11702 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 148, 266, 268 and 271

[EPA #530–2–95–002, 6 FRL 5160–7]

RIN 2050–AD38

Land Disposal Restrictions—Phase III:

Decharacterized Wastewaters,

Carbamate and Organobromine

Wastes, and Spent Potliners

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Today, the Agency is

proposing treatment standards for

certain hazardous wastes—namely,

wastes from the production of

carbamate pesticides, organobromine

flame-retardants, and aluminum—under

its Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)

program. The purpose of the LDR

program, authorized by the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

is to minimize short and long-term

threats to human health and the

environment from exposure to

hazardous chemical constituents. The

treatment standards for these wastes

will minimize threats from exposure to

hazardous constituents which may

potentially leach from landfills to

groundwater.

The Agency is also proposing to

revise the treatment standards for other

wastes which are hazardous because

they display the characteristic of

ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or

toxicity. These wastes, known as

‘‘characteristic’’ hazardous wastes, are

sometimes treated in lagoons which are

regulated under the Clean Water Act,

and sometimes injected into deepwells

which are regulated under the Safe

Drinking Water Act. Currently, these

wastes are no longer regulated under

RCRA once the characteristic property is

removed. Today’s revised treatment

standards require treatment, not only to

remove the characteristic, but also to

treat any underlying hazardous

constituents which may be present in

the wastes, even though they are not

what causes the characteristic property

(i.e., a corrosive waste could have

underlying hazardous constituents that,

although not corrosive, are nevertheless

toxic to human health). Therefore, these

revised treatment standards will

minimize threats from exposure to

hazardous constituents which may

potentially migrate from these lagoons

or wells.

Finally, EPA is proposing today to

forbid the use of hazardous wastes to fill

in holes in the ground. EPA proposes

that this practice is illegal disposal of

hazardous wastes. EPA is also proposing

to add to the regulations an existing

policy which states that hazardous

wastes which are predominantly metal

should not be burned.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be submitted by May 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The public must send an

original and two copies (and a voluntary

copy on computer diskette) of their

comments to: RCRA Information Center

(5305), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Place the docket number F–

95–PH3P–FFFFF on your comments.

The official record for the proposed

rulemaking is located in the EPA RCRA

Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Room 2616, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. The RCRA

Docket is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Monday through Friday, except for

Federal holidays. The public must make

an appointment to review docket

materials by calling (202) 260–9327. The

public may copy a maximum of 100

pages from any regulatory document at

no cost. Additional copies cost $0.15

per page. The mailing address is EPA

RCRA Docket (5305), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

For additional information on

submitting computer diskettes please

see the heading ‘‘Paperless Office

Effort’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information on the LDR

program, contact the RCRA Hotline at

800–424–9346 (toll-free) or 703–412–

9810 locally. For information on today’s

proposed rule, contact Peggy Vyas in the

Office of Solid Waste, phone 703–308–

8594. For specific information on the

treatment standards for carbamates and/

or organobromine wastes, contact Shaun

McGarvey at 703–308–8603; for specific

information on the treatment standards

for K088 wastes, contact Mary

Cunningham at 703–308–8453; for

specific information on the Universal

Treatment Standards, contact Lisa Jones

at 703–308–8451. For information on

the capacity analyses, contact Les Otte

at 703–308–8440. For information on

the regulatory impact analyses, contact

Linda Martin at 202–260–2791.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperless Office Effort

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 comments on diskettes is

not mandatory, nor will it result in any

advantage or disadvantage to any

commenter. Rather, EPA is

experimenting with this procedure as an

attempt to expedite our internal review

and response to comments. This

expedited procedure is in conjunction

with the Agency ‘‘Paperless Office

Effort’’ campaign. For further

information on the submission of

diskettes, contact the Waste Treatment

Branch at 703–308–8434.

Glossary of Acronyms

BAT—Best Available Technology

BDAT—Best Demonstrated Available

Technology

BIFs—Boilers and Industrial Furnaces

CAA—Clean Air Act

CWA—Clean Water Act

EP—Extraction Procedure

HON—Hazardous Organic NESHAPs

HSWA—Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments

HWIR—Hazardous Waste Identification

Rule

ICR—Ignitable, Corrosive, and Reactive

wastes, or, Information Collection

Request (in section XI.D.)

ICRT—Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive,

and TC Wastes

LDR—Land Disposal Restrictions

NESHAPs—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants

NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System

POTW—Publically-Owned Treatment

Works

PSES—Pretreatment Standards for

Existing Sources

PSNS—Pretreatment Standards for New

Sources

RCRA—Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act

RIA—Regulatory Impact Analysis

SDWA—Safe Drinking Water Act

TC—Toxicity Characteristic

TCLP—Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure

TRI—Toxic Release Inventory

UIC—Underground Injection Control

UTS—Universal Treatment Standards

Outline

I. Background

A. Summary of the Statutory Requirements

of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11703

Amendments, and Requirements of the

1993 Proposed Consent Decree with the

Environmental Defense Fund

B. Summary of the D.C. Circuit’s Opinion

on the Third Third Standards for

Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive, and Toxic

Characteristic Wastes and EPA’s

Implementation of the Opinion to Date

1. Summary of the Third Third Standards

2. The Court’s Decision

3. Options Prepared for the Notice of Data

Availability

4. Contents of the Interim Final Rule

5. Regulation of Toxicity Characteristic

(TC) Wastes in the LDR Phase II Rule

6. Requirements of 1993 Settlement

Agreement with CWM, et al.

II. EPA’s Interpretation of the Third Third

Opinion

A. Statutory Language

B. Legislative History

C. Judicial Opinions

III. Integration of BDAT with Other Agency

Actions

A. Phase IV LDRs—Cross-Media Transfer

and Equivalency Issues

1. Cross-Media Implications

2. Background of Equivalency Issues EPA

is Considering for LDR Phase IV

a. Sludges

b. Leaking Surface Impoundments

c. Air Emissions

B. The Hazardous Waste Identification

Rule (HWIR)

C. Water Rules—the Pulp and Paper and

Pharmaceutical Industries Rules

IV. End-Of-Pipe Treatment Standards

A. EPA’s General Approach to Setting

Treatment Standards and its Relation to

the End-of-Pipe Standards Proposed

Today

B. End-of-Pipe Treatment Standards for

Clean Water Act and Equivalent

Wastewater Treatment Systems

1. CWA Standards and Limitations as

RCRA Section 3004(m) Treatment

Standards

2. Implementation When CWA Standards

and Limitations Will Be the Exclusive

Standard

a. Direct Dischargers

b. Indirect Dischargers

C. Treatment Standards for Class I

Nonhazardous Injection Wells

1. Introduction

2. Compliance Options for Class I

Nonhazardous UIC Wells

3. Pollution Prevention Compliance Option

4. De Minimis Volume Exclusion

D. Point of Generation Discussion

1. Introduction

2. Background

3. Similar Streams Generated by Similar

Processes

4. Streams From a Single Process

5. ‘‘Battery Limits’’

6. Another Approach on Which EPA Seeks

Comment

7. Situations Where Existing Point of

Generation Determinations May Remain

Appropriate

a. Listed Wastes

b. Prohibited Wastes Whose Treatment

Standard is a Method of Treatment

8. Implications Beyond LDR Rules

V. Discussion of the Potential Prohibition of

Nonamenable Wastes from Land-Based

Biological Treatment Systems

A. Technical Overview

B. Summary of the ETC’s Position

C. Summary of the CMA’s Position

D. Summary of EPA’s Preliminary

Response to CMA’s and ETC’s Technical

Concerns

1. Feed Limits

2. Technical Concern

3. Constituent Properties of Concern

a. Water solubility

b. TC Metals

c. Toxicity

F. Additional Issues

1. List of Hazardous Constituents

2. Biotreatment as BDAT

3. Toxics Along for the Ride

G. Treatment Standard for Wastes with a

High Concentration of Organics

VI. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed

Wastes

A. Carbamates

1. Proposed Treatment Standards

2. Request for Comments

B. Organobromines

1. Proposed Treatment Standards for

Organobromine Wastes

2. Applicable Technology

C. Aluminum Potliners (K088)

1. Possible Determination of Inherently

Waste-Like

2. Overview of Today’s Proposal

a. Proposed Regulated Constituents

b. Specific Companies Investigating K088

Recovery/Treatment Technologies

VII. Improvements to the Existing Land

Disposal Restrictions Program

A. Completion of Universal Treatment

Standards

1. Expansion to Cover All Components of

Newly Listed Wastes (Carbamates and

Organobromines)

2. UTS Organic Constituents in Wastewater

and Nonwastewater Forms

a. Nonwastewaters

b. Wastewaters

3. Application to Listed Waste

a. Wastewater-nonwastewater pairs

b. Elimination of Redundant Methods of

Treatment

4. Revision to the Acetonitrile Standard

a. The acetonitrile nonwastewater standard

b. Revoking the special wastewater/

nonwastewater definition for

acrylonitrile wastes

5. Aggressive Biological Treatment as

BDAT for Petroleum Refinery Wastes

B. Dilution Prohibition

1. Dilution Prohibited as a Method of

Treatment

2. Permissible Dilution

3. Cyanide-Bearing Wastes and

Combustion

4. Table of Inorganic Metal Bearing Wastes

5. The Addition of Iron Dust to Stabilize

Characteristic Hazardous Wastes:

Potential Classification as Impermissible

Dilution

C. Expansion of Methods Requiring

Incineration

D. Clean Up of 40 CFR Part 268

1. Section 268.8

2. Sections 268.10—268.12

3. Section 268.2(f)

VIII. Proposed Prohibition of Hazardous

Waste as Fill Material

IX. Capacity Determinations

A. Introduction

B. Capacity Analysis Results Summary

C. Requests for Comment

X. State Authority

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized

States

B. Effect on State Authorization

XI. Regulatory Requirements

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to

Executive Order 12866

1. Methodology Section

a. Methodology for Estimating the Affected

Universe

b. Cost Methodology

c. Economic Impact Methodology

d. Benefits Methodology

2. Results

a. Volume Results

b. Cost Results

c. Economic Impact Results

d. Benefit Estimate Results

B. Regulatory Impact Analysis for

Underground Injected Wastes

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Background

A. Summary of the Statutory

Requirements of the 1984 Hazardous

and Solid Waste Amendments, and

Requirements of the 1993 Proposed

Consent Decree With the Environmental

Defense Fund

The Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

enacted on November 8, 1984, largely

prohibit the land disposal of untreated

hazardous wastes. Once a hazardous

waste is prohibited from land disposal,

the statute provides only two options for

legal land disposal: Meet the treatment

standard for the waste prior to land

disposal, or dispose of the waste in a

land disposal unit that has been found

to satisfy the statutory no migration test.

A no migration unit is one from which

there will be no migration of hazardous

constituents for as long as the waste

remains hazardous. RCRA sections 3004

(d), (e), (g)(5).

EPA was required to promulgate land

disposal prohibitions and treatment

standards by May 8, 1990 for all wastes

that were either listed or identified as

hazardous at the time of the 1984

amendments (RCRA sections 3004(d),

(e), and (g)), a task EPA completed

within the statutory timeframes. EPA

was also required to promulgate

prohibitions and treatment standards for

wastes identified or listed as hazardous

after the date of the 1984 amendments

within six months after the listing or

identification takes effect (RCRA section

3004(g)(4)).
11704 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

The Agency did not meet this latter

statutory deadline for all of the wastes

identified or listed after the 1984

amendments. As a result, a suit was

filed by the Environmental Defense

Fund (EDF). EPA and EDF signed a

consent decree that establishes a

schedule for adopting prohibitions and

treatment standards for newly identified

and listed wastes. (EDF v. Reilly, Cir.

No. 89–0598, D.D.C.) This proposed

consent decree was modified as a result

of the court decision on the Third Third

final rule (Chemical Waste Management

v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert.

denied 113 S. Ct. 1961 (1993); hereafter

referred to as CWM v. EPA, or the Third

Third opinion). Today’s proposed rule

fulfills several provisions of the

proposed consent decree. The rule

proposes land disposal restrictions for

characteristic hazardous wastes

managed in CWA and CWA-equivalent

treatment systems, and injected into

underground injection control (UIC)

Class I nonhazardous injection wells

regulated under the SDWA. Today’s rule

also proposes treatment standards for

carbamate and organobromine wastes.

The rule also proposes treatment

standards for newly listed spent

aluminum potliners (K088), which

according to the proposed consent

decree need not be proposed until June

30, 1995.

B. Summary of the D.C. Circuit’s

Opinion on the Third Third Standards

for Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive, and

Toxic Characteristic Wastes and EPA’s

Implementation of the Opinion to Date

Characteristic hazardous wastes that

are treated or diluted such that they no

longer exhibit the hazardous

characteristic are no longer subject to

RCRA Subtitle C management

standards, and thus may be discharged

into units that are not subject to the

stringent RCRA Subtitle C standards,

such as UIC wells. In CWM v. EPA, 976

F.2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

interpreted RCRA section 3004(m) as

requiring treatment of underlying

hazardous constituents in

decharacterized hazardous wastes so as

to minimize threats to human health

and the environment. As yet, the

Agency has not set minimize threat

levels under RCRA and therefore must

require treatment.

However, the Agency has a process to

set levels under the Hazardous Waste

Identification Rule (HWIR). If risk-based

minimize threat levels are established

under HWIR, these levels would

implement section 3004(m) and

consequently supersede the technologybased treatment standards presently

utilized. See HWTC III, 886 F. 2d at

362–63. Wastes treated to these levels

also would not be classified as

hazardous wastes and consequently

could be disposed in units not subject

to subtitle C standards (e.g., landfills not

receiving federal permits.) EPA has

lodged a proposed consent decree with

the U.S. District Court to propose the

HWIR levels not later than August 15,

1995, and finalize by December 15,

1996. As was previously mentioned, the

Agency entered into a consent decree

setting out a schedule for fulfilling the

court’s mandate for the wastes

addressed in today’s rule. This consent

decree requires the Agency to set

treatment standards for these wastes

before the HWIR rulemaking.

That being said, the risks addressed

by this rule, particularly UIC wells, are

very small relative to the risks presented

by other environmental conditions or

situations. In a time of limited

resources, common sense dictates that

we deal with higher risk activities first,

a principle on which EPA, members of

the regulated community, and the

public can all agree.

Nevertheless, the Agency is required

to set treatment standards for these

relatively low risk wastes and disposal

practices during the next two years,

although there are other actions and

projects with which the Agency could

provide greater protection of human

health and the environment. At the

same time, however, EPA has sought to

exercise the full extent of its authority

under current law to develop innovative

options designed to significantly lower

the potential cost of these controls while

ensuring protectiveness, such as giving

credit for up-stream reductions in

hazardous constituents, and crafting

limited exemptions for wastewaters

containing de minimis amounts of

hazardous constituents. Through the

public comment process and further

consultation with stakeholders, EPA

expects to obtain guidance for any

future action we may take.

A detailed discussion of the Agency’s

interpretation of the opinion in CWM v.

EPA is provided in the next section. For

background information on the relevant

portions of the Third Third final rule

(i.e., the treatment standards

promulgated for hazardous wastes

exhibiting the characteristics of

ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or

Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity), see

55 FR 22653–22659 (June 1, 1990).

The Agency’s immediate response

following issuance of the opinion can be

found in the January 19, 1993

Supplemental Information Report to the

Notice of Data Availability (58 FR 4972).

This report sets out the Agency’s

options for complying with the court’s

decision. The options discussed in this

report applied to reactive, as well as

ignitable and corrosive wastes, since

EPA knows of no inherent differences

among these wastes with respect to

propensity to contain hazardous

constituents.

1. Summary of the Third Third

Standards

On May 8, 1990, EPA promulgated

regulations addressing the last of five

congressionally-mandated prohibitions

on land disposal of hazardous wastes,

which was the third one-third of the

schedule of restricted hazardous wastes,

referred to as the Third Third. Among

other things, the Third Third final rule

promulgated treatment standards and

prohibition effective dates for hazardous

wastes that exhibited one or more of the

following characteristics: ignitability,

corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity (40

CFR 261.21–261.24). The Third Third

rule established treatment standards for

the characteristic wastes in one of four

forms: (1) a concentration level equal to,

or greater than, the characteristic level;

(2) a concentration level less than the

characteristic level; (3) a specified

treatment technology (e.g., for ignitable

wastes containing high levels of total

organic carbon); and (4) a treatment

standard of ‘‘deactivation’’ which

allowed the use of any technology,

including dilution, to remove the

characteristic.

The Agency also evaluated the

applicability of certain provisions of the

land disposal restrictions’ framework

with respect to characteristic wastes,

including wastes regulated under the

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) or

pretreatment programs under sections

402 and 307(b) of the CWA and the

SDWA UIC programs to try to ensure

successful integration of these programs

with the regulations being promulgated

under RCRA. See generally 55 FR

22653–59 (June 1, 1990). Specifically,

the Agency considered the

appropriateness of the dilution

prohibition for each of the characteristic

waste streams, and the applicability of

treatment standards expressed as

specified methods.

The Agency found, generally, that

mixing waste streams to eliminate

certain characteristics was appropriate

and permissible for corrosive

wastewaters, or in some cases, reactive

or ignitable wastewaters. Furthermore,

EPA stated that the dilution prohibition

did not normally apply to characteristic

wastewaters that are managed in

treatment trains including surface

impoundments whose ultimate
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11705

discharge is regulated under the

pretreatment and NPDES programs

under sections 307(b) and 402 of the

CWA, or in Class I underground

injection well systems regulated under

the SDWA. The Agency stated that the

treatment requirements and associated

dilution rules under the CWA are

generally consistent with the dilution

rules under RCRA, and that the Agency

should rely on the existing CWA

provisions. The Agency also singled out

certain particularly toxic wastewaters to

which the dilution prohibition still

applies notwithstanding management in

CWA systems. 40 CFR 268.3(b).

