

standards for the solvent itself; the other

two, 2-Nitropropane and 2-

Ethoxyethanol, have specified treatment

technologies.

Currently, an F001–F005 waste is

required to be treated for UHCs only if

the waste is characteristic. As noted

above, if the solvent waste is not

characteristic, then it may be disposed

with other hazardous constituents above

UTS levels and still be in compliance

with the LDR regulations. Two scenarios

exist where a spent solvent may have a

hazardous constituent above a

concentration of concern to EPA (in

both scenarios, assume that the waste

does not exhibit a characteristic):

(1) The constituent is a toxicity

characteristic (TC) metal or organic, and

concentration is less than TC level, but

above UTS.

(2) The constituent is not a TC metal

or organic, but concentration is above

UTS.

D. What Are the Characteristics of Spent

Solvents and How Do Generators and

Treaters Manage Them?

Nonwastewater spent solvents are

usually either organic liquids or still

bottoms from the recovery of F001–F005

spent solvents. The main technology for

effectively treating the solvents is some

form of combustion. Treaters must then

ensure (typically via testing) that the

incinerator ash complies with the

treatment standards for the regulated

solvent constituents in 40 CFR 268.40.

If the ash is itself characteristic, most

likely for metals, it is regarded as a

newly-generated waste and must be

further treated to meet not only the

treatment standard for the characteristic

but also the UTS levels for any UHCs

that are present.

Nonwastewaters can also be derived

from treating F001–F005 wastewaters.

These nonwastewaters will typically be

a sludge that could have concentrated

levels of metals, and therefore exhibit a

characteristic. If the nonwastewater

does exhibit a characteristic, that

characteristic, and any UHCs, must be

treated.

Wastewater forms of F001–F005 are

also generated. Most wastewaters are

‘‘derived-from’’ (i.e., they are generated

37948 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

from the treatment, storage or disposal

of listed hazardous wastes, and

therefore remain hazardous wastes). See

40 CFR 261.3(c)(2). Examples include

wastewaters contaminated with an

F001–F005 solvent, scrubber waters

from combustion units, and cooling

waters from distillation units or

strippers that get contaminated with

solvents. Since most wastewaters are

eventually co-mingled with other plant

wastewaters, it is likely that other waste

codes (and treatment standards) also

apply. However, because many

wastewaters are treated and discharged

under National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permits

with no land disposal in the treatment

train, the LDRs never apply to them (i.e.,

they are restricted wastes, but not

prohibited wastes, since they are not

land disposed).

E. What Are the Levels of Metal

Constituents in F001–F005?

The ‘‘Best Demonstrated Available

Technology (BDAT) Background

Document for F001–F005 Spent

Solvents,’’ November 1986, presents

nine data sets on incinerator ash from

the combustion of hazardous wastes,

including spent solvents. The data show

that metal concentrations in the

incinerator ash are mostly below UTS

levels. There are no instances in which

the metal concentration is above the TC

level, and only two cases in which the

metal concentration is above the UTS

but below TC levels. One of these two

instances is for lead and the other is for

chromium.

Although this background document

suggests that metals are not ubiquitous

in treated wastes that contain spent

solvents, more current information from

the 1995 Biennial Reporting System

(BRS) shows that often an F001–F005

waste stream is also characteristic for

one of the metals. A preliminary review

of the 1995 BRS shows that about 20%

of the F001–F005 waste streams also

carry at least one of the characteristic

metal codes (i.e., D004–D011), with

about 15% carrying two or more

characteristic metal codes. Lead and

chromium are the metals that are most

frequently present; each is found in

about 15% of the spent solvent waste

streams.

This information is informative but

not necessarily dispositive. Although

the BRS provides a general idea of how

much hazardous waste is generated, we

want to point out three issues with

respect to the F001–F005 BRS data. One

is that the BRS does not include actual

metal concentrations in the waste

streams, even though the waste streams

are reported as characteristic for metal.

Thus, it is very difficult to accurately

estimate the range of metal

concentrations found in spent solvent

wastes, except through making

assumptions that may or may not reflect

reality. Nevertheless, because these data

show that about 20% are reported as

characteristic for metals, one could

draw an inference that metals are

present in these and potentially other

spent solvent waste streams at levels

that warrant further investigation.

A second issue is that the BRS does

not provide any information on other

recognized toxic metals that, by

themselves, would not render a spent

solvent characteristic. These metals

include antimony, beryllium, nickel,

and thallium, each of which appear on

the list of hazardous constituents in

Appendix VIII of Part 261. Thus, we

cannot estimate from the BRS the extent

that these metals may be present or in

what concentrations.

Finally, although 20% of the spent

solvents waste streams also have a

characteristic metal code (and therefore

require treatment of all UHCs

reasonably expected to be present), we

do not know the metal concentrations in

the other 80% of the waste streams. This

raises at least the potential for these

streams to have metal concentrations

above UTS. For all of these reasons, we

are interested in a more complete

characterization of metal constituents

and concentrations in F001–F005 spent

solvents and we invite data and detailed

comments on this subject.

F. How Might We Change the

Regulations?

Although the previous section

focused solely on metals in spent

solvents, we are more generally

concerned about all hazardous

constituents in spent solvents. As was

alluded too earlier, solvent wastes are

generated in a wide variety of settings

and are prone to contamination with

almost any hazardous constituent

(depending upon where the solvents

were used) since one of the main

purposes of solvents is to mobilize

whatever they come in contact with.

To ensure that all hazardous

constituents in treated solvent wastes

are at concentrations that reflect BDAT

and minimize threats to human health

and the environment, we are asking for

comment on whether we should require

treatment of all other hazardous

constituents (or possibly just metals) in

spent solvent wastes to UTS levels (see

40 CFR 268.48). This regulatory change

would essentially adopt the same LDR

regime for these listed solvent wastes as

for characteristic wastes.

In extending this concept to F001–

F005 spent solvents, we may need only

to focus on metals since treatment via

high temperature combustion would

likely destroy all organics and the only

remaining compounds of concern from

the original spent solvent waste would

be metals. However, as noted above, we

are interested in comment on whether

any technical or implementation

considerations exist that would lead to

requiring treatment of all hazardous

constituents, not just metals, that are

present in the F001–F005 wastes.

A second approach is to develop a

new waste code (F040) for incinerator

ash, and not to focus our attention on

hazardous constituents in the original

F001–F005 spent solvent waste that is

going to high temperature combustion.

We discuss the need for an ash waste

code in this ANPRM in the section titled

‘‘Should EPA Establish Special

Categories of Waste Residuals?’’ Since

many solvent nonwastewaters are

combusted, metal concentrations in

spent solvents could be adequately

controlled by the treatment standards

for the ash waste code. As noted in this

other section in more detail, we seek

comment on the various advantages and

disadvantages of this approach.

G. Request for Comment

We are seeking comment on all

aspects of the potential changes to the

F001–F005 waste codes. In particular,

we would like comments and

information on the following:

(1) F001–F005 characterization data,

both before and after treatment

(including total and TCLP metal

concentrations);

(2) The need for a change to the

current spent solvent regulations. What

information can you provide on the

current treatment practices for F001–

F005 solvent wastes?

(3) If a change is necessary, which

regulatory option do you prefer? We

specifically invite comment on the

option described in Section F, and on

the addition of an F040 waste code for

incinerator ash. Would treatment

standards for the F040 waste code

ensure that spent solvents are properly

treated and disposed? We are also

interested in other options you may

prefer.

(4) What are the possible impacts of

changing the regulations? Would there

be a substantial increase/decrease in the

amount of required sampling and

analyses? Are there any capacity

considerations that need to be analyzed?

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37949

33References to 49 CFR in 40 CFR 261.23 to

explosive classes have been subsequently renamed

and renumbered since the promulgation of 40 CFR

261.23. See 55 FR 52617, December 21, 1990.

Definition of forbidden explosives is now found at

49 CFR 173.53, and definition of Class A and B

explosives are found at 49 CFR 173.50. See also 49

CFR 173.53 to compare old and new hazard class

names.

34Listing Background Document, USEPA, 1980,

page 651, which is in the docket for this notice.

35When managed in CWA/CWA-equivalent/Class

I SDWA systems, explosives, other reactives, and

water reactive wastes may be diluted to remove the

characteristic, without consideration of underlying

constituents.

VII. Reactive Wastes: Possible

Revisions to Treatment Standards

A. What Is EPA’s General Concern?

The LDR treatment standards for

reactive wastes require that the waste no

longer exhibit the characteristic of

reactivity, but do not require destruction

of the agents in the wastes that cause the

waste to be reactive. Also, certain

members of the regulated community

have expressed uncertainty in how to

evaluate wastes for reactivity, either

before or after treatment, and have

requested guidance. The Agency is

therefore asking whether this type of

guidance is generally needed and also

whether the LDR treatment standards

for these reactive wastes need to be

revised to more effectively minimize

long-term threats to human health and

the environment.

B. What Are Reactive Wastes?

40 CFR 261.23 defines wastes having

the characteristics of reactivity

(classified as D003 wastes) as those that

have any one of the following

properties:

(1) It is normally unstable and readily

undergoes violent change without

detonating;

(2) It reacts violently with water;

(3) It forms potentially explosive

mixtures with water;

(4) When mixed with water, it

generates toxic gases, vapors or fumes in

a quantity sufficient to present a danger

to human health or the environment;

(5) It is a cyanide or sulfide bearing

waste which, when exposed to pH

conditions between 2 and 12.5, can

generate toxic gases, vapors or fumes in

a quantity sufficient to present a danger

to human health or the environment;

(6) It is capable of detonation or

explosive reaction if subjected to a

strong initiating source or heated under

confinement;

(7) It is readily capable of detonation,

explosive decomposition or reaction at

standard temperature and pressure;

(8) It is a forbidden explosive as

defined in 49 CFR 173.51, a Class A

explosive as defined in 49 CFR 173.53,

or a Class B explosive as defined in 49

CFR 173.88.33

Several listed wastes are also

considered reactive: K044, K045 and

K047, wastes from the manufacture and

processing of explosives. These wastes

were listed solely for reactivity, and

contain a number of explosive

components which, if improperly

managed, could pose a substantial

hazard.34

C. What Are the Existing LDR Treatment

Standards for Reactive Wastes?

The treatment standard for the

reactive wastes, other than the cyanide

subcategory wastes, is deactivation,

abbreviated in the 40 CFR 268.40

treatment table as ‘‘DEACT.’’ DEACT

requires only that the wastes must be

treated to remove the characteristic

prior to land disposal. The constituent

that originally caused the waste to

exhibit reactivity is not specifically

required to be destroyed or separately

treated. In addition to DEACT,

explosives, water reactives, and other

reactives subcategory D003

characteristic wastes must be treated to

meet universal treatment standards

(UTS) for any underlying hazardous

constituents (UHCs) reasonably

expected to be present in the waste.35

See Table 2 for the list of the treatment

standards.

TABLE 2.—TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR REACTIVE WASTES

Waste code Waste description Nonwastewater treatment standard

D003 .................................... reactive sulfides subcategory .......................................... DEACT.

explosives subcategory ................................................... DEACT and meet 268.48 standards.

unexploded ordnance and other explosive devices

which have been the subject of an emergency response.

DEACT.

other reactives subcategory ............................................ DEACT and meet 268.48 standards.

water reactive subcategory ............................................. DEACT and meet 268.48 standards.

reactive cyanides subcategory ........................................ 590 mg/kg total, 30 mg/kg amenable.

K044 ..................................... wastewater treatment sludges from the manufacturing

and processing of explosives.

DEACT.

K045 ..................................... spent carbon from the treatment of wastewater containing explosives.DEACT.

K047 ..................................... pink/red water from TNT operations ............................... DEACT.

D. Are There Specific Reactive

Subcategories That Merit Attention?

Yes. Several subcategories of reactive

characteristic wastes appear in our LDR

regulations. We are most interested in

the waste subcategories that require

only DEACT as the treatment standard.

Two key issues exist in particular. First,

where other, non-reactive hazardous

constituents are expected to exist, these

constituents may warrant individual

treatment attention. Our current

treatment standards do not always

require this to occur. Table 2 illustrates

how DEACT is specified for each

subcategory of D003 wastes (with the

exception of the reactive cyanides

subcategory) and for K044, K045 and

K047. UHCs or other hazardous

constituents expected to be present

(known as regulated constituents in

listed wastes) are only included in the

treatment standards for the following

wastes: D003 explosives, other reactives,

and water reactives subcategories.

Second, DEACT does not require

treatment (destruction) of the

constituent causing the waste to be

reactive, but rather allows any method

(including dilution in the case of Clean

Water Act, or CWA, systems) to be used

to remove the characteristic of

reactivity. In the preamble to the Third

Third Rule (55 FR 22552, June 1, 1990),

EPA noted that it had selected

deactivation because technologies exist

that can remove the characteristic, and

that the general standard would allow

37950 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

36See 64 FR 51540, September 23, 1999 for an

example of a proposed DET in the Federal Register.