Similarly, EPA stated that a regulatory

program had been established under the

SDWA to prevent underground injection

which endangers drinking water

sources. Class I deep wells inject below

the lowermost geologic formation

containing an underground drinking

water source and are subject to federal

location, construction, and operation

requirements. The Agency stated that

application of the dilution rules to these

wastes would not provide further

protection to human health and the

environment, and that disposal of these

wastes by underground injection at the

characteristic levels was as sound a

practice as treating them.

2. The Court’s Decision

On September 25, 1992, the United

States Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit ruled on the various

petitions for review. The principal

holdings of the case with respect to

characteristic wastes are that: (1) EPA

may require treatment under RCRA

section 3004(m) to more stringent levels

than those at which wastes are

identified as hazardous, 976 F. 2d at 12–

14; (2) section 3004(m) requires that

treatment standards address both shortterm and long-term potential harms

posed by hazardous wastes, and

consequently must result in destruction

and removal of hazardous constituents

as well as removal of the characteristic

property, id. at 16, 17, 23. As a

consequence, dilution is permissible as

an exclusive method of treatment only

for those characteristic wastes that do

not contain hazardous constituents ‘‘in

sufficient concentrations to pose a threat

to human health or the environment’’

(i.e., the minimize threat level in section

3004(m)), id. at 16; and (3) situations

where characteristic hazardous wastes

are diluted, lose their characteristic(s)

and are then managed in centralized

wastewater management land disposal

units (i.e., subtitle D surface

impoundments or Class I nonhazardous

injection wells) are legal only if it can

be demonstrated that hazardous

constituents are reduced or destroyed to

the same extent they would be pursuant

to otherwise applicable RCRA treatment

standards, id. at 7.

As a consequence of these holdings,

the court held that the deactivation

standard for ignitable and corrosive

wastes did not fully comply with RCRA

section 3004(m). This was because that

standard could be achieved by dilution,

and dilution fails to destroy or remove

the hazardous constituents that can be

present in the wastes. Id. (A more

detailed analysis of the D.C. Circuit’s

Third Third opinion is found in section

II of this notice.)

3. Options Prepared for the Notice of

Data Availability

On January 19, 1993, EPA published

a Notice of Data Availability to solicit as

many comments as possible on all

issues in the court opinion (58 FR 4972).

The Agency prepared a Supplemental

Information Report that was distributed

to the public that set out the Agency’s

options for complying with the court’s

decision. The options discussed in this

report applied to reactive, as well as

ignitable and corrosive wastes, since

EPA knows of no inherent differences

among these wastes with respect to

propensity to contain hazardous

constituents.

The report included options for

establishing treatment standards for the

underlying hazardous constituents in

ignitable, corrosive and reactive (ICR)

wastes that would have to be met prior

to land disposal (including disposal in

UIC wells). (It should be noted that the

Agency also believes that underlying

hazardous constituents can be present

in wastes displaying the toxicity

characteristic.) Two approaches were set

out, along with the Agency’s views on

possible advantages and disadvantages

of each.

Under approach one, the Agency

discussed the possibility of adopting

concentration limits for underlying

hazardous constituents. Under approach

two, the Agency discussed specifying

required treatment technologies. The

Agency discussed how these possible

approaches might apply to ICR wastes

that are not managed in CWA

centralized wastewater treatment

systems. Furthermore, the applicability

of LDR treatment standards to CWA

facilities, and possible implementation

scenarios under the CWA, were also

discussed.

The Agency also discussed options for

how to determine the equivalency of

CWA treatment systems with treatment

under RCRA. The ‘‘equivalency’’

discussion included possible options for

addressing air emissions, leaks, and

sludges from CWA treatment surface

impoundments. Also mentioned were

other Agency efforts such as the

Hazardous Organic NESHAPs (HON) (59

FR 19402, April 22, 1994) developed by

the Office of Air. These options will be

developed in a later LDR rulemaking,

but are discussed here and elsewhere in

this preamble in order to inform and

gather comments from all potentially

affected persons.

Approximately 60 public comments

were received in response to the Notice

of Data Availability. Those that pertain

to establishing treatment standards for

characteristic waste managed in CWA,

CWA-equivalent, and Class I

nonhazardous UIC wells have been

considered as this proposed rule was

developed.

4. Contents of the Interim Final Rule

EPA issued an interim final rule on

May 24, 1993 (58 FR 29860) to address

those treatment standards that were

vacated (as opposed to remanded) by

the court. Today’s rule proposes

treatment standards for some of the

portions of the rule that were remanded.

The distinction between vacated and

remanded rules is that vacated rules are

no longer in effect after the court’s

mandate issues, whereas remanded

rules remain in force until the Agency

acts to replace them.

The Agency’s opinion at that time was

that the rules dealing with centralized

wastewater management involving land

disposal (§§ 268.1(c)(3) and 268.3(b))

were remanded, not vacated. (See 976 F.

2d at 7, 19–26 where these rules are

discussed and not expressly vacated.)

This means that the only wastes to

which the interim final rule applied

were those ignitable and corrosive

wastes for which the treatment standard

was deactivation (since the deactivation

standard for these wastes was vacated)

and which were not managed in the

types of centralized wastewater

management systems covered by the

remanded rules cited above.

The Agency thus promulgated revised

treatment standards for certain ignitable

and corrosive wastes that are managed

in systems other than those managed:

(1) In centralized wastewater treatment

systems subject to the CWA or in Class

I underground injection wells subject to

the SDWA UIC program; or, (2) by a zero

discharger with a wastewater treatment

system equivalent to that utilized by

CWA dischargers prior to land disposal.

The treatment standards retained the

requirement of deactivation to remove

the hazardous characteristic (see DEACT

in Table 1, 40 CFR 268.42); however, the

rule also set numerical treatment

standards for the underlying hazardous
11706 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1 If, for example, a wastewater starts out with

cadmium concentrations exceeding 100 mg/l and is

diluted so that cadmium is present at

concentrations below the MCL of 0.1 mg/l, the

toxicity of the waste has been diminished.

2 ‘‘Treatment is required not only for purposes of

protecting against the short-term or acute risks

associated with the land disposal of hazardous

wastes, but more importantly focuses on the longterm hazards associated with migration of the

wastes and subsequent contamination of ground or

surface water.’’ 130 Cong. Rec. S9178 (July 25,

constituents that could reasonably be

expected to be present in the wastes.

EPA also promulgated alternative

treatment standards of incineration, fuel

substitution, and recovery of organics

for ignitable wastes. In addition, EPA

established new precautionary measures

to prevent emissions of volatile organic

constituents or violent reactions during

the process of diluting ignitable and

reactive wastes.

5. Regulation of Toxicity Characteristic

(TC) Wastes in the LDR Phase II Rule

On March 29, 1990, EPA promulgated

a rule that identified organic

constituents (in addition to existing EP

metals and pesticide constituents) and

levels at which a waste is considered

hazardous based on the characteristic of

toxicity (55 FR 11798). Because these

wastes were identified as hazardous

after the enactment date of HSWA in

1984, they were ‘‘newly identified

wastes’’ for purposes of the LDR

program. Included are wastes identified

with the codes D012 through D043

based on the Toxicity Characteristic

Leaching Procedure (TCLP), i.e., TC

wastes. In the LDR Phase II final rule (59

FR 47982, September 19, 1994), EPA

established treatment standards for each

of these constituents if they are

managed in systems other than those

regulated under the CWA, those

engaging in CWA-equivalent treatment

prior to land disposal, and those

injected into Class I deep injection wells

regulated under the SDWA. In addition,

because wastes exhibiting the TC can

contain treatable levels of other

hazardous constituents, EPA established

treatment standards for the underlying

hazardous constituents reasonably

expected to be present in the waste.

These rules are consistent with the

Third Third opinion and adopt the same

approach as the May 24, 1993 interim

final rule.

Furthermore, as part of a regulatory

response to implement the court’s

ruling, EPA required in the LDR Phase

II final rule that hazardous constituents

in two types of characteristic wastes—

high total organic carbon (TOC)

ignitable liquids (D001) and halogenated

pesticide wastes that exhibit the toxicity

characteristic (D012–D017)—be fully

treated before those wastes are disposed

into any Class I nonhazardous injection

well that does not have a no-migration

variance. See 59 FR at 48013. Therefore,

these wastes can no longer be legally

diluted to remove the characteristic and

then be injected into Class I

nonhazardous injection wells.

6. Requirements of 1993 Settlement

Agreement With CWM, et al.

This proposed rule continues to fulfill

the requirements of the settlement

agreement with the petitioners in CWM

v. EPA. Today’s rule proposes

concentration-based treatment standards

for the underlying hazardous

constituents reasonably expected to be

present in ignitable, corrosive, reactive

and TC wastes managed in CWA and

CWA-equivalent treatment systems, and

injected into UIC Class I nonhazardous

injection wells regulated under the

SDWA. The settlement agreement calls

for developing standards for ignitable

and corrosive wastes only; however, the

Agency believes that underlying

hazardous constituents may also be

present in reactive and toxic wastes, and

is therefore proposing regulations for

these wastestreams as well.

Today’s rule also complies with the

settlement agreement by describing and

discussing the following option for

implementing the opinion: the

identification of underlying hazardous

constituents that are not amenable to

treatment in certain CWA centralized

treatment systems, and the subsequent

prohibition on the introduction of such

nonamenable wastes into such systems.

II. EPA’s Interpretation of the Third

Third Opinion

EPA’s action in this rulemaking is

taken to implement key portions of the

court’s mandate in CWM v. EPA, the

opinion vacating and remanding (among

other things) EPA’s rules allowing

treatment standards for hazardous

constituents in characteristic hazardous

wastes to be achieved solely by diluting

these constituents. EPA’s initial view of

the opinion is that it interprets the

statute to require that hazardous

constituents present in hazardous

wastes at concentrations exceeding a

minimize threat level to be treated so

that they are destroyed, removed, or

immobilized before the waste is land

disposed. Some commenters to the May

24, 1993 interim final rule and the LDR

Phase II proposed rule, however, have

argued that dilution nevertheless can be

utilized as the sole means of treating

characteristic hazardous wastes, if

dilution reduces hazardous constituent

concentration levels to levels reflecting

either performance of Best

Demonstrated Available Technology

(BDAT) or minimize threat levels. This

argument is based largely on language in

the court’s opinion that treatment of

hazardous constituents is required if,

after dilution, hazardous constituents

are present in concentrations sufficient

to pose a threat to human health and the

environment. See, e.g., 976 F. 2d at 7,

17, 18, 19-20, 23. Some commenters

have added the further argument that

section 3004(m) requires that treatment

‘‘substantially reduce the toxicity of the

waste’’, which is accomplished when

dilution lowers hazardous constituents

to BDAT levels.

If these arguments were accepted, it

would mean that characteristic wastes

could be disposed after dilution,

without further treatment of hazardous

constituents, provided sufficient

dilution had occurred. Although this

argument has been made chiefly by

representatives of facilities engaged in

underground injection, the argument is

not limited to the injection context, or

even to the context of characteristic

wastes. Thus, if EPA accepted this

argument, it would mean that any

hazardous waste could be land disposed

into any type of land disposal unit

provided the waste was sufficiently

diluted before land disposal,

notwithstanding that the same volume

of hazardous constituents as in the

initial waste would be land disposed.

EPA does not accept this

interpretation of the court’s opinion or

of the statute. In the Agency’s view, the

statute and opinion are best interpreted

by requiring hazardous constituents in

hazardous wastes to be treated so that

hazardous constituents are destroyed,

removed, or immobilized before land

disposal. The Agency’s basis for this

conclusion is set out below.

A. Statutory Language

Section 3004(m)(1) requires EPA to

establish, as a precondition to land

disposal of hazardous waste, treatment

standards ‘‘which substantially

diminish the toxicity of the waste or

substantially reduce the likelihood of

migration of hazardous constituents

from the waste so that short-term and

long-term threats to human health and

the environment are minimized.’’

Although the first prong of the test—

‘‘substantially diminish the toxicity of

the waste’’—conceivably is satisfied by

dilution,1 the treatment must not only

diminish the waste’s toxicity but also do

so in a manner that minimizes shortterm and long-term harms to human

health and the environment.2
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11707

1984) (Statement of Sen. Chaffee introducing the

amendment that became section 3004(m))

3See also section 1002(b)(7) which states that

‘‘certain classes of land disposal facilities are not

capable of assuring long-term containment of

certain hazardous wastes, and to avoid substantial

risk to human health and the environment, reliance

on land disposal should be minimized or

eliminated * * *.’’.

4The final sentence undoubtedly refers to

situations where dilution occurs as part of the

manufacturing process that generates the waste (see

House Report quoted in the next footnote), not to

dilution that occurs once the waste is generated.

This legislative history was to a bill containing

the predecessor provision to section 3004(m). The

critical provision would have mandated treatment

only of hazardous wastes containing significant

concentrations of hazardous constituents, and

required treatment to levels that would be

‘‘protective’’, defined as satisfying the no-migration

test. EPA does not view these differences as being

critically different from the enacted section

3004(m), and so views the Senate legislative history

as being relevant to ascertaining Congressional

intent regarding dilution of hazardous constituents

as a means of achieving treatment standards.

5 ‘‘The Committee intends that dilution to a

concentration less than the specified thresholds by

the addition of other hazardous waste or any other

material during waste handling, transportation,

treatment, or storage, other than dilution which

occurs as a normal part of a manufacturing process,

will not be allowed. Such hazardous waste would

still be prohibited from land disposal.’’ H. Rep. No.

198, 98th Cong. 1st sess. 34; see also id. at 38 (‘‘(t)he

Administrator may also impose limitations on the

use of waste dilution to avoid disposal restrictions.

The late (sic) is particularly important where

regulations are based on concentrations of

hazardous constituents.’’)

The House Bill did not expressly require

pretreatment before disposal, the scheme of the

enacted law, but nevertheless illuminates

Congressional intent not to allow dilution as a

means of treating hazardous constituents.

Furthermore, although EPA has

maintained that ‘‘minimization’’ of

threats does not necessarily require

elimination of all possible hazards (see,

e.g., 55 FR 6641 and n.1 (February 26,

1990)), the phrase certainly requires

something more substantial than merely

diluting hazardous constituents.

Allowing the waste’s toxicity to be

diminished solely by dilution also is at

odds with RCRA’s enumerated goals

and policies. Congress prohibited land

disposal of hazardous waste because of

‘‘long-term uncertainties associated with

land disposal’’,3 and persistence,

toxicity, mobility, and propensity to

bioaccumulate’’ of hazardous

constituents in the waste. Sections 3004

(d)(1), (e)(1), (g)(5); Hazardous Waste

Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d

1355, 1362–63 (D.C. Cir. 1989), cert.

denied 111 S. Ct. 139 (1990) (upholding

technology-based treatment standards

due to the uncertainties inherent in

determining when land disposal is

protective). Land disposal of untreated

hazardous waste is only allowed in

‘‘protective’’ land disposal units,

defined as meaning units from which no

hazardous constituents will migrate for

as long as the waste remains

hazardous—to be demonstrated ‘‘to a

reasonable degree of certainty’’. Sections

3004 (d)(1), (e)(1), (g)(5). Allowing

dilution of hazardous constituents fails

to take account of these long-term

uncertainties, propensity to

bioaccumulate, and the like. As a result,

it arguably fails to minimize long-term

threats posed by the wastes.

Another provision indicating that

Congress did not intend for dilution to

be a means of treating toxic hazardous

wastes is section 3004(h). Congress, in

sections 3004(h) (2) and (3), authorized

EPA to postpone LDR prohibition

effective dates for up to two years

(renewable for up to two additional

years for individual facilities) if there is

inadequate available treatment capacity

for a particular waste. This provision

would not have been necessary if

dilution could be used as a means of

treatment, since it would never take two

years (or longer) for a facility to develop

the means (i.e. adding dirt or water) of

diluting wastes to meet a treatment

standard.

B. Legislative History

The legislative history states that

dilution is not to be allowed as a means

of treating hazardous constituents. See

S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 2d sess. 17,

which states that ‘‘(t)he dilution of

wastes by the addition of other

hazardous wastes or any other materials

during waste handling, transportation,

treatment, or storage is not an

acceptable method of treatment to

reduce the concentration of hazardous

constituents. Only dilution which

occurs as a normal part of the process

that results in the waste can be taken

into account in establishing

concentration levels.’’ 4 The House

Report is similarly explicit.5 The

Conference Report similarly states that

‘‘the Conferees intend that through the

vigorous implementation of the

objectives of this Act, land disposal will

be eliminated for many wastes and

minimized for all others, and that

advanced treatment, recycling,

incineration and other hazardous waste

control technologies should replace

land disposal.’’ H. Rep. No. 1133, 98th

Cong. 2d sess. 80.

Other legislative history indicates that

Congress intended for EPA to adopt

technology-based treatment standards:

‘‘The requisite levels o(r) methods of

treatment established by the Agency

should be the best that has (sic) been

demonstrated to be achievable. This

does not require a BAT-type process

* * *. The intent here is to require

utilization of available technology in

lieu of continued land disposal without

prior treatment.’’ 130 Cong. Rec. S 9178

(daily ed. July 25, 1984) (statement of

Sen. Chaffee introducing the

amendment that became section

3004(m)); see also 130 Cong. Rec. 20803

(1984 (statement of Sen. Moynihan on

section 3004(m)): ‘‘The requisite levels

o(r) methods of treatment established by

the Agency should be the best that has

been demonstrated to be achievable.’’