37EPA would reserve the option to waive this

requirement if, in our judgement, delay would

result in significant damage to human health and

the environment.

the regulated community flexibility to

use whichever treatment technology

that best fits the type of waste; see also

Chemical Waste Management v. EPA,

976 F.2d 2, 18 (D.C. Cir. 1992), where

the court upheld the deactivation

standard for wastes identified because

they exhibit the characteristic of

reactivity.

Current regulations provide, at 40

CFR 268 Appendix VI, recommended

technologies for the treatment of water

reactive, reactive sulfide, explosive,

other reactive subcategories of D003

characteristic wastes, and K044, K045

and K047 listed wastes. Again, these

technologies are not required.

By not requiring a technology that

destroys or permanently treats the

characteristic causing the reactivity, we

lack a means to measure whether a

waste or waste constituent is still

reactive over the long term. This

becomes a concern, for example, when

many of the listed and characteristic

explosive subcategory reactive wastes

are simply kept moist to make it safer

to handle them. Because ‘‘DEACT’’ is

narratively defined in section 261.23,

wetting of material may be treatment in

the short term, but is not necessarily a

permanent treatment. The definition of

‘‘DEACT’’ has been implemented in

practice to include wetting, even though

it may be only temporarily effective.

Furthermore, generators have in some

cases determined that their wastes when

wetted are not reactive and not subject

to treatment standards even though

explosive residues may form through

evaporation. This raises the question

about the timing of a determination of

compliance (in this case, removal of a

characteristic) with uncertain future

events that may significantly change the

nature of the waste.

E. Request for Comment

We are requesting comment on the

possibility of modifying the treatment

standards. One option would be to

include a requirement to destroy the

reactive constituents in the waste.

Possible technologies include chemical

oxidation (CHOXD); chemical reduction

(CHRED); biodegradation (BIODG); or

combustion (CMBST). These are some of

the technologies recommended in 40

CFR 268 Appendix VI. We are also

requesting comment on the possibility

of adding the requirement to treat UHCs

for the characteristic subcategories for

which that requirement does not already

exist and, in the case of the listed

reactive wastes, to require treatment of

specific hazardous metals which are

also expected to be present.

We are also requesting data

identifying the wastes, waste volumes,

current treatment, and any additional

treatment costs associated with

alternative treatments that might better

treat these wastes.

VIII. Public Input Into Decisions on

Determinations of Equivalent

Treatment (DETs)

At the 1998 LDR roundtable, we heard

from environmental groups that we

should allow the public to comment on

Determinations of Equivalent Treatment

(DET) granted under 40 CFR 268.42(b).

The underlying concern is that the

public has no voice in the decision

making process that may have an impact

on hazardous waste treatment in their

own communities.

A. What Are DETs and What Is the

Current System of Considering DET

Petitions?

A DET is a variance that may be

granted for a hazardous waste at a

particular site for which the LDR

treatment standard is a required method

of treatment. It is based upon a

demonstration to EPA that another

treatment technology performs as well

as the one required under the LDR

treatment standard. If it is granted, the

alternative technology becomes the

treatment standard that must be used on

that waste at a particular site.

Currently, the regulated community

petitions EPA for a DET. These petitions

generally contain data to show that the

alternative treatment method provides a

measure of performance equivalent to

the one established as the treatment

standard. These petitions also contain

information on the facility generating

the waste, the volume of the waste,

where it is disposed, and other

information relevant to the petition. We

consider the petition and data, and then

grant or deny the request in writing

based upon its technical merits. We

then inform the petitioner of our

decision.

Under EPA’s current regulations,

public participation is not required in

the process of evaluating a DET petition.

In contrast, public participation is

required for a related process involving

treatment variances (see 40 CFR

268.44(e)). Under this process, we give

public notice in the Federal Register of

our intent to grant or deny the treatment

variance and then again of our final

decision. The treatability variances

granted under 40 CFR 268.44(e) are very

similar to DETs in that they establish

alternative treatment standards for a

waste. They differ from DETs in that

they are granted in cases when the

treatment standard is expressed as

concentration levels rather than

required methods of treatment, and the

substantive grounds for granting

treatment variances are different from

those for DETs.

B. Is A Regulatory Change Needed?

We have recently begun publishing

DETs in the Federal Register with a

comment period without a regulatory

change. 36 We are considering whether

also to change the regulations at 40 CFR

268.42(b) to require EPA to seek public

comment on most DET requests. 37

Public comment would be solicited on

EPA’s draft decision to grant or deny the

DET request. Public comments could be

solicited through such vehicles as the

Federal Register, for instance, or other

outlets such as local newspapers. We

expect most comments would address

the merits of the proposed technology

for the waste in question. The comments

received would then be factored into

EPA’s final decision. The written final

decision could be announced in the

Federal Register or other vehicle such

as a local newspaper.

C. Request for Comment

We solicit comments on the need for

a regulation regarding public

participation in the DET process, and on

whether EPA’s current practice is

sufficient. Furthermore, we solicit

information on the length of time that

would be appropriate for public

participation, and the media vehicles

that should be used to solicit comments.

Is there a need for different public

participation requirements than for

treatment variances? Are there any

disadvantages to the increased public

participation, other than time delays for

issuing the variance?

IX. Should EPA Revise the

Macroencapsulation Alternative

Treatment Standard for Hazardous

Debris?

In a petition for rulemaking (available

in the docket for this ANPRM), filed on

December 16, 1998, the Environmental

Technology Council (ETC), the National

Association of Chemical Recyclers, and

the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition

request EPA to amend the alternative

treatment standards for hazardous

debris to restrict the use of

macroencapsulation for debris

contaminated with significant amounts

of organic hazardous constituents. ETC

is particularly focused on the

effectiveness of using high density

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37951

38The exception to this is characteristic debris. If

characteristic debris which has been immobilized

no longer displays the characteristic, it can be

disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.

polyethylene vaults for

macroencapsulating hazardous debris.

A. What Are the Alternative Treatment

Standards for Hazardous Debris?

On August 12, 1992, EPA

promulgated alternative treatment

standards for hazardous debris (57 FR

37195). Hazardous debris is defined as

debris that either contains a listed

hazardous waste, or exhibits a

characteristic of hazardous waste (see 40

CFR 268.2(h)). The alternative treatment

standards for hazardous debris are listed

in the table at 40 CFR 268.45.

The 17 treatment technologies listed

in 40 CFR 268.45 are divided into three

categories: extraction, destruction, and

immobilization. The extraction and

destruction technologies are designed to

separate the debris from its

contaminant(s). Because debris treated

by one of these types of technologies is

considered clean, such debris can then

be disposed of in a subtitle D landfill.

The immobilization technologies do not

separate the debris from its

contaminants, and therefore debris

treated using an immobilization

technology must be disposed of in a

subtitle C landfill.38 The three

immobilization technologies are

macroencapsulation,

microencapsulation, and sealing.