The legislative history also indicates

that Congress intended treatment to

result in destruction of total cyanide

and organic hazardous constituents. 130

Cong. Rec. S 9178 (statement of Sen.

Chaffee). Dilution of hazardous

constituents, of course, is not BDAT,

and does not destroy or remove

hazardous constituents.

The legislative history consequently

strongly supports reading section

3004(m) as not allowing dilution of

hazardous constituents.

C. Judicial Opinions

The D.C. Circuit’s position in the

Third Third opinion is potentially

contradictory on this point. At points in

the opinion, as noted above, this court

states that dilution could satisfy section

3004(m) requirements, perhaps even for

hazardous constituents. Elsewhere,

however, the court unequivocally stated

that dilution does not satisfy section

3004(m) because hazardous constituents

are not destroyed, removed, or

immobilized:

We wish to make explicit the impact of our

holding * * *. First, where dilution to

remove the characteristic meets the

definition of treatment under section

3004(m)(1), nothing more is required.

Second, where dilution removes the

characteristic but does not ‘‘treat’’ the waste

by reducing the toxicity of hazardous

constituents, then the decharacterized waste

may be placed in a surface impoundment if

and only if the resulting CWA treatment fully

complies with RCRA section 3004(m)(l).

In other words, the material that

comes out of CWA treatment facilities

that employ surface impoundments

must remove the hazardous constituents

to the same extent that any other

treatment facility that complies with

RCRA does. 976 F. 2d at 23. Dilution

thus cannot be used as the sole means

of treating hazardous constituents

because it does not remove hazardous

constituents from the waste. The court

made this explicit in a footnote

quantifying the above-quoted passage:

To illustrate RCRA’s focus on treatment of

the hazardous constituents in a waste,

consider a waste stream hazardous by

characteristic for cadmium. Both the
11708 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

characteristic and treatment levels for the

hazardous waste are l.0 mg/l. Assume that a

stream of 3.0 mg/l daily deposits 1000 liters

into a treatment facility. A RCRA treatment

facility would remove at least 2000 mg of

cadmium from the waste stream. A CWA

must do the same—although to do so it will

have to process at least three times as much

water (because dilution of 1000 liters of 3.0

mg/l to just below the characteristic level

will yield just over 3000 liters). Allowing

dilution alone would decharacterize the

waste, but it would not reduce the total

amount of cadmium entering the

environment. 976 F 2d at 23 n. 8.

Applying this same standard to

injection of decharacterized wastewaters

into Class I nonhazardous injection

wells, the court stated:

(W)e hold that dilution followed by

injection into a deep well is permissible only

where dilution itself fully meets section

3004(m)(l) standards or where the waste will

subsequently meet section 3004(m)(l)

standards. Because deep well injection is

permanent land disposal, our holding in

effect permits diluted decharacterized wastes

to be deep well injected only when dilution

meets the section 3004(m)(l) standard or

where the deep well secures a no-migration

variance. 976 F. 2d at 25. This means that

‘‘any hazardous waste (must) be treated in

such a way that hazardous constituents are

removed from the waste before it enters the

environment.’’ 976 F. 2d at 24 (emphasis

added). Since injection wells are disposal

units and do not engage in treatment, they

are incapable of satisfying this standard. Id.

at 25.

EPA believes that the thrust of the

opinion is to require treatment of

hazardous constituents before land

disposal. The court’s explicit and

quantified insistence that treatment

standards are to reduce mass loadings of

hazardous constituents makes this clear.

If the court intended to allow dilution

as the sole means of treating hazardous

constituents, it would at least have

discussed how this squared with

statutory language, goals and objectives,

and legislative history. Thus, the

Agency does not accept the

commenters’ reading of the opinion.

Today’s rule consequently proposes that

prohibited, decharacterized wastes be

treated so that underlying hazardous

constituents are removed, destroyed, or

immobilized before final disposal into

the environment.

III. Integration of BDAT With Other

Agency Actions

As EPA makes decisions in this LDR

Phase III rule on so-called end-of-pipe

equivalence for direct and indirect

dischargers treating prohibited,

decharacterized wastes in surface

impoundments, there are related

Agency rulemaking activities warranting

mention: The LDR Phase IV rule, which

will consider leaks, sludges, and air

emissions from surface impoundments;

the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule

(HWIR), which provides a risk based

assessment of when wastes are

hazardous, and may result in capping

the extent of treatment of some

hazardous constituents; the Pulp and

Paper and Pharmaceutical Industries

effluent limitations guidelines which

affect industries using impoundmentbased treatment systems to manage

decharacterized wastes; and rules for

control of hazardous air pollutants

issued under the Clean Air Act (CAA),

which regulate similar air emissions.

These interrelationships are explored

below, so that the public can be made

aware of how future regulations may

impact decisions to be made in response

to this rule. Comments and data are

requested on the LDR Phase IV options

discussed in this part.

A. Phase IV LDRs—Cross-Media

Transfer and Equivalency Issues

1. Cross-Media Implications

The LDR Phase IV rule will consider

equivalent treatment for centralized

wastewater treatment systems with

impoundments managing wastewaters

that are decharacterized. The principle

potentially at issue is the transfer of

pollutants from one media to another

without being destroyed, removed, or

immobilized. Treatment of the

wastewaters transfers the pollutants , to

groundwater from leaks, or to the air.

The transfer of pollutants from one

media to another is an Agency-wide

concern. The environment is not well

served by piecemeal regulation which

simply transfers pollutants, nor is

industry well-served by piecemeal

regulation. The Agency’s preference is

to look at these situations holistically so

that pollutants are not simply

transferred, and so that the Agency

provides industry with a coordinated

understanding of the ‘‘environmental

requirements’’ for all media. How the

Agency pursues this preference has not

been decided, but the following

discussion outlines some of the issues

being examined.

2. Background of Equivalency Issues

EPA is Considering for LDR Phase IV

EPA is considering, in addition to

evaluating equivalence at the point of

ultimate discharge to surface waters or

to a Publicly-Owned Treatment Works

(POTWs) (‘‘end-of-pipe equivalence’’),

conditions for determining equivalence

of treatment for decharacterized wastes

managed in nonhazardous waste

(subtitle D) surface impoundments

which would involve consideration of

whether treatment is not equivalent due

to cross-media transfers of untreated

hazardous constituents. In evaluating

the above approaches, EPA is looking

both at RCRA and other Agency

authorities and programs that would

ensure protection and provide control

equivalent to RCRA.

The Agency has not made any

determination as to the best manner to

implement the standard enunciated in

the opinion. It is certain that the

opinion requires at least a

demonstration of end-of-pipe

equivalence, which will be

accomplished when the treatment

standards in today’s proposed rule are

finalized. Whether it requires more is

unclear. The opinion appears to focus

on treatment of wastewaters. For

example, the court stated ‘‘treatment of

solid wastes in a CWA surface

impoundment must meet RCRA

requirements prior to ultimate discharge

into waters of the United States or

publicly owned treatment works

* * * .’’ 976 F. 2d at 20, emphasis

added). See also id. at 7, 20 (focus on

treatment of waste ‘‘streams’’, i.e. the

liquids in the impoundment); 23 n. 8

(reduction of mass loadings of

hazardous constituents of waste stream

entering and exiting an impoundment);

24 (court indicates that decharacterized

wastes are not held permanently in

impoundments, a statement that is

uniformly correct for wastewaters but

not wastewater treatment sludges); 24

(court focuses on treatment of ‘‘liquids’’

in impoundments). At one point, the

court also noted, in distinguishing

between subtitle C and subtitle D

surface impoundments, that sludges in

subtitle C impoundments require further

management in accord with subtitle C,

id. at 24, n. 10, perhaps suggesting by

negative implication that sludges in

subtitle D impoundments do not.

Equally important, the court held that

‘‘RCRA requires some accommodation

with (the) CWA’’, id. at 20, see also id.

at 23, indicating that to some degree

RCRA need not mandate a wholesale

disruption of existing wastewater

treatment impoundments, provided the

CWA treatment system really achieves

treatment equivalent to RCRA section

3004(m) treatment: ‘‘In other words,

what leaves a CWA treatment facility

can be no more toxic than if the waste

streams were individually treated

pursuant to the RCRA treatment

standards.’’ Id.

On the other hand, the opinion can be

read more broadly to encompass

requirements respecting surface

impoundment integrity. The court’s

fundamental concern with dilution,

echoing the requirements of section
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11709

3004(m), is that dilution does not

reduce or destroy hazardous

constituents, and thus does not prevent

those constituents from entering the

environment. Id. at 22, 24, 29–30; see

also id. at 23 n. 8 stressing the court’s

holding that total mass loadings of

pollutants ‘‘entering the environment’’

must be reduced in order to comply

with section 3004(m).

Moreover, the court distinguished a

number of times between temporary

placement of diluted wastes in

impoundments for treatment and

permanent disposal in land disposal

units, stating that only the temporary

placement represents a satisfactory

accommodation between RCRA and the

CWA. Id. at 24, 25. To the extent

hazardous constituents leak or volatilize

from impoundments, it can be argued

that permanent disposal of untreated

hazardous constituents is occurring.

The schedule for issuing the LDR

Phase III and IV rules are both subject

to settlement agreement, and, according

to the schedule established by these

settlement agreements, will be proposed

only six months apart. Therefore,

industry will be able to evaluate the

LDR Phase III proposed end-of-pipe

equivalency requirements while keeping

in mind the upcoming LDR Phase IV

rule which must consider sludges, leaks,

and air emissions from treatment

surface impoundments. The Agency has

not yet decided how to pursue the

potential equivalency issues related to

sludges, leaks, or air emissions;

however, the Agency is taking this

opportunity to discuss the issues and

potential options in these three areas.

Furthermore, the Agency solicits data

characterizing sludges, leaks, and air

emissions from surface impoundments,

a. Sludges. Characteristic wastewaters

managed in CWA and CWA-equivalent

impoundment-based systems invariably

are treated to generate a sludge. Under

EPA’s existing interpretations of the

rules, such sludges are usually

considered to be prohibited wastes only

if they are themselves hazardous. 55 FR

at 22661. This is because generation of

a new treatability group is considered to

be a new point of generation for

purposes of determining where LDR

prohibitions attach. The Agency has not

determined whether the court decision

could or should be read to invalidate

this interpretation (although the Agency

adopted a ‘‘waste code carry through’’

approach for the characteristic wastes

addressed in the emergency interim

final rule). This will be an issue that

must be resolved in the LDR Phase IV

rule.

In addressing this issue, it should be

noted that the LDR treatment standards

for nonwastewaters and wastewaters are

by now well established. There are 521

hazardous waste codes subject to LDR

technology-based treatment standards.

In instances where analytical methods

are available, these hazardous wastes

are subject to UTS that were

promulgated in the LDR Phase II final

rule (UTS are, however, based on

treatment standards that have been in

effect, in some cases, since 1986 and

thus are well established). While no

decision has been made on whether to

regulate these sludges, if the Agency

decides to control sludges from CWA

and CWA-equivalent surface

impoundments, the treatment standards

(UTS levels) are already in place.

EPA believes that the likely impact of

such an approach would be mixed—that

is, some facilities will continue to use

surface impoundments and remove and

treat the sludge, if necessary, while

others will move away from the use of

surface impoundments. For example,

aggressive biological treatment, such as

that typically used by the petroleum

refining industry, may achieve UTS

levels as generated. Sludges from

primary treatment in surface

impoundments are more likely to

exceed UTS levels. If the Agency

decides to control sludges, such an

approach may impose significant costs

on the facility. Subjecting sludges to

UTS may encourage pollution

prevention and recycling alternatives to

be used prior to placement of wastes in

the impoundment, so that sludge

treatment standards are not triggered.

Comments are solicited on these issues.

b. Leaking Surface Impoundments.

While hazardous wastes entering

surface impoundments constitute

temporary land disposal (because they

are being placed there for treatment),

leaks from such impoundments

constitute permanent land disposal.

Such permanent land disposal was

clearly a concern of the court. 976 F. 2d

at 25–6.

The Agency is considering the

following additional controls if the

decision is made to address leaking

surface impoundments:

EPA already has UTS limits that

could be applied to the influent into the

surface impoundment when it is

determined that it leaks underlying

hazardous constituents at levels above

UTS. Applying UTS to the influent

would assure that only wastes that have

been treated in a manner equivalent to

RCRA treatment are land disposed.

EPA is also considering applying

some of the subtitle D municipal solid

waste landfill criteria to address leaking

surface impoundments (Municipal

Landfill Rule (56 FR 50978, October 9,

1991). The impacts of such an approach

on aggressive biological surface

impoundments may not be significant.

On the other hand, facilities with

leaking impoundments engaged in

primary treatment could have to

perform some type of action such as

retrofitting, remediating groundwater, or

switching to tank treatment.

A third option being considered is

using triggering controls based on the

potential risk of any leak. The Agency

could require as a performance standard

that owners demonstrate that the

expected leaks would pose a low level

of risk to nearby receptors. Facilities

would have the flexibility to change the

influent, install engineering controls, or

limit potential exposure in order to

comply with this performance standard.

c. Air Emissions. Achieving

wastewater or nonwastewater standards

by merely transferring hazardous

constituents to the air may be

inconsistent with the court opinion in

that excessive, uncontrolled

volatilization could be viewed as

unequivalent treatment, or unsafe

treatment conditions. For example,

treatment of volatile organic compounds

in surface impoundments may achieve

compliance with a wastewater treatment

standard by simply transferring

pollutants to the air.

If EPA should determine that the

court’s opinion should be read to

require control of excessive

volatilization from impoundments to

demonstrate equivalent treatment, one

option is deferral to CAA NESHAP

standards, such as the Benzene Waste

Operations NESHAPs and the HON. The

Benzene NESHAPs were promulgated

on January 17, 1993, and the HON was

promulgated on April 22, 1994 (59 FR

19402). The Agency will explore further

whether the CAA standards for

hazardous air pollutants provide

equivalent protection or control of the

hazardous constituents of concern.

Another option is extend the

applicability of existing air emission

controls in RCRA—the recently

promulgated RCRA Air Emission

Standards (59 FR 62585 (Dec. 6, 1994)).

The RCRA Air Emission Standards are

self-implementing and are applicable to

90-day units at hazardous waste

generator sites. These standards do not

apply to surface impoundments which

receive waste that was hazardous at the

point of generation but was

‘‘decharacterized’’ (i.e., rendered

nonhazardous) before being placed in

the surface impoundment.

The approach EPA is considering in

the second option is a ‘‘target mass

removal’’, which would ensure that

hazardous constituents are effectively
11710 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

removed or destroyed and that

standards are not achieved through

dilution or air emissions. A key to this

approach is that all waste streams

commingled with the hazardous waste

streams are accounted for, and

calculations are made to ensure that

dilution is not credited toward

achieving the standard. The target mass

removal approach is to identify a

hazardous waste at its point of

generation and determine the mass of

hazardous constituents that must be

removed to meet UTS. The mass of

constituents removed can be calculated

by comparing a post-treatment waste

determination to the point of generation

waste determination. An alternative is

to calculate the percent reduction of

hazardous constituents that is required

to meet the standard, and ensure that

associated treatment devices operate at

that level of efficiency. Application of

this approach could also address the

issue of nonamenable waste discussed

in Section VI of this preamble.

Comments are solicited on the

application of this approach.

The likely impacts of establishing air

emission requirements are that facilities

will pursue pollution prevention,

recycling, steam stripping or other

treatment to remove volatile organics

prior to treatment in surface

impoundments. Under this approach,

hazardous constituents would either

need to be removed prior to entering the

surface impoundment, or the

impoundment would have to be

retrofitted in a way that prevents escape

of air emissions.

Comments and data are solicited on

options for addressing these three areas

of potential cross media transfer from

wastewater treatment surface

impoundments. Comments and data are

also solicited on potential costs and

human health benefits.

B. The Hazardous Waste Identification

Rule (HWIR)

A recurring concern expressed by

many commenters is the relationship

between technology-based and riskbased RCRA limits. EPA has established

technology-based limits for all LDR

rules and will continue to do so in the

LDR Phase III rule. The Agency is

considering the establishment of riskbased levels, however, under the HWIR

that is scheduled to be proposed in the

fall of 1995.

The integration of the two approaches

could impact how facilities comply with

all LDR treatment standards. For

example, if the HWIR risk-based limits

are determined to minimize threats to

human health and the environment,

when they are higher than the LDR

standards (less stringent), they will

satisfy RCRA section 3004(m) and the

waste would not have to be treated to

meet the LDR technology-based limits.

HWTC III, 886 F. 2d at 362. Integration

of the LDR and HWIR will be further

addressed in the HWIR rulemaking

process.

C. Water Rules—the Pulp and Paper and

Pharmaceutical Industries Rules

The LDR Phase III end-of-pipe RCRA

wastewater treatment standards (i.e., the

standards which will satisfy the end-ofpipe equivalence standard enunciated

by the court) being proposed today will

be applied at the same location that

CWA effluent limitation guidelines and

pretreatment standards are currently

applied. EPA is currently amending

effluent limitation guidelines and

standards for two industries that use

surface impoundments extensively: the

pulp and paper and the pharmaceutical

industries. Both of these rules are

considering in-process limitations of the

highly-volatile constituents.

The combined CWA and CAA Pulp

and Paper rule was proposed on

December 17, 1993 (58 FR 66077). The

Pharmaceutical Industry effluent

guidelines are scheduled to be proposed

by February 1995. One key issue, with

respect to both of these industry

categories, is the timing of these

amended effluent guidelines and

standards in relation to promulgation of

LDR Phase III standards. EPA believes

that these amended guidelines and

standards should establish end-of-pipe

equivalence. However, these amended

rules may not be promulgated or

effective until after this LDR Phase III

rule takes effect. For reasons discussed

later in today’s preamble, however, EPA

is proposing to wait until the amended

rules for these industrial categories take

effect before establishing end-of-pipe

equivalence standards for these

industries.

IV. End-of-Pipe Treatment Standards

A. EPA’s General Approach to Setting

Treatment Standards and Its Relation to

the End-of-Pipe Standards Proposed

Today

In the recently-promulgated LDR

Phase II rule, EPA significantly

simplified the existing treatment

standards by adopting Universal

Treatment Standards (UTS). 59 FR

47982 (September 19, 1994). These

standards apply the same concentration

limit for the same constituent in all

prohibited wastes. The Agency believes

these standards are typically achievable

for all prohibited wastes, and greatly

improve the implementation of the LDR

program by reducing the numbers of

different treatment standards from

thousands to essentially one per

constituent.

That being said, however, the Agency

is nevertheless proposing today that

UTS not apply to hazardous

constituents in decharacterized

wastewaters discharged by CWA

facilities subject to the rule so long as

the facility is subject to an appropriate

CWA technology-based or water qualitybased standard or limitation for that

hazardous constituent. As explained

more fully in section B below, the

Agency believes that such CWA

limitations and standards satisfy RCRA

section 3004(m) requirements and

therefore that the best means of

integrating RCRA and CWA

requirements is to have the CWA

limitation or standard be the RCRA

treatment standard as well. This choice

by the Agency, should it be finalized,

should not be viewed as any retreat

from general applicability of UTS.

Indeed, as proposed elsewhere in this

preamble, EPA is proposing to apply

UTS to various newly identified and

listed wastes, as well as to prohibited

decharacterized wastes injected into

Class I nonhazardous injection wells.

B. End-of-Pipe Treatment Standards for

Clean Water Act and Equivalent

Wastewater Treatment Systems

As discussed before, EPA must

impose treatment standards on wastes

that heretofore have not been subject to

RCRA regulation. Both RCRA and CWA

programs require treatment notification,

monitoring, and enforcement; however,

they do so using different procedures.

This rule proposes an approach,

discussed in the following subsections,

that integrates requirements under both

statutes to the maximum extent

possible.

The nonhazardous waste surface

impoundments in CWA and CWAequivalent systems currently have no

RCRA permit. For CWA systems, the

discharge into navigable waters are

subject to a NPDES permit, while

discharges to POTWs are subject to

pretreatment standards. EPA is today

proposing to require that the treatment

standard be met at the same point that

the NPDES and pretreatment limits are

required to be met: Generally, at end-ofpipe. CWA-equivalent systems may be

subject to state or local permits, and

would be subject to the treatment

standards before final discharge to the

land.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11711

1. CWA Standards and Limitations as

RCRA Section 3004(m) Treatment

Standards

RCRA section 1006(b) requires EPA

(among other things) to integrate

provisions of RCRA and the CWA when

implementing RCRA and to avoid

duplication to the maximum extent

possible with CWA requirements. In

keeping with this requirement, EPA is

proposing to implement the end-of-pipe

equivalency standard in the court’s

opinion so that a technology-based or

water quality-based CWA standard for

an underlying hazardous constituent in

a CWA facility’s discharge will also be

considered to be the RCRA BDAT

treatment standard for that constituent.

(If a CWA standard for an underlying

hazardous constituent is not included in

the CWA permit, the facility must meet

UTS at end-of-pipe. See further

discussion in the next subsection.)

Consequently, satisfying the CWA

standard or limitation for that

constituent will also satisfy RCRA.

Thus, for example, if a facility managing

decharacterized wastes containing

benzene has an NPDES permit with a

limitation for benzene which reflects

Best Available Technology (BAT), that

limitation would also satisfy RCRA LDR

requirements. In addition, the facility

would not be subject to a separately

enforceable RCRA standard for benzene.

In order to limit the amount of potential

administrative duplication, EPA is

proposing that the standard remain

enforceable only under the Clean Water

Act.

EPA is proposing that a technologybased CWA limitation or standard for a

hazardous constituent satisfies RCRA

because such a limitation or standard

best reflects the capability of best

treatment technologies to treat a specific

industry’s wastewater (or, when the

limitation is determined by a permit

writer using Best Professional Judgment,

a specific plant’s wastewater). The

RCRA UTS for wastewaters were

developed by transferring performance

data from various industries, and thus

EPA need not make that same transfer

when industry-specific (or plantspecific) wastewater treatment data is

available. (EPA notes, however, that the

UTS reflect treatment of wastewater

matrices that are particularly difficult to

treat, and hence that the Agency’s

conclusion that these standards are

typically achievable is sound.)

It is also reasonable for water qualitybased limitations to satisfy RCRA

requirements. These limitations must be

at least as stringent as the limitations

required to implement an existing

technology-based standard. (See CWA

section 301(b)(1)(c).) Even where there

is no existing BAT limitation for a toxic

or nonconventional pollutant, a permit

writer must determine whether BAT

would be more stringent than the

applicable water quality-based

limitation, and again, must apply the

more stringent of the two potential

limitations. (40 CFR 125.3(c)(2).)

Consequently, a water quality-based

limitation not only reasonably satisfies

RCRA section 3004(m) requirements,

but can be viewed as a type of sitespecific minimize threat level.

If a facility has received a

Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF)

variance, EPA is proposing that the

limitations established by that variance

also satisfy RCRA requirements.

Limitations established by the FDF

variance process are technology-based

standards reflecting facility-specific

circumstances, and hence can

appropriately be viewed as BDAT as

well, just as with RCRA treatability

variance standards. See 51 FR at 40605

(Nov. 7, 1986).

EPA also believes that there are

adequate constraints in the CWA

implementing rules to prevent these

end-of-pipe standards from being

achieved by means of dilution. First,

many of the effluent limitation

guidelines and standards regulate the

mass of pollutants discharged, and thus

directly regulate not only the

concentration of pollutant discharged

but the degree of wastewater flow as

well. Where rules are concentrationbased, NPDES permit writers can set

requirements which preclude excessive

water use, and EPA has so instructed

permit writers. (See 58 FR 66151,

December 17, 1983, encouraging permit

writers to estimate reasonable rate of

flow per facility and factor that flow

limit into the permit.) These permit

conditions can take the form of best

management practices, explicit mass

limitations, and conditions on internal

waste streams. 40 CFR 122.44(k);

122.45(f), (g) and (h). Indirect

dischargers are also subject to specific

CWA dilution rules in both the general

pretreatment rules and the Combined

Wastestream Formula (as well as

through many of the categorical

standards). 40 CFR 403.6(d) and (e).

Many of the guidelines and standards

also preclude addition of stormwater

runoff to process wastewater to preclude

achieving treatment requirements by

means of dilution. The Agency is

accordingly of the view that end-of-pipe

equivalence would be achieved by

treatment that removes or destroys

hazardous constituents, as required by

section 3004(m). (This discussion, of

course, still leaves open the questions,

left for the LDR Phase IV rule, of how

existence of leaks, air emissions, or

depositions of constituents in sludges

affects determinations of equivalent

treatment and similar issues.)

With respect to indirect dischargers,

EPA is further proposing that national

categorical standards or, potentially,

plant-specific standards contained in

control mechanisms (i.e. contracts

between industrial users and the POTW

or other governmental entity) satisfy

RCRA where these standards reflect

pass through findings. If it is found that

a particular pollutant/hazardous

constituent will not pass through to

navigable waters because of efficacious

treatment by the POTW, there will be

full-scale treatment of the pollutant/

hazardous constituent before its final

release into the environment. EPA is

proposing that such full-scale treatment

satisfies the court’s equivalency test.

EPA is also proposing to add such passthrough situations as a valid ground for

indirect dischargers to obtain a RCRA

treatability variance, for the same

reasons.

However, the Agency is not proposing

that standards based on interference

with POTW operations be deemed to

also satisfy RCRA requirements.

Interference findings reflect the effect

the pollutant may have on overall

POTW treatment, not necessarily

treatment of the particular constituent.

Because the relationship of an

interference-based standard with

treatment of a particular pollutant is

tenuous, the Agency does not believe

such a standard can be said to be

equivalent to RCRA treatment. The

Agency solicits comment on the

prevalence of interference-based

standards.

2. Implementation When CWA

Standards and Limitations Will Be the

Exclusive Standard

a. Direct Dischargers

EPA is proposing that if a direct

discharger subject to this rule (i.e.

generating ICRT wastes containing

hazardous constituents at

concentrations exceeding UTS at the

point the wastes are generated and

treating those wastes in surface

impoundments) has an NPDES permit

containing a limitation for that pollutant

based on BAT, New Source Performance

Standards, or a more stringent water

quality standard, or is regulated through

controls on an indicator pollutant, then

there are no RCRA requirements other

than documentary recordkeeping. An

indicator pollutant is a pollutant for

which control of that pollutant is

considered to indicate control of a
11712 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

6The Pharmaceutical Rule is scheduled to be

proposed on February 28, 1995; the Pulp and Paper

Rule was proposed on December 17, 1993 (58 FR

66077).

specific constituent. For example, total

phenols is an indicator for a specific

phenol. The Agency solicits comments

on specific circumstances where a

pollutant is an indicator of a specific

underlying hazardous constituent.

If the existing NPDES permit either

does not contain a limitation for the

pollutant or does not regulate the

pollutant through an indicator, a facility

would have several choices. It could do

nothing, in which case the hazardous

constituent would be subject to the

UTS, and compliance would be

monitored at end-of-pipe (unless the

facility chooses to segregate the

wastestreams for treatment, in which

case compliance would be measured in

the segregated stream after treatment).

These standards would be implemented

by rule, and thus would not be

embodied in a permit. Enforcement

would be solely under RCRA.

In the alternative, a facility could seek

amendment of its NPDES permit

pursuant to § 122.62(a)(2), requesting

that the applicable permitting authority

modify the permit to add limits for the

underlying hazardous constituents

reflecting BAT for that pollutant at the

facility. Assuming proper design and

operation of the wastewater treatment

technology, a permit writer in such a

case could modify the permit to add a

limitation for the pollutant based on

Best Professional Judgement reflecting

actual treatment (40 CFR 125.3(c)).

Modification requests would be

processed pursuant to the procedures

found at § 124.5. The modified permit

limitation would be a CWA requirement

and enforceable solely under that

statute.

A final alternative is for the facility to

seek a RCRA treatability variance. EPA

is proposing to amend the grounds for

granting such a variance to include

situations where a facility is treating

decharacterized wastes by treatment

identified as BAT, the technology is

designed and operated properly, but is

not achieving the UTS (see proposed

amendments to § 268.44(a)). The

amendment would also apply to

indirect dischargers properly operating

technology identified as the basis for

their PSES (Pretreatment Standard for

Existing Sources) or their PSNS

(Pretreatment Standard for New

Sources) standard.

b. Indirect Dischargers

The same alternatives exist for

indirect dischargers. First, if an

underlying hazardous constituent is not

regulated nationally by a PSES, PSNS,

or by a local limit, and so therefore

becomes subject to the UTS for that

constituent, that UTS would be enforced

as a RCRA standard. In addition, if there

is no pretreatment standard (i.e., PSES/

PSNS) for an underlying hazardous

constituent, because the Agency

determined that there was no pass

through, then the RCRA standard for

that underlying hazardous constituents

does not apply. However, in cases

where an underlying hazardous

constituent is not already subject to

categorical PSES, categorical PSNS, or

to a local limit in a control mechanism

reflecting PSES or PSNS-level treatment,

water quality, or pass through, the

control mechanism between the indirect

discharger and the applicable control

authority would have to be modified in

order to avoid application of the UTS by

rule. Although procedures for modifying

control mechanisms are less

institutionalized than those codified for

modifying direct dischargers’ permits,

the Agency initially does not believe

this will pose a significant logistical

problem because the number of indirect

dischargers significantly affected by this

rule (i.e. those treating decharacterized

wastewaters in surface impoundments

before discharge to a POTW where

categorical PSES or local limitation does

not address a particular hazardous

constituent, and discharging greater

than de minimis levels of hazardous

constituents) appears to be small. The

Agency continues to solicit information

on the number of indirect dischargers so

affected, however.

EPA also solicits comment on the best

means of applying the equivalency

requirement to industries where the

Agency is also undertaking significant

revisions to applicable CWA

requirements on a somewhat slower

schedule than this rule. The Agency has

in mind particularly the forthcoming

amended standards for the

pharmaceutical and pulp and paper

industrial categories.6 Amended BAT/

PSES standards for these industries are

likely to encompass most or all of the

underlying hazardous constituents

typically found in these industries’

wastewaters, and will reflect EPA’s best

judgement of the appropriate optimized

technology-based controls for those

pollutants, as well as the time needed to

implement those controls. The Agency’s

initial preference, in keeping with the

requirements of RCRA section 1006, is

to wait until those controls are in place

before evaluating end-of-pipe

equivalency for those industries. The

Agency solicits comment on this matter.

Finally, if the facility treats to UTS

and does not modify its CWA permit or

control mechanism to include a CWA

standard/limitation for an underlying

hazardous constituent, EPA is proposing

minimal record-keeping requirements,

under RCRA authority. EPA is

proposing that generators can use

generator knowledge to identify the

underlying hazardous constituents

present at the point of generation of the

ICRT wastes which are not covered by

a CWA limitation and hence must be

treated to meet UTS (assuming no

permit modification, etc.). Monitoring at

potentially hundreds of points of

generation would be unnecessarily

burdensome and so is not being

proposed as a requirement. EPA is

proposing that this information be kept

on-site in files at the facility. EPA

proposes that the facility will then

monitor compliance with the UTS

standard for each of these constituents

at the point of ultimate discharge on a

quarterly basis, and that the results of

this monitoring also be kept in the

facility’s on-site files. Monitoring

compliance with UTS at the point of

discharge provides appropriate

assurance of effective treatment. Failure

to comply with the RCRA UTS standard

must be reported by the facility to the

EPA Regional or authorized state RCRA

personnel.

Finally, the Agency is proposing to

grant a two-year national capacity

variance to allow facilities time to

repipe and build on-site treatment, or to

modify their CWA permit.

EPA is proposing these same

requirements for documenting

compliance for zero dischargers without

NPDES permits who are affected by this

rule. The absence of a permit

necessitates some alternative means of

documenting compliance, and the

scheme outlined above seems to be the

least burdensome scheme which would

still provide a reasonable means of

enforcing this rule.

C. Treatment Standards for Class I

Nonhazardous Injection Wells

1. Introduction

Generally, facilities injecting

decharacterized ICRT wastes into Class

I nonhazardous injection wells do not

treat their waste beyond removing the

characteristic by mixing and diluting,

plus some filtering of solids. There are

as many as 149 such facilities. The

average flow of a typical Class I

nonhazardous well is estimated at

107,000 gallons/day. Typically, the

volume of the hazardous wastestreams

is relatively small (less than 25%)

compared to the volumes of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11713

7 In a 1992 memorandum from F. Henry Habicht,

then EPA Deputy Administrator, and reiterated in

a June 15, 1993 memorandum from Carol Browner,

EPA Administrator, the Agency has defined

pollution prevention as ‘‘source reduction’’ (as

defined in the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act

(PPA)), and other practices that reduce or eliminate

the creation of pollutants through (1) increased

efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water,

or other resources; or (2) protection of natural

resources by conservation. The PPA defines ‘‘source

reduction’’ to mean any practice which (1) reduces

the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant,

or contaminant entering any waste stream or

otherwise released into the environment (including

fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or

disposal; (2) reduces the hazards to public health

and the environment associated with the release of

such substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

‘‘Source reduction’’ includes: 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, energy

recovery, treatment, and disposal are not included

in the definition of pollution prevention in the PPA.

nonhazardous wastestreams being coinjected.

EPA is proposing that these

characteristic wastestreams be

considered prohibited at the point they

are generated. The Agency is further

proposing that underlying hazardous

constituents in these prohibited wastes

be treated to meet UTS levels before the

waste is injected. The treatment must

destroy, remove, or immobilize the

underlying hazardous constituents in

the waste that are present in

concentrations exceeding UTS at the

point the wastes are generated. It may be

that in some situations, one type of

treatment may pose more risk than

another type, notwithstanding that it

removes or destroys hazardous

constituents to a greater degree. In such

cases, facilities may seek a treatability

variance to allow the use of the less

aggressive treatment technology

(assuming such treatment technology

satisfies the 3004(m) standard). In such

a situation, the technology posing

greater risk could be considered to be

‘‘not appropriate to the waste,’’ (see 40

CFR 268.44(a)) and a variance could be

granted to allow the use of alternative

treatment. EPA believes this result

satisfies the court’s mandate in the

Third Third opinion.

EPA believes that the decision in the

Third Third opinion necessitates

revising the applicability of the 40 CFR

Part 148 requirements, Hazardous Waste

Injection Restrictions, as they now

apply to Class I nonhazardous injection

wells. The Agency is clarifying in

proposed revisions to 40 CFR 148.1, that

owners and operators of Class I

nonhazardous wells must determine,

under certain circumstances, whether

the LDRs now apply to their facilities.