Microencapsulation involves grinding

up the debris and stabilizing it in a

reagent. Sealing involves application of

a coating material to the debris.

Macroencapsulation, the standard

which is at issue, involves placing the

debris in an inert jacket of material

(such as a steel drum) to prevent

leaching. If the macroencapsulation

standard is used, the performance

standard, which states that the

encapsulating material must be resistant

to degradation by the debris and any

contaminants on the debris, must be met

before the debris can be land disposed.

B. What is an HDPE Vault?

On June 15, 1995, three years after

promulgation of the debris rule,

Chemical Waste Management, Inc.

(CWM) sent a letter to EPA in which

they described their

macroencapsulation process and asked

whether it met the requirements of 40

CFR 268.45 (the letter and EPA’s

response are available in the docket for

this ANPRM). CWM described their

process as follows:

* * * a jacket of inert inorganic

material is placed around hazardous

debris, which is then placed in a high

density polyethylene (HDPE) vault. An

inert jacketing material (like cement) is

then placed around the debris, the lid of

the vault secured, and the vault is

placed in a subtitle C landfill.

We had not considered this type of

technology when developing the

macroencapsulation standard. However,

we determined in our response letter to

CWM that this process meets the

definition of macroencapsulation for

hazardous debris. We also stated in our

response that merely placing hazardous

debris in a container, unless the

container is made of a noncorroding

material such as stainless steel, does not

meet performance standard for

macroencapsulation. We think that use

of the cement (or other stabilizing

material) is critical to meeting the

design and operating standard for

macroencapsulation. Without the

stabilizing agent, no guarantee exists

that the encapsulating material would

be resistant to the debris contaminants.

C. What Is the Issue With the HDPE

Vaults?

Because macroencapsulation is an

immobilization technology, no removal

or reduction of hazardous constituents

is required. Therefore, debris placed

into an HDPE vault could potentially

have significant amounts of a

contaminant.

The technical support document for

the debris rule did not include a

description of the HDPE vault as this

method did not come to our attention

until after the August 19, 1992 rule was

published. The June 15, 1995 CWM

letter did not include enough

information that would have been

required for a background document.

Therefore, there has not been an

extensive discussion about the

effectiveness of the HDPE vaults. HDPE

is a material that can be dissolved by

even small amounts of solvents. The

performance standard for

macroencapsulation is clear in that the

encapsulating material should be

resistant to the debris and its

contaminants. When hazardous debris

contaminated with a significant amount

of an organic solvent is placed in an

HDPE vault, and if there is no

stabilizing reagent, then theoretically

the HDPE could dissolve from exposure

to solvents. In this case, the

performance standard for

macroencapsulation has not been met.

This is, in fact, improper treatment of a

hazardous waste.

As pointed out in the ETC petition,

the debris proposed rule (57 FR 958,

January 9, 1992) originally stated that

macroencapsulation was not

appropriate for organic constituents.

The technical support document for the

proposed rule stated that

macroencapsulation is not expected to

be effective on organic compounds. The

final debris rule may appear to some to

be less restrictive than the proposal in

that it does not contain the same

prohibitive language. This is not the

case. The table of alternative debris

standards in the proposed rule was

merely simplified for the final rule. ETC

alleges in its petition that we did not

place any contaminant restrictions on

the macroencapsulation standard in the

final rule as a result of the

simplification of the table and that we

meant to restrict macroencapsulation to

inorganic debris only. This is also not

true.

The response to comment’s document

for the final rule addresses the change

in the alternative treatment standards

table. We stated that the final rule did

not prohibit encapsulation of any

specific debris type because the design

and operating parameters and the

performance standards were sufficient

to ensure effective treatment of

hazardous debris using encapsulation.

Basically, we regard the performance

standards as thorough enough to

prevent inappropriate treatment. The

technical support document for the final

rule mentions that certain situations,

such as using organic polymer

encapsulants to encase organic solvents,

would obviously not meet the

performance standard. We therefore find

no compelling reason to propose a

revision to the current

macroencapsulation standard in today’s

notice. However, the use of HDPE vaults

to macroencapsulate debris was not

considered in the final rulemaking, and

we are taking this opportunity to open

the issue for comment.

D. Request for Comment

ETC is requesting that we amend the

macroencapsulation standard to restrict

it to ‘‘metal-bearing hazardous waste’’

only, and refer to the list of 43 listed

and 8 characteristic wastes found in

Appendix XI of 40 CFR 268. We are

taking comment on this ETC option. We

are also soliciting data on

macroencapsulated debris and the

effectiveness of HDPE vaults and any

other options you may have.

We are also soliciting comment on

restricting the use of the

macroencapsulation standard for other

types of wastes. Debris contaminated

with a waste that has a specified method

can be treated with one of the

37952 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

39For ‘‘debris-like’’ material with a specified

method, such as K109, the specified method must

be used.

40 In the context of the Hazardous Waste

Identification Rule (HWIR), the Chemical

Manufacturers Association (CMA) suggested a

different approach to regulating combustion ash.

The CMA approach would exempt residues from

the combustion of listed hazardous waste from the

derived-from rule. The residues would then only be

hazardous if they exhibit one of the hazardous

waste characteristics of 40 CFR 261.3. We took

comment on the CMA approach in the HWIR

proposed rule (64 FR 63381, November 19, 1999).

We will closely examine any comments we receive

in response to that proposal, but we are not

addressing nor soliciting additional comment on

the CMA approach in this notice.

alternative debris standards.39 We are

today taking comments on whether this

is appropriate.

We are also considering restricting the

use of the macroencapsulation standard

for certain types of debris. Some debris

types lend themselves to other

alternative treatment technologies. Cloth

contaminated with a hazardous organic

substance, for instance, could be more

effectively treated by combustion. We

suspect that the macroencapsulation

standard is used because it is easier and

less costly, but this may not foster the

most effective method of treatment. We

had hoped that the macroencapsulation

standard would be used only when

other, more effective methods of

treatment could not. We are today

taking comment on whether the

macroencapsulation standard should be

restricted to just inorganic debris

contaminated with inorganic

constituents that cannot be otherwise

treated. This is more restrictive than the

ETC option.

X. Should EPA Establish a Special

Category for Incineration Ash?

A. What Are We Considering for

Incineration Ash?