Class I wells which inject nonhazardous

wastes at the point of injection must

now determine if any of these wastes

exhibited a characteristic of hazardous

waste at the point they were generated.

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to

amend § 148.1 and redefine the purpose,

scope, and applicability of the Part 148

regulations.

To conform with the Court’s ruling

the Agency is also proposing to include

Class I nonhazardous wells within the

scope of the dilution prohibition at 40

CFR 148.3. Class I wells thus may not

impermissibly dilute their hazardous

waste streams in order to substitute for

or avoid treatment levels or methods

established in the LDRs.

2. Compliance Options for Class I

Nonhazardous UIC Wells

In order to comply with today’s

requirements, facilities could segregate

their characteristic streams for separate

treatment. Treatment could occur either

on-site or off-site. After the

characteristic wastes have been treated

to meet UTS, they can be land disposed

(either by injection or by some other

means). A facility could also treat the

aggregated mass of wastewaters (i.e. the

commingled characteristic and noncharacteristic wastewaters) to meet UTS

before injection.

Another option is for the facility to

seek a no-migration variance under

§ 148.20. Thus, EPA is proposing today

to amend the provisions under § 148.20

to allow facilities to seek a no-migration

variance for their injection well(s). This

amendment, however, would simply

formalize EPA’s existing interpretation

that no-migration variances are already

available for such wells. See 59 FR at

48013 (September 19, 1994). If these

facilities submit a no-migration petition

to EPA and effectively demonstrate to

EPA that their formerly characteristic

wastes (including any hazardous

constituents contained in those wastes)

will not migrate from the injection zone

for 10,000 years or no longer pose any

threat to human health and the

environment because the wastes are

attenuated, transformed, or immobilized

by natural means in the injection zone,

then they may continue injection

without further treatment.

Each no-migration petition has, to

date, taken on average 3 years to

process. This time may increase if the

Agency receives a large number of

petitions. EPA continues to emphasize,

however, that interested petitioners

need not wait for this rule to be

promulgated before pursuing the

petition process. Petitions for a nomigration variance for Class I

nonhazardous wells receiving

decharacterized wastes can be received

and evaluated now. Id.

EPA is also proposing to extend the

availability of case-by-case extensions of

the effective date to Class I

nonhazardous injection facilities for any

applicable Part 148 prohibition.

Proposed revisions to § 148.1(c)(1) and

§ 148.4 will allow Class I well owners

and operators on a case-specific basis to

follow procedures of § 268.5 to receive

a one-year extension, renewable for an

additional year, from the effective date

of the prohibitions, in order to acquire

or construct alternative treatment

capacity.

EPA today is proposing two other

means for facilities with Class I UIC

wells to comply with the LDR

requirements. The first involves

removing the same mass of hazardous

constituents from streams to be injected

through pollution prevention rather

than pre-injection wastewater treatment.

The second involves creating an

exception for situations when the

characteristic wastestreams make only a

de minimis contribution to the waste

mixture being injected. These two

proposed options are described below in

more detail.

3. Pollution Prevention Compliance

Option

The D.C. Circuit stressed that the

equivalency test, if enunciated, is

required to ensure that mass loadings of

hazardous constituents to permanent

disposal units are reduced to the same

extent they would be if a prohibited

waste was treated exclusively under a

RCRA regime. 976 F. 2d at 23 n. 8. EPA

is proposing that these reductions in

mass loadings can be achieved by

removing hazardous constituents from

any of the wastestreams that are going

to be injected, and that these reductions

in mass loadings can be accomplished

by means of pollution prevention.7

Thus, if a facility can, for example,

make process changes that reduce the

mass of cadmium by the same amount

that would be removed if the prohibited

wastestream was treated to satisfy UTS,

the facility would have satisfied LDR

requirements. The facility would thus

no longer have to demonstrate that it is

meeting UTS concentration levels.

Under this option, a hazardous

constituent could be removed from

either the hazardous or nonhazardous

portion of the injectate, and could be

removed before a waste is generated.

The result would be that the mass

loading into the injection unit would be

reduced by the same amount as it would

be reduced by treatment of the

prohibited, characteristic portion of the

injectate.
11714 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

The mass/day reduction of a

particular underlying hazardous

constituent can be calculated by

comparing the injected baseline with the

allowance. The injected baseline is

determined by multiplying the volume/

day of hazardous waste generated (and

subsequently injected) times the

concentration of hazardous constituents

prior to the pollution prevention

measure. The allowance is determined

by multiplying the volume/day of a

hazardous constituent generated/

injected times the UTS for that

constituent. The difference between the

injected baseline and the allowance is

the mass/day reduction.

After successful employment of a

pollution prevention measure, the

facility must demonstrate that the

injected mass achieves the required

mass/day reduction. The post-pollution

prevention measures would be corrected

for production variations by multiplying

the mass/day reduction times the ratio

of the pre-pollution prevention

production baseline divided by the

production on the day of sampling after

the pollution prevention is successfully

implemented. A correction for

production variations is needed because

the amount of an underlying hazardous

constituent in the injectate is dependent

upon the level of production. If the

initial reading is taken on a day of low

production, and the post-pollution

prevention reading is taken on a day of

high production, then without the

correction factor the mass/day reduction

calculation would be an underestimate.

The following is an example to

illustrate this discussion:

Facility X is daily injecting 1 lb. of

benzene (an underlying hazardous

constituent in a characteristically

hazardous wastestream). The mass

allowed for benzene (based on the

volume of the hazardous wastestream

they inject and the UTS for benzene) is

0.3 lbs. Therefore, the mass of benzene

that needs to be removed in order for

Facility X to be in compliance with the

LDR is 0.7 lb.

Facility X decides to use pollution

prevention to remove the 0.7 lb. of

benzene from their system. Before

employing pollution prevention,

Facility X monitors and determines that

on a day when they produce 10 tons of

product, 3 lbs. of benzene is being

injected. After employment of pollution

prevention, Facility X monitors and

determines that 1 lb. of benzene is being

injected. On this day of monitoring they

are producing 5 tons of product.

Therefore: 3 lbs.¥1* (10/5)=1 lb. of

benzene removed, which means they are

in compliance with LDR, since 0.7 lb.

was all that was necessary to be

removed.

EPA is proposing that the results of

the monitoring of the underlying

hazardous constituent concentration

and the volume of the hazardous waste

stream being injected, both on the day

before employment of pollution

prevention, and the day after successful

employment of pollution prevention, be

reported to the EPA Region or

authorized State as a one-time

notification. The facility will also

include in this report a description of

the pollution prevention method used.

In addition, the facility will monitor and

keep on-site records of the results on a

quarterly basis. Quarterly monitoring is

already required under SDWA

regulations (40 CFR 146.13(b)). The

reporting requirements for this option

will be a one-time notification; however,

if the facility changes its pollution

prevention method, they must repeat

the initial monitoring and notify the

EPA Region or authorized State. The

Agency is proposing to consider only

those pollution prevention measures

taken after the date of publication of this

proposed rule.

EPA is proposing that, at this time,

the pollution prevention alternative as

described in this section of the

preamble, be available only for facilities

using Class I nonhazardous injection

wells. EPA is not proposing the same

alternative for facilities using surface

impoundments because until the LDR

Phase IV rules are completed, there will

not be a test as to what comprises

equivalent treatment at such facilities.

That is, before EPA determines how

such issues as potential releases to air

and groundwater are to be resolved,

there is no final equivalency standard

for these facilities. It thus appears to

EPA to be premature to determine how

a pollution prevention alternative

would fit into such a scheme. EPA also

notes that because surface

impoundments can pose particularly

adverse environmental risks, see RCRA

section 1002(b)(7) and CWM v. EPA, 919

F. 2d 158 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the Agency

in any case may wish to develop

alternative approaches for

decharacterized wastes being managed

in such units.

EPA also solicits comment on a

number of issues relating to this option.

The first is comment on using other

production parameters besides or in lieu

of volume (e.g., mass, square footage,

etc.). The second is comment on use of

site-specific non-linear production

relationships and multiple production

factors to deal with potential differences

in underlying hazardous constituents

produced in the hazardous and

nonhazardous waste streams. Third,

EPA solicits comment on whether more

than one day is needed for monitoring

pre and post-employment of the

pollution prevention option (i.e., some

pollution prevention methods may

require more than one day to show

results).

EPA also solicits comment on the best

means of ensuring that the mass

reductions achieved through this

pollution prevention alternative are

objectively verifiable and enforceable. In

particular, EPA solicits comments on

the best means of documenting baseline

levels, and whether flow reductions (as

opposed to hazardous constituent

removal) should be allowed as an

exclusive means of obtaining the

requisite reductions in mass loadings of

hazardous constituents.

Finally, EPA requests comment as to

whether it may eventually be possible to

implement this type of alternative by

means of a pollutant trading type of

approach, whereby the hazardous

constituent being removed by means of

pollution prevention need not be

identical to the hazardous constituent in

the characteristic stream. For example,

carcinogenic metals could all be

grouped rather than evaluated

individually. This type of approach may

add desirable flexibility if appropriately

constructed.

4. De Minimis Volume Exclusion

There is a question of whether EPA

should require treatment of relatively

small decharacterized hazardous waste

streams injected into Class I

nonhazardous wells when the result

will be essentially the same level of

contaminants being injected (and thus

risks are not measurably reduced).

Therefore the Agency is proposing to

establish a de minimis volume

exclusion for small volumes of formerly

hazardous wastes being injected into

these wells along with a greater volume

of nonhazardous waste.

There are two existing LDR de

minimis provisions (§ 268.1(e) (4) and

(5)). Both are for ignitable and/or

corrosive wastes (D001 and D002); the

first is for de minimis losses of D001 or

D002 to wastewater treatment systems

of commercial chemical products, while

the second is for de minimis losses of

D001 or D002 laboratory wastes. Under

the approach being proposed today,

when underlying hazardous

constituents are present in ICRT wastes

at concentrations less than 10 times

UTS at the point of generation, and the

combination of all of the

characteristically hazardous streams

together are less than 1% of the total

flow at point of injection and after
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11715

commingling with the nonhazardous

streams, and that the total volume of

hazardous streams are no more than

10,000 gallons/day, no segregation and/

or treatment would be required. The 1%

total flow criteria is consistent with the

existing de minimis exemption for

laboratory wastes (§ 268.1(e)(5));

however, the Agency solicits comment

on the 1% criteria, the 10 times UTS

criteria as well as the 10,000 gallons/day

maximum—should these numbers be

higher, lower, or dropped?

The Agency intends to continue

analyzing collected data that may

provide additional justification for, or

alternatively, cause the Agency to

modify any or all of the criteria on

which it has based the de minimis

exemption for injected waste. This

analysis will be conducted in

conjunction with revising the

Regulatory Impact Analysis for

underground injected wastes, and may

include additional computer modeling

used in assessing the health risks posed

by Class I injection wells. The Agency

may conduct this analysis, for example,

by varying specific parameters in the

modeling, such as well pump rates, total

volume of waste injected, and waste

concentrations, and by altering

postulated exposure scenarios

describing health risks posed by

injection of Phase III wastes. Upon

conclusion, the analysis may support

the proposed de minimis criteria or may

cause the Agency to revise them in the

final rule. The Agency solicits any

comment on this planned approach and

any alternative suggestions.

The Agency is proposing that if a

generator determines that he meets the

requirements of the de minimis

exemption, that he place a one-time

notice in his files stating the % flow and

concentration of the underlying

hazardous constituents, and volumetric

flow of prohibited wastestreams (i.e.

streams exhibiting a characteristic at the

point of generation). The concentration

of underlying hazardous constituents

would have to be determined through

monitoring, and the % flow can be

determined through several methods.

One method for estimating annual

average wastewater stream flow is to use

the maximum annual production

capacity of the process equipment,

along with knowledge of the process

and mass balance. A second method

would involve using measurements that

are representative of average process

wastewater generation rates. A third

method is to select the highest flow rate

of process wastewater from the

historical records. Other knowledgebased methods, which would be less

expensive alternatives to actual

measurement, could also be used. EPA

solicits comment on these alternatives.

D. Point of Generation Discussion

1. Introduction

It has long been the rule that land

disposal prohibitions apply at the point

hazardous wastes are generated. See e.g.

55 FR at 22652 (June 1, 1990);

261.3(a)(2)(iii). Some members of the

regulated community, including the

Chemical Manufacturer’s Association

(CMA), have asked EPA to reconsider

this issue in light of the Third Third

rule and the D.C. Circuit opinion

interpreting that rule. See CWM v. EPA

(976 F. 2d 2 D.C. Cir. 1992). Among

other things, the court held that

hazardous constituents present above

concentrations ‘‘sufficient to pose a

threat to human health and the

environment’’ in prohibited wastes,

including characteristic wastes, must

meet LDR treatment standards. See 976

F. 2d at 16.

The regulated community has argued

that continued application of the point

of generation rule could lead to

situations where prohibitions would

attach to particular characteristic

wastestreams and trigger a host of

potentially disproportionate

consequences, without necessarily

furthering any of the protective

objectives of the LDR program. Many

industrial processes consist of hundreds

or thousands of streams, some of which

exhibit characteristics only for a short

time or (for batch processes)

intermittently. The streams often exist

within the physical confines of an

industrial process, and may be collected

within a common sump or other

aggregation point. If one of the streams

should exhibit a characteristic of

hazardous waste, the entire system of

wastewater treatment or other

management could be affected if the

system contains an impoundment or

injection well.

These commenters have also

requested that EPA revisit the current

interpretation that prohibitions attach at

the instant of generation and that this

requires in certain cases knowledge or

monitoring of many internal streams.

They argue that some of these streams

may not be readily amenable to

monitoring because everything within

the process is hard-piped to a common

collection point. It should be noted that

EPA previously considered the practical

difficulties associated with sampling or

monitoring wastes within closedprocess units. See 55 FR 25760, 25765

(July 8, 1987).

The commenters have expressed

concern that there are likely to be

circumstances where mass loadings of

hazardous constituents to the

environment are not significantly

affected by allowing initial aggregation

of residual streams from a process. They

also have expressed concern with the

practical impacts and achievability of

determining the precise content of

potentially thousands of internal

wastestreams within an industrial

facility.

In response to these concerns raised

by industry groups following the Third

Third opinion, the Agency is soliciting

comment on a number of approaches to

modify the current point of generation

approach for making LDR

determinations for certain types of

wastes. These approaches also could be

applied more generally for purposes of

subtitle C to determine at what point a

waste is generated.

2. Background

EPA has required LDR determinations

to be made at the point which

hazardous wastes are generated since

the Solvents and Dioxins final rule (51

FR 40620, November 7, 1986). EPA

asserted the authority to make LDR

determinations at either point of

generation or point of disposal in the

Third Third final rule (55 FR 22652–53).

The court invalidated such selectivity

(976 F. 2d at 23), but did hold that at

least the dilution prohibition did not

have to apply to invalidate use of CWA

treatment impoundments performing

RCRA-equivalent treatment. 2d. at 23–4.

In the course of finalizing the

California list rule, EPA solicited

comment on a ‘‘point of aggregation’’

approach to assessing when

prohibitions attached. (See 52 FR at

22356 (June 11, 1987) where point of

aggregation is defined as a point of

common aggregation preceding

centralized wastewater treatment.) Most

commenters at that time criticized such

an approach on the grounds that the

‘‘point of aggregation’’ was by no means

readily determinable and could result in

wastes being treated less or, in some

cases, being diluted impermissibly. EPA

rejected the approach for these reasons.

52 FR at 25766 (July 8, 1987).

The following options, which are

being presented for comment, would

narrowly redefine the point at which the

land disposal prohibitions attach.

3. Similar Streams Generated by Similar

Processes

One possible revision would address

situations in which like streams are

generated from like processes and

combined as a matter of routine

practice. An example would be

collection of rinses from sequential
11716 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

8However, spills of commercial chemical

products exhibiting a characteristic, an example

mentioned by CMA, are already not considered to

be prohibited provided amounts spilled are de

minimis, as defined at 268.1(e)(4) (59 FR 47982,

September 19, 1994). See generally, CMA’s

submission to EPA of October 5, 1994, part of the

record for this proposed rule.

9 De minimis losses of the discarded commercial

chemical product form of these wastes are not

considered to be prohibited. 40 CFR 268.1(e)(4).

rinses in a manufacturing process, or

multiple rinses from parallel

manufacturing lines all making the same

product. In these circumstances, all the

rinse water could contain the same

hazardous constituents in roughly the

same concentrations. Variations in

hazardous constituent concentrations

would reflect normal process variability,

so that mass loadings of hazardous

constituents to the environment over

time would not alter if the rinses are

aggregated and disposed. EPA seeks

comment on whether or not such

collection of like streams from like units

should be considered impermissible

dilution, since some in the regulated

community might view it as counterintuitive in many cases to even consider

these similar process outputs to be

separate.

4. Streams From a Single Process

Industrial facilities frequently collect

residual streams from a process in a

common unit such as a sump. In many

cases, these streams are similar in

composition because they all come from

a common unit process. Consequently,

although some of the residual streams

could exhibit a characteristic before

common collection, long-term average

mass loadings of hazardous constituents

per unit of production may not vary

significantly, even though the waste

concentrations may vary within a

normal range over time.

Moreover, where residues are

generated within a unit process, it might

be possible to view these streams as still

within the ‘‘normal part of the process

that results in the waste’’, S. Rep. No.

284, 98th Cong. 2d sess. at 17, and

consequently that any routine

combination of these streams from the

common process would not be

impermissible dilution. Id. Of course,

there is the possibility of abuse in any

approach that allows combination of

residues. Characteristic wastestreams

not normally generated as part of the

unit process could be re-piped in order

to dilute the characteristic and avoid

treatment of underlying hazardous

constituents. This would remain

impermissible dilution under any of the

approaches EPA is considering.

This approach differs from the ‘‘point

of aggregation’’ approach EPA rejected

as part of the California List rule in that

it limits the mixing of waste streams to

wastes generated within a single unit

process. In the initial ‘‘point of

accumulation’’ approach, wastes from

various sources could be mixed in a

sump, as long as the sump was the first

point of accumulation. This option

limits the mixing to single

manufacturing steps (unit operations).

5. ‘‘Battery Limits’’

The CMA has suggested an expanded

version of the option discussed above.

Instead of limiting aggregation to that

normally occurring within a single unit

process, they would view an entire

battery of processes (associated with

making a single product or related group

of products) as a single manufacturing

step. CMA would use the logic of the

approach described in the previous

section to allow all residues generated

from that sequence of processes to be

combined before a determination is

made as to whether wastes are

prohibited. Under CMA’s approach,

determinations as to whether

characteristic wastes are prohibited

could be made at this point where all of

the aqueous waste streams from a

unique industrial process are aggregated

(referred to by CMA as ‘‘battery limits’’),

or at a point that a stream exits the

manufacturing process unit where it is

generated (‘‘point of rejection’’).

Such aggregation could, in CMA’s

view, be considered to be ‘‘part of the

normal process that results in the

waste’’ (S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 1st

sess. 17) so that the aggregation within

the industrial process battery limits

need not be considered to be

impermissible dilution. CMA believes

that this approach could ease

monitoring burdens, simplify point of

generation determinations, facilitate

legitimate wastewater treatment and

avoid accounting for characteristic

properties and underlying hazardous

constituents in intermittent streams

such as streams from batch processes, or

from characteristic streams resulting

from one-time spills or other process

emergencies. 8

6. Solicitation of Comment

The Agency solicits comment on the

composition of internal residual streams

within discrete processes when one or

more of the streams exhibits a

characteristic in order to determine how

frequently such streams are similar with

respect to identity and concentration of

hazardous constituents. EPA also

solicits comments on how difficult it is

to identify the physical boundaries of a

unit process, and what safeguards could

be developed to assure that

characteristic streams not normally part

of a unit process are not diluted by repiping and combination with unrelated

streams.

The Agency seeks comment on

potential difficulties with all three

options, but mostly the third option.

Namely, the various limits do not seem

to be graphically self-defining, and,

hence, could be difficult to implement.

The Agency is also concerned about the

possibility of impermissible dilution of

non-de minimis characteristic

wastewater streams whenever large

numbers and volumes of wastewaters

are brought together and characteristics

are eliminated without hazardous

constituents being removed or

destroyed.

7. Situations Where Existing Point of

Generation Determinations May Remain

Appropriate

a. Listed Wastes. In considering the

above approaches, as well as others, it

could be argued that any modification to

the point of LDR determination should

apply only to characteristic wastes and

F001–F005 (spent solvents) listed

wastes. In evaluating wastes from other

sources for listing (including other ‘‘F’’

series wastes), EPA has carefully

evaluated the various waste streams and

has defined the point of generation as

part of the listing description. Therefore,

it may be inappropriate to modify that

description with a more generic point of

prohibition rule. EPA solicit comment

on this issue.

b. Prohibited Wastes Whose

Treatment Standard is a Method of

Treatment. Section 261.3(b) states that

characteristic wastes whose treatment

standard is a specified method of

treatment may not be diluted to remove

the characteristic in lieu of performing

the specified method of treatment.

Principal examples of such wastes are

high TOC ignitable wastes,

characteristic pesticide wastes, and

certain characteristic mercury wastes.

55 FR at 22657. EPA indicated that

these wastes are not typically amenable

to adequate treatment by means other

than the designated treatment methods,9

so that aggregation to remove the

characteristic is impermissible dilution

unless treatment by the required method

follows. Id.

EPA’s initial view is that these

wastestreams should remain prohibited

at the current point of generation. The

Agency has made a considered decision

that these wastes require a particular

type of treatment, and the wastestreams

themselves are clearly delineated. 55 FR

at 22657. In addition, the treatment
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11717

methods for a number of these wastes

(including high TOC ignitable wastes

and characteristic mercury wastes)

include or require resource recovery,

another reason to ensure that this type

of treatment continues to occur. Steel

Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 27 F.

3d 642, 647 (D.C. Cir. 1994). EPA

solicits comment as to whether any

alteration of the point at which LDRs

attach to these wastes should be

reconsidered.

8. Implications Beyond LDR Rules

The Agency believes that narrowly

redefining the point at which wastes are

subject to RCRA regulation should be

considered because of industry’s

concerns with the impact this approach

is having on the program currently and

what potential impact it may have in the

future. Strict interpretation of the

current point of generation has already

raised questions with respect to the

status of a variety of similar wastes that

sometimes exhibit the hazardous waste

characteristic and are routinely mixed

(e.g., spent antifreeze from automobiles,

boiler cleanout wastes, emission control

residues). This issue may become even

more important in the future as EPA

adopts exit levels which may be

established by the Hazardous Waste

Identification Rule.

While absolute clarity of the

applicability of RCRA may result from

the current point of generation

requirement, industry commenters feel

that it could be magnified in the future

by this and other rulemakings. In

considering these concerns, EPA does

not wish to undermine the effort to

segregate the most concentrated wastes

for source reduction or treatment. EPA

solicits comment on whether any of the

approaches described achieves the

proper balance among these goals.

V. Discussion of the Potential

Prohibition of Nonamenable Wastes

From Land-Based Biological Treatment

Systems

This section solicits comment on two

regulatory frameworks received from

industry and from treaters of hazardous

wastes concerning refractory underlying

hazardous constituents in land-based

biological treatment systems. First, the

Environmental Technology Council

(ETC) submitted comments to the

Agency on EPA’s March, 1993

Supplemental Information Report on

potential responses to CWM v. EPA. The

ETC raised concern as to whether the

constituents from these decharacterized

wastes when placed into biological

impoundments are merely being diluted

and discharged; volatilized from the

surface of the impoundment; or simply

end up concentrating in the sludge at

the bottom of the impoundment. The

ETC labeled these constituents whose

primary fate is air or sludge (or

discharge without treatment) via one of

these paths as ‘‘nonamenable to

biotreatment.’’ The comment suggested

several criteria for determining whether

process streams with ‘‘nonamenable’’

constituents should be kept out of

surface impoundments.

Secondly, CMA provided EPA with

similar recommendations in August

1993. This section also considers CMA’s

suggestions for managing refractory

chemicals in land-based biological

treatment units.

A. Technical Overview

Many ‘‘decharacterized’’ wastes (i.e.,

wastes that were formerly hazardous

wastes due to their ignitable, corrosive

or reactive properties as generated but

which no longer exhibit a characteristic

by the time they are land disposed) are

placed in Subtitle D surface

impoundments for the purpose of

biological treatment. In theory,

microorganisms in the impoundment

can degrade organic constituents in

these wastes (under aerobic and/or

anaerobic conditions) to carbon dioxide

and water.

The ETC comment suggested that EPA

identify and prohibit wastes containing

these ‘‘nonamenable’’ constituents from

biological treatment impoundments.

The issue facing EPA is whether there

are wastes for which biological

treatment is not BDAT either because

biological treatment cannot adequately

reduce hazardous constituents or

because biological treatment simply

transfers hazardous constituents to other

media, and, if so, whether an alternative

regulatory scheme is appropriate. While

the LDR Phase IV rule will specifically

address the concerns with respect to

sludges, leaks and air emissions, EPA

has committed to raising certain

technical issues concerning

‘‘nonamenability’’ in the LDR Phase III

proposed rule and has also committed

to discuss the suggested regulatory

resolutions submitted by both the ETC

and the CMA, who also submitted

comments pertaining to this issue.

What follows is EPA’s interpretation

of the fundamental concerns which

fostered this option, a discussion of the

technical issues inherent to this

approach and an identification of

alternative approaches to address these

underlying concerns. The issue of

whether RCRA can require segregation

of refractory hazardous wastes streams

entering land-based surface

impoundments is closely connected to

the Agency’s approach to sludges, leaks

and air emissions in the LDR Phase IV

rule. The Agency is therefore delaying

any final action on the components of

the ETC comments, or on the CMA

suggestions, until LDR Phase IV when

more comprehensive decisions can be

made on each issue.

B. Summary of the ETC’s Position

The full text of the ETC’s comments

can be found in the administrative

record for today’s rule. This section

summarizes that document.

The ETC asserts that ‘‘Hazardous

constituents in ICR wastes that are not

amenable to the biological or

sedimentation systems used in CWA

lagoons are not receiving RCRAequivalent treatment.’’ They then

propose a definition of ‘‘nonamenable

waste streams’’ and suggest a regulatory

scheme for keeping these streams out of

surface impoundments.

In particular, the ETC recommends

that EPA should establish treatment

standards for ICR wastes that require

destruction and removal of hazardous

constituents in the waste as generated,

and allow only those ICR wastes that

contain hazardous constituents for

which biological treatment is the best

method to be managed in nonhazardous

waste surface impoundments. They

provide lists of individual constituents

and constituent categories that should

be segregated and restricted from

biological units. These include the

following individual chemicals:

mercury, vanadium, chromium,

cadmium, lead, and/or nickel, or the

following groups of chemicals: aromatic

compounds; acrylates, phenolics, and

highly oxidized constituents such as

phthalates, aldehydes, and ketones;

nitrosamines, amines, nitrophenolics,

and aniline compounds and most

chlorinated and brominated organic

constituents. ETC also recommends

segregating the following categories of

waste: Highly volatile and non-watersoluble constituents, because of the

likelihood of air emissions during

biological treatment; and the acutely

toxic P-listed wastes, because they are

poisonous to the biological treatment

system. The ETC explicitly recommends

the following criterion for designating a

waste stream ‘‘amenable to biological

treatment’’: the waste must contain less

than 1% solids, must be free of oil and

grease, and must contain less than 10

ppm total heavy metals.

ETC then defines ‘‘ICR waste streams

not amenable to biological treatment’’

as: ICR wastes with constituents (from

the groups listed above) at individual

concentrations greater than 100 x F039

wastewater treatment standards; and

ICR wastes with ‘‘water insoluble and
11718 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

highly volatile’’ F039 constituents ‘‘that

are more likely to be released to air and

not treated. (ETC did not indicate at

what point these concentrations should

be measured, although they did suggest

that wastes should be segregated at

‘‘battery limits’’.)

The ETC believes that such

‘‘nonamenable’’ wastes should either be

required to undergo pretreatment prior

to aggregation with other wastewaters

(e.g., steam stripping of volatile

compounds), or be required to go to

other appropriate treatment (e.g.,

precipitation of metals). The ETC argues

that such segregation of nonamenable

wastes will promote pollution

prevention because companies will have

an incentive to modify raw materials or

production processes to keep such

hazardous constituents out of the waste

stream.

C. Summary of the CMA’s Position

The full text of CMA’s comments can

be found in the administrative record

for today’s rule. This section

summarizes that document. CMA

describes ‘‘three situations in which

characteristically corrosive or ignitable

hazardous wastes could be sent to

biological treatment in surface

impoundments without jeopardizing the

treatment units effectiveness by

introducing non-amenable compounds’’.

CMA implicitly requests that the LDR

Phase III rule allow CWA-permitted

biological treatment in the following

three situations:

(a) When the stream to the

impoundment only contains hazardous

constituents amenable to biological

treatment (listed below);

(b) When the stream contains

hazardous constituents amenable to

biological treatment plus other

(nonamenable) constituents present at

concentrations equal to some multiple

(e.g., 1000) of the F039/UTS treatment

standards in the influent to the surface

impoundment; or,

(c) The facility can demonstrate on a

case-by-case basis that a nonamenable

hazardous constituent is amenable to

treatment occurring in the treatment

system.

CMA identifies most of the organic

UTS constituents as ‘‘amenable to

biological treatment’’. This includes all

the constituents for which biological

treatment is the basis of the F039

wastewater treatment standards plus a

number of organic constituents

generally recognized in the literature as

biodegradable.

The BDAT List constituents not

designated by CMA as ‘‘amenable to

biological treatment are: all UTS metals,

fluoride, sulfide and the volatile and

semivolatile organics in the table that

follows.

Nonamenable Volatile Organics

Bromodichloromethane

Carbon tetrachloride

Chloroethane

2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether

Chloroform

Chloromethane

1,2-Dibromoethane

Dichlorodifluoromethane

1,1-Dichloroethane

1,2-Dichloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethylene

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

1,4-Dioxane

Ethylene oxide

Iodomethane

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

Tribromomethane (Bromoform)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Trichloroethene

Trichloromonofluoromethane

Vinyl Chloride

Nonamenable Semivolatile Organics

Benzal chloride

2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol

p-Chloroaniline

Chlorobenzilate

p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene

1,4-Dinitrobenzene

4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol

2,4-Dinitrotoluene

2,6-Dinitrotoluene

Di-n-propylnitrosamine

Isosafrole

Methapyriline

3-Methylcholanthrene

4,4′-Methylenebis (2-chloroaniline)

5-Nitro-o-toluidine

Phenacetin

Pronamide

Safrole

Methoxychlor

D. Summary of EPA’s Preliminary

Response to CMA’s and ETC’s Technical

Concerns

EPA presents its preliminary

evaluation of three major issues that are

raised by both CMA’s and ETC’s

suggestions: the question of feed limits

for land-based biological treatment

units; behavior of nonamenable

constituents in land-based biological

treatment units and constituent-specific

solubility and toxicity questions.

1. Feed Limits

The CMA and ETC approaches both

suggest constituent-specific limitations

of decharacterized ICR waste streams

entering surface impoundments to

ensure that certain toxic constituents do

not bypass treatment by volatilizing into

the atmosphere, by adsorbing

permanently onto sludge sediments at

the bottom of the impoundment or by

inhibiting biodegradation processes in

the impoundment. The Agency agrees

that all three of these mechanisms can

hinder treatment.

While many aspects of both the ETC

and CMA positions have technical and

regulatory merit, there appear to be

fundamental technical disagreements

that need to be resolved. First and

primary is the fact that ETC and CMA

differ on which constituents (and

chemical families of constituents) are

‘‘amenable’’ or ‘‘nonamenable’’ to

treatment. Second, proposing

regulations requiring segregation of

streams entering impoundments would

raise the following issues:

(a) Surface impoundments have

traditionally provided an engineering

advantage—in addition to low energy,

maintenance and construction costs—in

that, they offer a means of

‘‘equilibrating’’ and ‘‘equalizing’’ the

relatively frequent variations in

chemical compositions of process

wastes (i.e., aggregated waste streams).

As such, they receive variable wastes in

their capacity as large-volume holding

units for process upset streams,

stormwaters, spill washdown and other

unscheduled wastewater releases.

Segregation of these various streams

would require construction of holding

tanks that may not be able to provide

the same equalization capability of an

impoundment;

(b) Mandatory analyses and

separation may impose considerable

added expense; and,

(c) EPA, in some cases, assumed that

impoundments would be used for these

purposes by not including the costs of

impoundment replacement when

developing effluent guidelines for

affected industries.

2. Technical Concern

In theory, EPA agrees that certain

RCRA waste streams should be kept out

of certain types of Subtitle D

impoundments. (Listed wastes already

must go to Subtitle C impoundments,

and High TOC D001 ignitables, as well

as high mercury wastes, are also

restricted from Subtitle D

impoundments.) In addition, in 55 FR at

22666 (June 1, 1990), EPA presented

general criteria that could affect

amenable/nonamenable determinations.

All parties seem to agree that certain

metal-bearing wastes could also be

restricted from impoundments.

However, there are additional factors

that need to be considered, such as

impoundment size, depth, temperature,

and retention time. (An individual
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11719

organic compound is more treatable in

some systems than in others and

without information about the extent to

which the lagoon supports aerobic and

anaerobic processes we cannot assess

how treatable these constituents are.)

In addition, the overall composition

of each waste—i.e. the entire matrix—

must be considered in order to

characterize its relative amenability to

biological treatment. In particular, waste

composition can enhance or inhibit a

particular organic compound’s

amenability to biological destruction.

Enhancement occurs, for example, if

microorganisms can use one compound

as a co-metabolite or co-substrate in

metabolizing another. A feature story on

biological treatment in the February

1993 issue of Environmental Science

and Technology reports ‘‘* * * highly

chlorinated compounds such as

trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane

and chloroform will transform under

aerobic conditions if methane, phenol or

toluene is provided as a primary source

of carbon and energy for biological

growth. However, these reactions are cometabolic * * *. Therefore it is

important to define exact conditions

when discussing biodegradation

results.’’ Inhibition occurs when one

compound poisons the metabolic

pathway by which another compound is

otherwise degraded. The degree to

which the microbial population in the

impoundment has been acclimated to a

particular constituent is a significant

factor in determining that constituent’s

amenability. Acclimation determines

the balance between inhibition and

enhancement and is a factor to be

defined in discussing biodegradation

results.