Listed hazardous wastes carry the

EPA hazardous waste codes of the asgenerated waste from generation to

ultimate land disposal. These waste

codes are required to be placed on the

LDR notification, which is the required

LDR paperwork that accompanies the

waste from the generator to the

treatment, storage, or disposal facility

and provides information about the

waste so that the correct LDR treatment

standards are met. In addition, some

states require waste codes to be placed

on the hazardous waste manifest, the

RCRA tracking paperwork that

accompanies hazardous wastes from

generation to disposal. Facilities are also

required to report information about

their waste, including waste codes, to

the Biennial Reporting System (BRS).

Because several listed hazardous

wastes may be treated together in an

incinerator or other incineration device,

a large number of waste codes could be

required on the LDR notification, the

manifest, and reported to the BRS with

respect to the thermal treatment

residues (i.e., the ash). We have heard

from the regulated community that the

tracking of multiple codes is

burdensome and that a single waste

code for incinerator ash would simplify

paperwork and compliance monitoring.

A single waste code could make it easier

to track wastes on the manifest,

especially in the event of a spill. A

single waste code could also make

completing the BRS much simpler, and

could assist EPA in interpreting those

BRS data. Therefore, we are considering

establishing a waste code for

incineration ash. It would likely be

similar to the waste code established

several years ago in the Third Third rule

for multi-source leachate, F039 (55 FR

22619, June 1, 1990).

B. What Are the Approaches We Are

Considering for Regulating Incineration

Ash? 40

Our initial thinking is that the

incinerator ash waste code would

encompass ash resulting from the

incineration of more than one hazardous

waste containing organic constituents,

including organic toxicity wastes

(D012–D043) and wastes with greater

than 1% total organic carbon. The

current definition of combustion, found

in Table 1 at 40 CFR 268.42, includes

high temperature organic destruction

technologies in units such as

incinerators, boilers, or industrial

furnaces operated in accordance with

the requirements of 40 CFR 264–265,

Subparts O; or Part 266, Subpart H and

potentially in other units operated in

accordance with similar technical

operating requirements (perhaps

Subpart X). We solicit comments on

whether an ash waste code should be for

wastes that are incinerated, or whether

ash from these other combustion units

should thus be included. If we do

include ash waste from such

combustion devices, we solicit data on

whether there are significant differences

in the ash, and whether hazardous

constituents partition into different

types of residues, from these different

incineration units. If differences do

exist, should we regulate the ash from

these different units accordingly? In

addition, we solicit comments on

whether the incineration ash waste code

should be defined as the incineration of

more than one hazardous waste

containing organic constituents,

including organic toxicity wastes

(D012–D043) and wastes with greater

than 1% total organic carbon, or

whether it should be defined in some

other way.

If we were to establish a new waste

code for incinerator ash, the ash would

almost certainly be considered a new

point of generation since the

incineration unit will significantly alter

the physical and chemical composition

of, and the hazards associated with, the

original waste. This is not to say that the

toxicity of the original wastes has been

completely removed. Rather, the

composition and nature of the waste

have changed to the point that the

hazards posed by the incinerator ash are

likely to be significantly different than

the original waste, and the subsequent

management and handling that would

be environmentally warranted for

incinerator ash could be significantly

different from those for the original

waste.

Because hazardous constituents in

incineration ash derive potentially from

any of the hazardous wastes, our

treatment standard should account for

this possibility. One approach is to

regulate all of the potential hazardous

constituents that may be present.

Subjecting the ash to the Universal

Treatment Standards (UTS) would

accomplish this goal. Under this

approach, the ash would have to be

evaluated for all UTS constituents, be

treated if necessary to meet the UTS

levels, and the resulting treatment

residue would be placed in a hazardous

waste (Subtitle C) landfill. Like the

underlying philosophy for F039,

however, it is unnecessary and wasteful

to monitor constituents that are not

present (55 FR 22620, June 1, 1990).

Therefore, one modification to the

approach outlined above would make

the treater only responsible for meeting

the treatment standards for those

constituents specified in their permit

waste analysis plan, which would be

negotiated on a site-specific basis.

C. How Should the Dioxin Waste Codes

Be Regulated?

One approach would be to exclude

ash derived from listed dioxincontaining wastes F020–F023 and

F026–F027 from any incineration ash

code that we might develop. This would

parallel the approach taken for F039,

where dioxin-containing waste codes

are not eligible for the more generic

F039 classification. The ash would

therefore continue to be classified and

regulated as F020–F023 and F026–F027

wastes, the waste codes from which the

ash is derived. Ash derived from soils

contaminated with these waste codes

would continue to be classified as F028.

The reasoning behind continuing to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37953

regulate the ash as a dioxin-containing

waste code would be that these listed

dioxin wastes are acutely hazardous and

warrant special management standards

(55 FR 22620, June 1, 1990). In addition,

restrictions could be imposed that more

explicitly prohibit mixing these dioxin

wastes with other wastes to escape from

more stringent management standards.

Another approach would be to allow

these dioxin-containing waste codes to

be eligible for the incinerator ash waste

code. In looking at whether this

approach can be justified, we would

consider the potential for dioxin-listed

waste in the feed stream to cause

elevated dioxin levels in the incinerator

bottom ash and collected particulate

matter. Although the Agency’s

incinerator regulations minimize stack

emissions of dioxins (see 64 FR 52528,

September 30, 1999), the regulations do

not explicitly minimize dioxin levels in

bottom ash. There are no ash burn-out

requirements, for example. However,

dioxins are not thermally stable and, as

a practical matter, dioxins in the waste

feed are easily destroyed in an

incinerator’s combustion chamber.

Therefore, dioxin levels in incinerator

bottom ash from burning dioxin-listed

waste should be no higher than dioxin

levels in the ash from burning other

non-dioxin wastes. To further evaluate

this issue, we will need data on dioxin

concentrations in ash from burning both

dioxin-containing waste codes and from

burning other non-dioxin wastes.

Similarly, our current incinerator

regulations do not minimize dioxin

levels in collected particulate matter.

Because dioxins are so thermally

unstable, it could be argued that waste

particles entrained in the combustion

gas are not likely to contain dioxins and

that any dioxins found in the collected

particulate matter result from postcombustion formation, which is not

related to dioxin levels in the waste

feed.

We are, therefore, interested in

comment and data on whether the

incineration of dioxin-containing waste

cause either bottom ash or collected

particulate matter to have higher levels

of dioxin than the incineration of other

non-dioxin wastes. Our decision on

whether to propose to allow dioxincontaining waste codes to be eligible for

an incinerator ash waste code (either

with or without special management

conditions) will be guided by the

technical information we receive. We

solicit comments on both approaches

and on others that we should consider.

D. Should We Regulate Specific

Constituents of Concern in the Ash?

One potential problem with

establishing a new waste code for

incinerator ash is that it may require

treatment of constituents that are not in

the as-generated waste at levels of

concern, but are either formed in the ash

(e.g., dioxins) or concentrated in the ash

(e.g., metals) during treatment.

Currently, constituents that are not

identified as UHCs in the untreated

characteristic waste and that form

during treatment only have to be treated

if it is determined that there is a new

LDR point of generation after the

treatment occurs. We clarified two LDR

point of generation questions in a recent

technical amendment (64 FR 25411,

May 11, 1999). There, we said:

(1) For residuals that are the end

product of a one-step treatment process

or the end product of a treatment train,

the treater has the obligation to ensure

only that the original UHCs meet UTS

standards and that the treatment

residuals are not themselves

characteristic. If a treatment residual in

this scenario does not meet the

treatment standards for the original

characteristic (i.e., when treatment is

ineffective or incomplete) and requires

further treatment, EPA does not

consider the treatment residue to be

newly generated for LDR purposes.

Such a treatment residue, however,

cannot be land disposed until it meets

the treatment standard applicable to the

original waste. This situation would

normally involve retreating the waste

residuals on-site. Any UHCs added or

created by the treatment process are not

required to be treated because there is

no new point of generation for LDR

purposes. However, as noted above, if

the treatment residuals are themselves

characteristic due to a new property (for

example, an incinerator ash resulting

from the incineration of several listed

wastes is now only characteristic for

D008 lead), then the treater must make

a new determination of the UHCs

present—either through knowledge or

additional testing. This is the same

obligation that attaches to any generator

of a hazardous waste.

(2) For treatment residuals that appear

only at intermediate steps of a treatment

train, there is no obligation to determine

UHCs or to determine whether the

residual is itself characteristic.

Intermediate-step treatment residuals

are not newly generated hazardous

wastes for LDR purposes. Thus, even

when an intermediate treatment

residual is sent off-site for further

treatment (such as incinerator ash going

offsite for stabilization and land filling),

our current regulations at 40 CFR

268.7(b)(5) require only that the UHCs

identified at the LDR point of generation

be identified. There is no such

requirement for any new UHCs that may

be added or created during the

preceding steps of the treatment

process.

As indicated above, if we develop a

separate waste code for incinerator ash

and if the ash is considered a new LDR

point of generation, full waste

characterization of the ash would have

to take place. Some constituents that

were not UHCs in the characteristic

wastes originally going into the

incinerator could now be UHCs,

particularly metals that are concentrated

in the ash or, potentially, trace levels of

dioxins and furans. We solicit comment

and data on the concentration of metals

or dioxins/furans in incineration ash

and on the effect of establishing a waste

code for incinerator ash. If we do not

receive data, we may need to presume

that these constituents are present in the

ash at levels above UTS. In addition, we

request data on levels of dioxin and

furan leaching from incinerator ash,

both untreated and after stabilization.

These data will be highly important for

our deliberations on whether to

establish a separate waste code for

incineration ash and, if so, what the

treatment standard should be.

E. Would the Incinerator Ash Waste

Code Be Optional?

Our initial thinking is that the original

waste codes would not apply to

incinerator ash (i.e., no waste code carry

through). This is mainly because

categorizing ash according to the

original waste codes may, in some cases,

result in less treatment of waste

constituents than if the waste were

categorized as a new waste code for

incineration ash. For example, ash from

the incineration of listed organic wastes

may contain low levels of metals that

would not be treated under the

treatment standard for the original waste

but would be found at higher levels in

the ash due to concentration. We solicit

comments on this issue and, in

particular, whether the incinerator ash

code should always apply, or whether

the original waste codes should apply in

some circumstances (including on a

case-by-case basis). We would also like

comments on how this second option

would affect the consistency and

accuracy of the BRS database.

F. Are There Ways To Reduce the

Analytical Burden?

We are soliciting comments on

approaches that could be used to limit

the number of constituents that would

37954 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

41Note that EPA recently published a proposed

rule on the storage, treatment, transportation, and

disposal of mixed waste proposed rule. See 64 FR

63464, November 19, 1999.

require testing and analysis if a new

waste code for incinerator ash were

established. For example, we already

have provided regulatory relief for

organic constituents in listed waste that

have been combusted when testing and

analysis indicates they are below

detection limits (40 CFR 268.40(d)). The

provision allows these wastes to meet

concentrations that are one order of

magnitude greater than the LDR

treatment standard. Under the ash waste

code approach, would it be

environmentally protective to allow

testing and analysis of the other organic

constituents to serve as surrogates for

nondetectable constituents? If so, which

ones? We solicit data on this issue.

One variation on this approach would

apply a reduced analytical scheme only

to incineration units that treat many

waste codes. Rather than require

analysis of the hundreds of constituents

that could potentially be present, we

could instead develop a list of surrogate

constituents to regulate. We note that

some previous efforts along this line

have shown that selecting appropriate

surrogates is a very difficult technical

challenge. If we could overcome this

challenge, then we expect that this list

would most likely include the most

difficult to combust organic

constituents, all metals, and some

thermally labile constituents to confirm

performance of the unit. Analysis of

these surrogate constituents would

demonstrate adequate treatment of all

incoming wastes of concern. These

types of treatment data would also show

whether metals have concentrated in the

ash, and what types of treatment (e.g.,

stabilization) would be appropriate

before land disposal. We are requesting

comment on this issue, including data

and potential constituents for this

surrogate list.

G. Request for Comment

We are requesting comments and data

on the following ash waste code topics.

• We solicit general comments on

whether we should establish a waste

code for incineration ash.

• We solicit comments on whether to

exclude ash derived exclusively from

listed dioxin-containing wastes F020–

F023 and F026–F027 from the

incineration ash code.

• We solicit data on whether there are

significant differences in the ash from

different combustion units, and whether

hazardous constituents partition into

different types of residues, from these

different units. If differences do exist,

should we regulate the ash from these

different units accordingly?

• We solicit comments on whether

the incineration ash waste code should

be defined as the incineration of more

than one hazardous waste containing

organic constituents, including organic

toxicity wastes (D012–D043) and wastes

with greater than 1% total organic

carbon, or whether it should be defined

in some other way.

• We solicit comment on whether the

treater should only be responsible for

meeting the treatment standards for

those constituents specified in their

permit waste analysis plan, which

would be negotiated on a site-specific

basis.

• We solicit comments on whether

the incinerator ash code should always

apply, or whether the original waste

codes should apply in some

circumstances (including on a case-bycase basis). We would also like

comments on how this second option

would affect the consistency and

accuracy of the BRS database.

• We solicit comments on approaches

that could be used to limit the number

of constituents that would require

testing and analysis if a new waste code

were established.

• We solicit comment and data on

whether under the ash waste code

approach, would it be environmentally

protective to allow testing and analysis

of the other organic constituents to serve

as surrogates for nondetectable

constituents? If so, which ones?