The fact that ‘‘consortia’’ of

microorganisms, rather than members of

a single bacterial strain, accomplish the

degradation of complex molecules

further complicates the extent to which

a compound can accurately be labeled

‘‘amenable’’ (Rittman and Saez in Levin

and Gealt Biological Treatment of

Industrial and Hazardous Wastes, 1993,

McGraw-Hill, New York). The presence

of different microorganisms in a

consortium increases the number of

compounds that can be degraded in that

impoundment by virtue of the wider

array of metabolic degradation pathways

present. However, the various microbial

species may require a narrower range of

pH, dissolved oxygen and other

parameters in order to function and may

therefore be more liable to collapse and

fail than a simpler more robust

microbial strain.

Some of the technical issues that are

likely to arise include:

(a) Biotreatment systems vary.

Constituents that are amenable to

treatment in one system may be

nonamenable in another, thus an

accurate determination of what is a

nonamenable waste might have to

consider site-by-site factors, which

would present considerable problems in

the implementation of the program. If

EPA set up a more generic approach,

other problems are likely to occur, as

described below.

(b) The ETC uses the term ‘‘battery

limits’’ to describe where nonamenable

ICR wastes should be segregated. This

term, however, is undefined and could

represent the point where the

wastestream leaves the production

equipment, or a variety of aggregation

points.

(c) What levels of constituents justify

requiring segregation and recovery?

(d) If EPA required segregation of

nonamenable wastes from biological

treatment impoundments, there is a very

good possibility that facilities would

merely replace the surface

impoundments with RCRA exempt

tanks. Biological treatment in tanks

could have the same air emissions

unless they are properly controlled.

With respect to specific hazardous

organic constituents, EPA is currently

investigating whether the BDAT list of

compounds could be ordinally ranked

into a series of compounds more or less

amenable to biological treatment, based

on published treatability data.

‘‘Amenability’’ is a continuous variable.

Treatability data shows that some

compounds are more amenable to

biological degradation than are other

compounds: there are no organic

chemicals, other than polymers, which

are absolutely resistant to biological

degradation.

Due to the technical problems

associated with determining which

wastestreams should be kept out of

certain impoundment lagoons, and the

policy concerns raised by these

approaches, we are setting out these

issues for comment in this proposed

rule.

3. Constituent Properties of Concern

The following three items are criteria

ETC suggests in addition to individual

constituent concentrations. EPA invites

comments on means of managing these

waste properties.

a. Water solubility. EPA does not

share ETC’s concern that less soluble

compounds are significantly less

amenable to biological treatment than

relatively hydrophilic compounds. For

example, PCB’s are virtually insoluble;

nevertheless the literature documents

cases where PCB’s have been

successfully degraded to hydrochloric

acid, carbon dioxide and water.

b. TC Metals. EPA believes the LDR

Phase IV limitations on land disposal of

wastes that meet the definition of

toxicity based on their metals

concentration will address ETC’s and

CMA’s concerns about the inadequacy

of surface impoundments for metal

treatment.

c. Toxicity. EPA solicits comments on

the suggestion that P-waste constituents

be managed as particularly toxic and

thus likely to poison metabolic

pathways in the degradation process.

EPA further solicits comment on

additional constituents or categories of

constituents that are likely to be acutely

toxic to biological treatment processes,

rather than merely resistant to biological

treatment.

The target mass removal approach

described earlier in this preamble can be

applied to biological treatment units to

determine whether constituents

managed in the units are being

effectively degraded. The application of

this approach could address the

question of wastes nonamenable to

biotreatment. The target mass removal

approach requires a waste

determination prior to the waste

entering the treatment unit, and either

(1) a waste determination after treatment

in the unit, or (2) a determination of the

operating efficiency of the treatment

unit. This approach has been applied to

biotreatment units for at least two

promulgated standards that regulate

hazardous organic chemicals: the HON

and the Subpart CC air rules. Comments

are solicited on the approach to address

the nonamenable waste concerns.

F. Additional Issues

In addition to the issues raised in the

section ‘‘Summary of EPA’s Preliminary

Response’’ above, there are other

technical issues arising in developing a

list of UTS constituents that are not

amenable to biological treatment.

Another issue concerns those UTS

constituents for which biological

treatment is BDAT: could a wastestream

containing such constituents have such

a high concentration of other

compounds known to be refractory to

biological treatment that biotreatment

no longer effectively treats the

constituents? A third issue considered

here is the extent to which

‘‘nonamenable’’ constituents evade

treatment by volatilizing into the air or

by adsorbing onto sludge, in addition to

flowing out untreated in effluent.

1. List of Hazardous Constituents

In order to ensure that all the

constituents in a decharacterized waste
11720 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

are adequately addressed, the starting

point should not be the BDAT list but

rather the entire list of U and P,

appendix VIII, and other toxic

chemicals present in the hazardous

waste universe. The next LDR

rulemaking (‘‘Phase IV’’) will discuss

the universe of hazardous constituents

regulated by RCRA (i.e., a composite of

the above lists) and may propose which

constituents from the composite list are

considered ‘‘nonamenable’’ or

‘‘amenable’’. Today’s preamble,

however, raises general issues

associated with ‘‘amenability’’ in order

to solicit comments on specific

questions. These questions will be

addressed in LDR Phase IV. For

example, the Phase IV proposed rule

may include a discussion of

quantification problems and the use of

surrogate parameters such as BOD/COD/

TOC ratios to assist in measuring

performance where analytical methods

do not exist.

2. Biotreatment as BDAT

EPA has already promulgated

biodegradation (BIODG) as a specified

method of treatment for quite a few U

and P waste codes that fall under the

category that ETC has asked to be

classified as ‘‘nonamenable’’. (For

example, nitrosamines easily break

down in water to nitroamines. Nitrogencontaining organics can typically be

biodegraded. Most microorganisms

flourish in the presence of nitrogen

containing chemicals.) EPA has also

established numerical standards for

many chemicals based on biotreatment

data. EPA is including all of the

chemicals in both of these cases in this

proposed rule and is asking for

comment on them and seeking data that

would refute or support that

biotreatment is BDAT for these

chemicals.

3. Toxics Along for the Ride

EPA intends that the Phase IV

proposed rule will expand the

discussion on the concept of ‘‘toxics

along for the ride’’ in biotreatment (i.e.,

concern about how best to regulate

those toxic compounds that are not

degraded to less toxic compounds and

consequently pass untreated through the

unit and on to land disposal). While the

concept is environmentally attractive, in

order to create a regulatory construct

prohibiting such constituents from

biotreatment, the Agency must consider

the following constituent-specific

factors:

(a) Is the elemental composition of the

chemical such that it is truly not

‘‘amenable to biotreatment’’ such as for

metals?

(b) Does a low rate of hydrolysis

indicate low biodegradability?

(c) Does high volatility necessarily

indicate low biodegradability?

(d) What retention time is required for

biodegradation?

(e) Is the biological system

responsible for degradation of the

compound sensitive to upsets in either

the chemistry of the impoundment or its

biocomposition?

(f) Is the bioactivity considered

‘‘aggressive’’?

(g) Is the constituent actually

chemically treated in the

impoundment?

(h) Will the constituent encounter

treatment after the impoundment?

(i) Is the waste containing the

constituent difficult to segregate from

other wastes?

(j) Does the chemical occur naturally

in the surrounding soil or water?

(k) Is the chemical already present in

the sludge and could then be released

by the sludge even though the influent

is reduced?

(l) Is the chemical present in other

nonhazardous waste that are

commingled with the decharacterized

wastes?

(m) Is the chemical generated at

concentrations below that which is

considered neither a chronic nor an

acute health risk?

(n) Is there an ecological risk from the

inorganic composition of the waste such

as the high salinity (dissolved solids) of

most D002 wastes?

(o) Is the chemical a surprise presence

from the use of some product that

contains trace levels that couldn’t be

measured when the product was used

(below product specifications)?

(p) Is the chemical appearing due to

corrosion of pipes and equipment?

G. Treatment Standard for Wastes With

a High Concentration of Organics

In the Phase II final rule (59 FR 47982,

September 19, 1994), EPA finalized

regulations prohibiting the disposal in

Class I nonhazardous waste injection

wells ignitable characteristic wastes

with a high total organic carbon (TOC)

content and toxic characteristic

pesticide wastes, unless either the well

is subject to a no-migration

determination, or the wastes are treated

by the designated the LDR treatment

method. The treatment method

promulgated was either combustion (i.e.

incineration or fuel substitution) or

recovery of organics. Today the Agency

is raising the option of proposing the

same treatment standard for

characteristic wastes with high

concentrations of organics managed in

surface impoundments. This would

result in a prohibition of these wastes

going into biological impoundments.

The Agency requests comment on this

option, including the question of how to

define ‘‘high’’ levels of organics that

would justify prohibition from surface

impoundments. The Agency believes

this option provides many of the

benefits of segregation of refractory

‘‘nonamenable’’ streams with

significantly lower analytical

requirements.

VI. Treatment Standards for Newly

Listed Wastes

A. Carbamates

Hazardous Wastes from Specific Sources (K

Waste Codes)

K156—Organic waste (including heavy ends,

still bottoms, light ends, spent solvents,

filtrates, and decantates) from the

production of carbamates and carbamoyl

oximes.

K157—Wastewaters (including scrubber

waters, condenser waters, washwaters,

and separation waters) from the

production of carbamates and carbamoyl

oximes.

K158—Bag house dust, and filter/separation

solids from the production of carbamates

and carbamoyl oximes.

K159—Organics from the treatment of

thiocarbamate wastes.

K160—Solids (including filter wastes,

separation solids, and spent catalysts)

from the production of thiocarbamates

and solids from the treatment of

thiocarbonate wastes.

K161—Purification solids (including

filtration, evaporation, and

centrifugation solids), baghouse dust,

and floor sweepings from the production

of dithiocarbamate acids and their salts.

(This listing does not include K125 or

K126.)

Acute Hazardous Wastes (P Waste Codes)

P203 Aldicarb sulfone

P127 Carbofuran

P189 Carbosulfan

P202 m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate

P191 Dimetilan

P198 Formetanate hydrochloride

P197 Formparanate

P192 Isolan

P196 Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate

P199 Methiocarb

P190 Metolcarb

P128 Mexacarbate

P194 Oxamyl

P204 Physostigmine

P188 Physostigmine salicylate

P201 Promecarb

P185 Tirpate

P205 Ziram

Toxic Hazardous Wastes

U394 A2213

U280 Barban

U278 Bendiocarb

U364 Bendiocarb phenol

U271 Benomyl

U400 Bis(pentamethylene)thiuram

tetrasulfide
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11721

U392 Butylate

U279 Carbaryl

U372 Carbendazim

U367 Carbofuran phenol

U393 Copper dimethyldithiocarbamate

U386 Cycloate

U366 Dazomet

U395 Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate

U403 Disulfiram

U390 EPTC

U407 Ethyl Ziram

U396 Ferbam

U375 3-Iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate

U384 Metam Sodium

U365 Molinate

U391 Pebulate

U383 Potassium dimethyl dithiocarbamate

U378 Potassium n-hydroxymethyl-nmethyldithiocarbamate

U377 Potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate

U373 Propham

U411 Propoxur

U387 Prosulfocarb

U376 Selenium, tetrakis

(dimethyldithiocarbamate)

U379 Sodium dibutyldithiocarbamate

U381 Sodium diethyldithiocarbamate

U382 Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate

U277 Sulfallate

U402 Tetrabutylthiuram disulfide

U401 Tetramethylthiuram monosulfide

U410 Thiodicarb

U409 Thiophanate-methyl

U389 Triallate

U404 Triethylamine

U385 Vernolate

For background information on waste

characterization data, data gathering

efforts, and applicable technologies, see

the Best Demonstrated Available

Technology (BDAT) Background

Document for Newly Listed or Identified

Wastes from the Production of

Carbamates and Organobromines.

1. Proposed Treatment Standards

The Agency has promulgated the

listing of the wastes from the carbamate

industry specified above. The final

listing was signed by the administrator

on January 31, 1995, and published in

the Federal Register on February 9,

1995. EPA is today proposing

concentration-based treatment standards

for these wastes. The concentration

limits for the regulated constituents are

based on both existing and newly

proposed UTS (59 FR 47982, September

19, 1994). UTS standards have already

been promulgated for 21 of the

constituents of concern for these waste

codes (16 organic constituents and 5

metals). These standards were

promulgated in the LDR Phase II final

rule and are based on the following

technologies: (1) Incineration was the

primary basis for organic constituents in

nonwastewaters; (2) biological treatment

or carbon absorption was the basis for

organics in wastewaters; (3) high

temperature metal recovery and

stabilization were the basis for metals in

nonwastewaters; and (4) chemical

precipitation was the basis for metals in

wastewaters. These treatment standards

were developed by examining

essentially all the BDAT treatment data

the Agency had at the time.

The Agency is proposing new UTS for

42 constituents associated with

carbamate wastes. 40 of these

constituents are chemicals produced by

this industry which may be grouped

into the following categories:

carbamates and carbamate

intermediates, carbamoyl oximes,

thiocarbamates, and dithiocarbamates.

Please refer to the Background

Document for definitions of these

chemical groups and the categorization

of these 40 chemicals. The other 2

constituents for which new UTS are

being proposed (triethylamine, and ophenylene diamine) are not carbamate

products, but are hazardous constituents

present at levels of regulatory concern

in carbamate wastes. Note that although

specific dithiocarbamate chemicals have

been added to Appendix VII and VIII,

the basis for listing K161, and the waste

descriptions of P196, P205, U277, U366,

U376–379, U381–384, U393, U396,

U400–U403, and U407, the regulated

constituent for these chemicals and

codes is specified as ‘‘Dithiocarbamates

(total)’’, because the analytical method

for dithiocarbamates does not

distinguish among specific

dithiocarbamate constituents.

The Agency is proposing to base the

UTS for the carbamate, carbamate

intermediate, carbamoyl oxime,

dithiocarbamate, and thiocarbamate

constituents in wastewaters on data

developed by the Office of Water for the

development of effluent guidelines, and

data from treatability studies performed

by RREL. Wastewater standards for

carbamate and carbamoyl oxime

constituents are based on data from

alkaline hydrolysis, with the exception

of thiodicarb which is based on

biological treatment. Wastewater

standards for thiocarbamates are based

on GAC adsorption, while wastewater

standards for dithiocarbamates are

based on ozone/UV light oxidation. In

cases where data were not available for

a specific constituent, the standard has

been transferred from the constituent

with the most similar chemical structure

and properties.

The Agency is proposing to base the

UTS for the carbamate, carbamate

intermediate, carbamoyl oxime,

thiocarbamate, and dithiocarbamate

constituents in nonwastewaters on

analytical detection limits compiled

from sampling and analysis reports

prepared to support the proposed listing

for these wastes. Although data from the

treatment of these constituents in

nonwastewater matrices is not currently

available, the thermal destruction

technologies currently employed to treat

these nonwastewaters can routinely

achieve destruction to levels below the

detection limit.

In addition, the Agency is proposing

UTS standards for triethylamine based

on data transferred from the treatment of

methapyrilene. The treatment standards

for methapyrilene are 0.081 mg/l for

wastewaters and 1.5 mg/kg for

nonwastewaters. Methapyrilene was

selected as the basis for this data

transfer because it is the only tertiary

amine for which UTS standards have

been promulgated.

Finally, the Agency is proposing UTS

standards for o-phenylenediamine based

on analytical detection limits compiled

from sampling and analysis reports

prepared to support the proposed listing

for these wastes. For the treatment

standards being proposed today for

waste codes K156–161, P127, P128,

P185, P188–192, P194, P196–199, P201–

205, U271, U277, U279, U280, U364–

367, U372, U373, U375–379, U381–387,

U389–396, U400–404, U407, U409–411,

see § 268.40 table—Treatment Standards

for Hazardous Wastes in the proposed

amendments to the regulatory language.

2. Request for Comments

In the LDR Phase II rule establishing

UTS, the Agency was able to make

modifications to the proposal, where

commenters submitted data. The

Agency strongly encourages parties

affected by these proposed standards to

submit any available treatment data for

these newly regulated constituents; if

such data become available, the Agency

will make appropriate adjustments to

these proposed standards. The Agency

is soliciting comments, technical

descriptions, and performance data

regarding the characterization and

treatability of these wastes and the

achievability of these proposed

standards. EPA is especially interested

in any information regarding the

feasibility of product recovery for these

wastes, any available treatment data for

the new constituents being added to the

list of UTS, detection limits for these

constituents in treatment residues, and

suggestions for specified methods which

could be alternatives to the

concentration based standards proposed

today.

Because standards for organics are

based on treatment of organic

constituents to non-detect levels, EPA

solicits comment on the use of

constituent specific detection levels

used during the testing of these wastes

for purposes of the listing
11722 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

10 Because the Agency is not fully aware of all

of the details of some of the projected potliner

treatment/recovery technologies, we cannot state at

this time whether the technologies will meet the

regulatory definition of an industrial furnace. It

should be noted that processes recovering both

energy and material values from a waste are subject

to BIF rules, and energy recovery in an industrial

furnace need not involve any export of energy).

determination. The Agency recognizes

that there may be differences between

detection limits prior to and after

treatment. Detection levels may be

lowered for these wastes after treatment

due to the ‘‘cleaner’’ matrix. This data

has been placed in the docket for

today’s proposed rule.

B. Organobromines

K140—Waste solids and filter cartridges from

the production of 2,4,6-tribromophenol.

U408—2,4,6-Tribromophenol

For further information on waste

characterization data, data gathering

efforts, and applicable technologies, see

the Best Demonstrated Available

Technology (BDAT) Background

Document for Newly Listed or Identified

Wastes from the Production of

Carbamates and Organobromines.