XI. Should EPA Establish Tailored

Treatment Standards for Mixed

Wastes? 41

A. What Are Mixed Wastes?

Mixed wastes are those wastes that

satisfy the definition of radioactive

waste subject to the Atomic Energy Act

(AEA) and that also contain listed or

characteristic hazardous wastes. On July

3, 1986, we determined that the

hazardous portions of mixed wastes are

subject to RCRA regulation (51 FR

4504). This situation creates a dual and

complementary regulatory framework

between RCRA and the AEA.

Because the hazardous portions of

mixed waste are subject to RCRA, the

land disposal restrictions apply. The

hazardous portions must therefore meet

the appropriate LDR treatment

standards before land disposal.

B. What Are the Issues Associated With

Regulating Mixed Wastes?

Potential difficulties exist when

applying the LDRs to mixed waste. They

relate primarily to analytical problems

and concerns about worker exposure to

radiation when treating or testing mixed

waste.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has

raised these types of issues at several

junctures, including the July 1998 LDR

roundtable and in comments on several

LDR rules, the proposed Hazardous

Waste Identification Rule (HWIR), and

the Mixed Waste Disposal Rule. With

respect to compliance monitoring, DOE

asserts that the difficulty and costs

associated with sampling and analysis

increase as the constituent

concentration levels that need to be

detected are lowered and as radiological

exposure increases. Some of the

analytical difficulties and costs

associated with sampling and analysis

include:

• Sample collection—The sample

volumes specified in ‘‘Test Methods for

Hazardous Wastes’’ (SW–846) may not

be obtainable for high level mixed waste

(i.e., spent fuel from commercial nuclear

power plants and defense high-level

waste from the production of weapons)

because the sample volumes would

result in excessive radiation exposure to

personnel collecting the samples and

conducting the analyses.

• Storage—Special sample storage

containers must be used to address

radiological hazards. For example,

refrigeration of samples cannot be

achieved in all instances because

samples must be placed in pre-designed

lead-lined shipment containers that do

not lend themselves to cooling.

• Interference due to the radiological

matrix—Some radionuclides interfere

with the detection of hazardous

constituents. For example, when a

mixed waste sample containing

plutonium is volatilized and analyzed

as an emission spectra, the plutonium

peak obscures peaks that indicate the

presence of hazardous metals. DOE

asserts that this is a common analytical

problem for mixed waste containing

transuranic elements (atomic number

greater than 92).

• Manipulating high level mixed

waste—Analysis must be conducted in

hot cell laboratories where the waste is

remotely handled. The use of

manipulators is time consuming and, as

a result, it is often difficult to conform

to the holding times specified in SW–

846.

• Limited analytical capacity and

capability—Laboratory capacity as well

as capability for handling mixed waste

is limited. The shortage in capacity is

most acute for higher level wastes. In

addition, when equipment becomes

‘‘hot’’ due to exposure to radionuclides

in samples, it must be dedicated to

analysis of radioactive materials only.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37955

42This guidance document can be found in the

docket for today’s notice.

• Waste disposal—The costs

associated with cleanup and waste

disposal after analysis are substantial.

For example, protective clothing and

equipment used during sampling

activities must be handled as low level

radioactive waste.

• Exposure—The policy under DOE’s

health and safety program is to maintain

exposures As Low As Reasonably

Achievable (ALARA). Worker exposure

during collection, handling, and

transport of samples as well as during

analysis needs to be minimized, which

sometimes does not occur when meeting

RCRA compliance obligations.

C. How Has EPA Responded to the

Issues Associated With Regulating

Mixed Waste?

Recognizing the public’s concern over

potential radiation exposure from mixed

waste testing, we developed, in close

coordination with the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC), a mixed

waste testing guidance titled ‘‘Joint

NRC/EPA Guidance on Testing

Requirements for Mixed Radioactive

and Hazardous Waste.’’ 42 The primary

purpose of this guidance document is to

help NRC licensees and others

characterize their mixed waste in

accordance with RCRA regulations

while keeping radiation exposure as low

as reasonably achievable (ALARA). The

guidance emphasizes flexibility in the

RCRA testing requirements so that the

ALARA concept can be incorporated.

For example, the guidance emphasizes

and encourages the use of process

knowledge whenever possible to avoid

unnecessary exposure to radiation. The

guidance describes methods by which

individuals who sample and analyze

mixed waste may reduce their

occupational radiation exposure, for

example by keeping RCRA frequency of

testing to a minimum by avoiding

duplicative testing.

In the LDR Third Third final rule (55

FR 22552, June 1, 1990), we relied upon

data and information submitted by DOE

to tailor several treatment standards for

certain mixed wastes. These data

indicated that for certain high-level

wastes that also display hazardous

metal characteristics the most

appropriate treatment standard is

vitrification. The DOE vitrification

process reduces the mobility of both the

hazardous and radioactive components

of the waste. We therefore adopted

vitrification as the treatment standard

for these high level mixed wastes.

Because the treatment standard is

expressed as a specified method of

treatment, facilities need not

demonstrate compliance by routinely

measuring concentration levels, thus

minimizing worker contact with the

high level mixed waste.

Another treatment standard was

established for characteristic radioactive

lead solids. It requires radioactive

wastes such as lead shielding, pigs, and

other elemental forms of lead to be

macroencapsulated. By requiring a

surface coating or a jacket of inert

inorganic materials, this treatment

standard substantially reduces surface

exposure to potential leaching media.

We established other tailored treatment

standards for mixed wastes containing

elemental mercury and for mercury

contaminated radioactive hydraulic oil.

All of these treatment standards reduce

workers’ exposure to radioactivity

because there is no requirement to

measure compliance with treatment

standard levels.

In addition, in a recent ANPRM (64

FR 28949, May 28, 1999) we solicited

comment on establishing a tailored

treatment standard for one type of

radioactive mixed waste containing

mercury. As explained in that ANPRM,

under current regulations, no separate

treatment category exists for high

mercury wastes that also contain

radioactive materials. Therefore, the

current regulations may result in

equipment contamination by radiation

to recover radioactive mercury that must

then be further treated and disposed

because it is no longer useful. In the

mercury ANPRM, we specifically

requested comments on eliminating the

retorting treatment standard for mixed

mercury wastes, and on allowing the

use of alternative technologies, with the

residuals having to comply with a

numerical limit. Please refer to the

mercury ANPRM for additional

discussion of this issue and instructions

for viewing background materials.

D. What Is EPA Considering in This

ANPRM?

The threat of radiological exposure

cannot be completely eliminated

because mixed wastes will require

handling for purposes of treatment and

compliance monitoring before disposal.

Therefore, we encourage NRC licensees

and others to use the ‘‘Joint NRC/EPA

Guidance on Testing Requirements for

Mixed Radioactive and Hazardous

Waste’’ to keep the worker exposure to

radiation to a minimum. Precautions to

minimize exposure from waste analysis

should be identified and incorporated

into site-specific waste analyses plans,

which are overseen by state and regional

authorities under the Federal Facilities

Compliance Act.

We remain committed to reducing

radiological exposure as much as

possible. Therefore, we wish to explore

if additional opportunities exist for

mixed radioactive wastes to have a

specified method of treatment rather

than concentration limits as the

treatment standard. For instance, highlevel nonwastewaters that must be

remotely handled may be good

candidates for a specified treatment

method such as vitrification, if it is

designed to trap air and water emissions

and to create a stable glass. Similarly,

carbon adsorption may be appropriate

for certain mixed radioactive

wastewaters such as high molecular

weight organics.

E. Request for Comment

We are soliciting comments and data

on the treatability of mixed waste and

on the analytical problems associated

with measuring compliance with

concentration levels. In particular, we

are interested in whether there are other

treatment methods that should be

tailored to specific mixed wastes, like

the ones established in the Third Third

final rule, particularly because such

standards eliminate the need for

compliance monitoring with its

associated dangers of worker exposure

to radiation.

Commenters should submit data on

the technology and its operating

parameters. It is important that the data

submitted is complete (i.e., a complete

description of the technology, its

operating parameters, and any chemical

reactions that take place). In addition,

the commenter should submit data on

the properties of the mixed waste for

which the tailored treatment method is

requested. This should also include

detailed information on whether and

how the presence of radionuclides

affects the performance of the treatment

technology. Once these data are

evaluated, we may propose to establish

tailored treatment standards that are

expressed as required methods of

treatment for certain mixed radioactive

wastes.

XII. Is EPA Addressing LDR Paperwork

Burden in This ANPRM?

One of the issues raised during the

LDR roundtable was whether the

paperwork burden could be reduced in

the LDR program. Participants suggested

that we allow electronic recordkeeping

and reporting, and that we further

reduce the requirements for generators,

treaters, and disposers. We agree that

these are good ideas. They are not,

however, discussed in this ANPRM, but

they are included in a separate EPA

Notice of Data Availability (NODA) that

37956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

addresses burden reduction. See 64 FR

32859, June 18, 1999.

The NODA contains ideas to reduce

the reporting and recordkeeping

paperwork burden throughout OSW’s

regulatory programs, including the LDR

program. Currently, the LDR paperwork

requirements account for nearly onethird of the burden for the RCRA

program. Substantial reduction has

already occurred, particularly as a result

of the May 12, 1997 LDR rule. Before

this rule, generators and treaters that

sent their hazardous waste off-site had

to send a notification with each

shipment of waste informing treaters

and disposers of the composition of the

waste stream. This rule changed these

requirements so that the notification

need only be sent with the initial waste

shipment, so long as the waste and the

receiving facility remained unchanged.

This paperwork change resulted in a

savings of 1,630,000 burden hours

annually.

The NODA describes a number of

other possible changes to reduce the

LDR burden. These changes include

eliminating 268.7(a)(1) Generator Waste

Determinations; eliminating 268.7(b)(6)

Recycler Notifications and

Certifications; eliminating 268.7(d)

Hazardous Debris Notifications;

eliminating 268.9(a) Characteristic

Waste Determinations; and streamlining

268.9(d) Notification Procedures. See

the NODA for further information on

these possible changes to reduce the

LDR paperwork burden.

The NODA was the first step in

developing a final regulation for

reducing reporting and recordkeeping

burden for the RCRA program. We plan

to issue a proposed rule this year to

follow-up on some of the items in the

NODA.

XIII. What Issues Are Not Addressed in

This ANPRM?

In addition to the nine main issues

described in this ANPRM, a number of

other issues were brought up by

participants at the 1998 LDR roundtable.

Due to our own prioritization and

resource constraints, we were not able

to investigate these issues in depth. We

are, however, interested in new

comments from you on any of these

issues.

1. Dilution prohibition: In the 1996

Phase III LDR rule (61 FR 15566, April

8, 1996), we promulgated a list of

inorganic wastes that are not allowed to

be treated by combustion because of the

low presence of organics in these

wastes. We may need to investigate

which inorganic wastes are currently

combusted, and determine whether to

expand the list, if it is currently too

restrictive. Also, we may need to

investigate current information available

to EPA on the issue of wastes that go

into fuel blending and the issue of waste

code carry-through.

2. Generator Knowledge: We could

investigate whether there is too much or

too little reliance on generator

knowledge to determine which

underlying hazardous constituents in

characteristic wastes need to be treated.

3. Plain Language: We could simplify

the LDRs by rewriting them in plain

language.

4. Refractory Bricks: We could

evaluate whether refractory bricks from

incinerators should still be subject to

treatment standards based on listed

waste codes.

5. Generator Guidance: We could

clarify through guidance how generators

can more easily determine when LDRs

apply and which treatment standards

are applicable.

XIV. Administrative Requirements

A. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements under the

APA or any other statute unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions. This

ANPRM will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because it does not create any

new requirements. Therefore, EPA

provides the following certification

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act:

Pursuant to the provision at 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

However, there is the potential for

future actions related to this ANPRM to

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, the Agency will examine

whether the Regulatory Flexibility Act

applies in the preparation of any future

rulemakings related to this ANPRM.

B. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866; and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This ANPRM is not subject to E.O.

13045 because it is does not, at this

point, involve decisions intended to

mitigate environmental health or safety

risks. Of course, as the information in

response to this ANPRM is evaluated,

we will continue to examine whether

E.O. 13045 applies.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268

Hazardous waste, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 12, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–15392 Filed 6–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

49 CFR Parts 350, 390, 394, 395 and

398

[Docket No. FMCSA–97–2350; formerly

FHWA–97–2350 and MC–96–28]

RIN 2126–AA23

Hours of Service of Drivers; Driver

Rest and Sleep for Safe Operations

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM); extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: The FMCSA is extending this

rulemaking’s comment period until

October 30, 2000. This is in response to

numerous petitions received by the

FMCSA from motor carriers, drivers and

trucking associations, and several

members of Congress requesting an

extension of the comment period

closing date. The petitioners based their

requests on the time required to review

the vast body of research, assess the

impact of the proposed rules, and

provide meaningful comments.

The FMCSA is also placing in the

docket the pre-publication final report

on ‘‘Effects of Sleep Schedules on

Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver

Performance,’’ prepared by the Division