1. Proposed Treatment Standards for

Organobromine Wastes

EPA proposed to add 2,4,6-

Tribromophenol to Appendix VIII of

Part 261 on May 11, 1994, and is today

proposing to add this constituent to the

list of UTS in 40 CFR 268.48. The

decision to add 2,4,6-tribromophenol to

appendix VIII was based on the

determination that the toxicities of this

chemical and its chlorinated analogue,

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol, are essentially

the same, due to the Quantitative

Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR)

between these two compounds.

Since treatment data is not currently

available on 2,4,6-tribromophenol, the

Agency is proposing to set the UTS for

2,4,6-tribromophenol based on data

transferred from the treatment of 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol. The structures of 2,4,6-

tribromophenol and 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol are sufficiently similar

to be considered halogenated congeners

of phenol. Both halogenated phenols

contain three symmetrically placed

bromine or chlorine substituents which

are difficult to remove by chemical

substitution. The chemical behavior and

mechanisms of action for 2,4,6-

tribromophenol is expected to be similar

to its chlorinated analogue, 2,4,6-

trichlorophenol. Thus, the Agency is

proposing UTS standards of 7.4 mg/kg

for nonwastewaters and 0.035 mg/l for

wastewaters for 2,4,6-tribromophenol.

The Agency is soliciting comment

regarding the achievability of this

standard by demonstrated available

technologies and regarding the

analytical detection limit of 2,4,6-

tribromophenol in treatment residual

matrices. The Agency is also soliciting

any available data on the concentrations

2,4,6-tribromophenol in treatment

residuals from the recovery or

destruction of wastes containing 2,4,6-

tribromophenol. The analytical method

for 2,4,6-Tribromophenol is SW846

method 8270 (GC/MS for semivolatiles,

capillary column).

2. Applicable Technology

The lone facility which produces

2,4,6-tribromophenol wastes uses a

Bromine Recovery Unit (BRU) to recover

bromine values from organic liquid and

vapor waste streams. In this unit, the

organics are burned and the combustion

products are removed by a wet scrubber.

The BRU is a halogen acid furnace

which meets the regulatory definition of

industrial furnace in 40 CFR 260.10.

The combustion of hazardous waste in

industrial furnaces is regulated under 40

CFR part 266, subpart H, which

regulates air emissions from these units

and requires monitoring and analyses.

The facility which produces 2,4,6-

tribromophenol burns listed spent

solvents and still bottoms in this BRU;

therefore, it is already subject to the

performance standards of part 266,

subpart H. Treatment of 2,4,6-

tribromophenol wastes in the BRU

should be effective in destroying the

phenolic component of 2,4,6-

tribromophenol and providing for

recovery of bromine. Based on available

information, EPA proposes that

treatment by BRU is BDAT for 2,4,6-

tribromophenol wastes. EPA solicits

comment on this assertion and on the

potential applicability of other

technologies which destroy 2,4,6-

tribromophenol and provide recovery of

bromine.

C. Aluminum Potliners (K088)

K088—Spent potliners from primary

aluminum reduction.

For background information on waste

characterization, see the Best

Demonstrated Available Technology

Background Document (BDAT) for

Newly Listed or Identified Wastes for

K088, Spent Aluminum Potliners.

1. Possible Determination of Inherently

Waste-Like

Certain current and potential K088

management methods have features of

both recycling and conventional

treatment. For example, there are a

number of management methods

involving some type of combustion

process that produce a treatment residue

from which resources may be recovered

and reused. These management methods

either destroy or drive off cyanides and

toxic organics. Nevertheless, the

technologies may useful alternative

management methods for K088 if

valuable resources are recovered. The

Agency has a long-standing preference

for recovery over simple treatment. This

position is based on the preference in

RCRA for environmentally protective

recovery versus waste treatment. Any

consideration of relative safety must

include not just the recovery step, but

transport and storage preceding

recovery, and proper management of all

residues from recovery. RCRA section

1003(a)(6) as well as S. Rep. No. 284,

98th Cong. 2d sess. at 17.

EPA is considering how best to

balance the potential promise of spent

potliner recovery technologies with

their similarities to conventional

treatment technologies, especially with

respect to the fate of (and risks

generated by) hazardous constituents

present in the waste. The Agency would

prefer to provide consistent regulatory

requirements for these recovery as well

as for conventional treatment

technologies in order to ensure both safe

recovery and treatment. However, the

existing regulatory framework may

make it difficult to achieve this

objective. For example, many of these

recovery technologies already could be

subject to the existing regulations for

industrial furnaces burning hazardous

waste (the so-called BIF rules).10 See 56

FR at 7142 (Feb. 21, 1991); 50 FR at

49171-174 (Nov. 29, 1985).

For K088 recovery technologies

subject to BIF regulations, only those

facilities in existence on the effective

date of the BIF rules (August 21, 1991)

could operate without first obtaining a

permit. This could create a significant

barrier to commercial operation of the

technology in the near term. If, however,

these units operate in a manner that

does not subject them to the BIF

regulations, then it is possible that they

could operate with little or no oversight

under RCRA.

The regulatory classification of

residues as hazardous or nonhazardous

wastes is another area where there

would be dissimilar requirements under

current rules. For example, one

company has obtained from EPA a

delisting determination that residues

from their conventional treatment

process are at levels low enough to no

longer be classified as listed hazardous

wastes. Other companies have not

obtained such determinations, even

though they potentially could treat

spent potliners to delisting levels. As a

result, these companies face the cost
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11723

11 The basis for such a designation would be that

spent potliners contain cyanides and polyaromatic

hydrocarbons which are destroyed rather than

recycled, even by recovery technologies. These

hazardous constituents are present in

concentrations not ordinarily found in raw

materials or products for which the spent potliners

would be substituting, and the spent potliners

could pose a substantial hazard to human health

and the environment when recycled. The

combustion process itself, for example, would seem

to pose all of the risks the BIF rule is intended to

address. Past storage practices for spent potliners

also have led to significant environmental damage

(although much of this storage utilized open piles).

A designation of inherently waste-like,

incidentally, would only apply to the potliners and

not to legitimate products obtained by processing

the potliner (so long as those products were not

burned as fuels or used directly on the land). 56 FR

at 7141. Another option, therefore, would be to

designate the use of K088 in certain types of

recycling (e.g., all processes involving thermal

destruction of cyanide, processes that incorporate

cyanide/PAHs into product unchanged) as

inherently waste-like.

12These evaluations were conducted at the

express, voluntary request of Enviroscience.

and time of seeking a delisting petition,

or the cost disadvantage of disposal of

all residuals as hazardous waste.

Because of the similarities in risks,

EPA is soliciting comment on whether

there are ways to subject all of these

technologies to the same, or nearly the

same, regulatory requirements, while

assuring that the ultimate goals of

protecting human health and the

environment are not compromised. The

Agency has discussed with aluminum

industry representatives the possibility

of achieving this objective by

designating spent aluminum potliners

as inherently waste-like materials

pursuant to 261.2(d),11 and using this

designation as a triggering event for a

determination of ‘‘substantial

confusion’’ pursuant to 270.10(e)(2),

which could establish a date for

eligibility for interim status after August

21, 1991. See generally 56 FR at 7142

making this type of designation and

finding of ‘‘substantial confusion’’ for

halogen acid furnaces. The Agency

solicits comment on this possibility.

The benefit of this approach would be

to guarantee that these technologies all

would be subject to a minimum level of

RCRA oversight, especially with respect

to design of storage equipment, control

of air emissions from the process,

minimum treatment standards for

residuals, and mandatory corrective

action in response to releases of

hazardous constituents to the

environment.

In order to mitigate some of the

potential delay and costs in complying

with RCRA, EPA also requests comment

on the feasibility of establishing uniform

delisting levels for residues from

processing spent potliners, much as it

did for residues from processing K061

wastes in high temperature metal

recovery furnaces. Under this approach,

we believe, levels would need to be

established for organics, metals, cyanide

and fluoride.

Another possibility for assuring safe

processing of the potliners would be to

develop air emission standards for the

processing units pursuant to section

112(d) of the Clean Air Act. This

alternative would have to be

implemented in such a way as to assure

proper management of the potliners

before processing, and satisfactory

treatment and management of residues

from the processing. EPA solicits

comment on all of these issues.

EPA wishes to add that its Region 10

office and the Washington State

Department of Ecology have already

evaluated the spent potliner recovery

process used by one vender

(Enviroscience). Washington State

determined that it is an excluded

recycling process, and EPA Region 10

determined that the process is not

required to meet emission standards for

BIFs, provided the process is conducted

pursuant to certain conditions.12 In light

of the existing industry reliance on this

determination, any decision made

regarding designation of spent potliners

in this rulemaking would not change the

specific decisions concerning the

Enviroscience process that have been

completed to date.

2. Overview of Today’s Proposal

EPA is proposing treatment standards

for K088 expressed as the maximum

concentration of specific constituents

that would be allowed for land disposal.

The tables at the end of this section

summarize the constituents proposed

for regulation and the maximum

allowable concentrations. These

maximum concentrations are the UTS

for metals, cyanides, and other organics

that were developed in the LDR Phase

II final rule. These standards are based

on a variety of technologies as follows:

(1) Alkaline chlorination was the basis

for the cyanide wastewater standards;

(2) alkaline chlorination of the

wastewater to destroy the cyanide prior

to the generation of the nonwastewater

residual was the basis for the cyanide

nonwastewater standard; (3)

incineration was the primary basis for

other organic constituents in

nonwastewaters; (4) biological treatment

or carbon absorption was the basis for

organics in wastewaters; (5) high

temperature metal recovery and

stabilization were the basis for metals in

nonwastewaters; (6) chemical

precipitation was the basis for fluorides

and metals in wastewaters; and (7)

immobilization through either

vitrification or the addition of calcium

as a stabilization reagent was the basis

for fluorides in nonwastewaters.

These treatment standards were

developed by examining essentially all

the BDAT treatment data the Agency

had at the time. The Agency is also

proposing new nonwastewater

treatment standards based on leachate

tests for fluoride. The leach tests must

be conducted using the TCLP (SW–846

Method 1311 as described in 40 CFR

Part 261, Appendix II). These leach

standards were developed by the

Agency when granting a delisting for

certain K088 wastes. The treatment

standard for fluoride wastewaters is

taken from the UTS promulgated in the

LDR Phase II final rule. More

information on the development of

these treatment standards can be found

in the docket to today’s rule.

Treatment and recycling technologies

such as mineral wool cupolas,

metallurgical processes, iron and steel

industrial furnaces, and other recovery

and recycling technologies should be

able to meet the proposed standards.

K088 treatment data from Reynolds

Metals, Comalco Aluminum Ltd., Ormet

Corporation and the EPA Combustion

Research Facility (CRF) show that K088

can be treated to meet the UTS. Because

EPA is proposing numerical treatment

standards, any recycling or treatment

technologies can be used as long as the

treatment standards are met by actual

treatment, rather than impermissible

dilution. More discussion on these

various technologies is presented later

in this preamble.

a. Proposed Regulated Constituents.

EPA is proposing to regulate the

following constituents: acenapthene,

anthracene, benz(a)anthracene,

benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,

benzo(k)fluoranthene,

benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene,

dibenz(a,h)-anthracene, fluoranthene,

indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, phenanthrene,

pyrene, antimony, arsenic, barium,

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead,

mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,

cyanide and fluoride. Based on the

available waste characterization data

(see Best Demonstrated Available

Technology Background Document

(BDAT) for Newly Listed or Identified

Wastes for K088, Spent Aluminum

Potliners found in the docket to this rule

for details), these constituents were

found to be present in either the

untreated K088 wastes or in the K088

treatment residuals at levels exceeding

the UTS. See the proposed delisting of

K088 for Reynolds Metals at 56 FR

33004 and 33005, July 19, 1991, and the

corresponding docket for that
11724 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

rulemaking. See also the docket for

today’s proposal for more data on

constituent concentrations in untreated

and treated K088. EPA is specifically

requesting comment on regulating the

phthalates: bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,

di-n-butyl phthalate and di-n-octyl

phthalate. These constituents can show

up in the untreated potliner and the

treated residue; however, there is some

question that their presence may simply

be due to lab contamination.

Treatment technologies for K088 are

also designed to recover or stabilize the

fluoride. Therefore, EPA is proposing to

regulate fluoride in K088 in order to

ensure that the fluoride is actually

recovered or that it is properly treated.

Fluoride is also being regulated because

of its toxicity and the high

concentrations found in untreated K088

(see Tables 2 and 3 in 56 FR 33004 (July

19, 1991)—the proposed delisting of

K088 generated by Reynolds Aluminum

Company). If a treatment standard is

promulgated for fluoride, the Agency

will add fluoride to the UTS for K088.

EPA has some data on the toxicity of

fluoride (see the docket for today’s

proposed rule), and is in the process of

gathering more information. For more

information on regulated constituents

see the Best Demonstrated Available

Technology Background Document

(BDAT) for Newly Listed or Identified

Wastes for K088, Spent Aluminum

Potliners found in the docket to this

rule.

Section 3004(d)(1), (e)(1), and (g)(5)

require that land disposal of hazardous

wastes is prohibited unless a

prohibition is no longer warranted to

protect human health and the

environment. EPA reads this language to

require that land disposal may still be

prohibited after treatment of hazardous

constituents if the waste might still pose

substantial hazards due to presence of

other constituents or properties. 56 FR

at 41168 (August 19, 1991); NRDC v.

EPA, 907 F. 2d 1146, 1171–72 (D.C. Cir.

1990) (dissenting opinion). These

hazards could be posed due to lack of

treatment of other constituents in the

waste, in this case, fluoride. It should be

noted that this action is consistent with

previous Agency actions, since EPA

regulated fluoride in the delisting

granted to treatment residues from the

Reynolds Metals treatment process, and

also regulates discharge of fluorides in

the CWA effluent limitation guidelines

for the primary aluminum subcategory.

Consequently, the Agency is proposing

a treatment standard for fluoride to

assure that ultimate disposal of treated

K088 is protective.

EPA is proposing treatment standards

for fluoride, as well as the hazardous

constituents contained in the waste.

Flouride is present in these wastes in

very high concentrations: upwards of

10%. Untreated concentrations of this

magnitude can cause significant adverse

effects to human health and the

environment if improperly land

disposed. The Agency requests

comment on whether fluoride should be

added to Appendix VIII, as well.

b. Specific Companies Investigating

K088 Recovery/Treatment Technologies.

It has been mentioned earlier that there

are numerous technologies either

available or being developed that

recycle or recover the value (carbon,

fluoride, etc.) in K088. Some of these

technologies are described below. This

is by no means a comprehensive

discussion on those technologies, but

rather is intended to give the public

some idea of treatment options that are,

or may be, available. These technologies

or companies are only those of which

the Agency has been made aware. EPA

has placed in the RCRA Docket of this

proposed rule all the recycling/

treatment studies, as well as literature

and videos submitted to the Agency on

the various technologies. The EPA

requests comment and data on these

technologies and any other recycling or

recovery technologies applicable to

K088.

• Enviroscience, Inc. (ESI) has

completed a pilot plant demonstration

sponsored by Kaiser Aluminum,

Vanalco and Columbia Falls Aluminum

Company. Their process uses K088,

K061 (electric arc furnace dust) and

F006 (electroplating sludges) to produce

zinc oxide, mineral wool fiber and pig

iron. The K088 is first formed into

briquettes and then heated to

approximately 3000 F in a furnace, with

lime and silica being added to attain an

optimal acid:base ratio for proper fiber

formation. The carbon and the cyanide

from the potliner are used to reduce the

metals in the K061 and F006. The nonreducible metal oxides are spun into a

mineral wool from the molten slag.

• Alcan International Limited has

developed a Low Caustic Leach and

Liming hydrometallurgical process to

treat K088. This process converts the

fluorides to acid grade fluorspar and

recovers the sodium and aluminum as

sodium aluminate and caustic feed to be

used in aluminum smelter operations.

Alcan claims that the remaining brick

and carbon fraction constitutes a high

ash solid fuel whose reduced sodium

content enhances its value as a chemical

reducing agent.

• Ormet Corporation has used a pilotscale melting system vitrification

process to treat K088 wastes. The

process involves the rapid suspension

heating of the waste and other additives

in a preheater prior to physical and

chemical melting which occur within a

cyclone reactor. Ormet has submitted a

petition to the EPA requesting a

delisting of their residues from this

process. They intend to scale-up this

plant upon receiving a delisting of their

waste. They claim the process produces

a nonhazardous reusable product with

the qualities of industrial glass that can

be used as glass insulation material,

roofing shingle granules or in the

manufacture of tiles.

• Comalco Aluminum Ltd. (CAL), an

Australian company, has developed the

Comtor process, which is a full-scale

calcination process which thermally

destroys the cyanide in K088. This

process also recovers the fluoride and

carbon values in K088 by using

hydrometallurgical techniques with

lime dewatering. The precipitate can be

used as a fluxing agent or in cement

making. The caustic liquor may be

recycled to the alumina plant or can be

used as a scrubbing agent. Comalco has

plans to upgrade their plant to 10,000

ton/yr and build a second plant in New

Zealand. They have a licensing

agreement with Aisco Systems of

Canada to commercialize the

technology.

• Elkem Technology is a Norwegian

company which has done bench-scale

testing consisting of smelting K088

along with iron ore to produce pig iron

and a slag which they hope to get

delisted. The process uses the carbon in

K088 to act as a reducing agent and

destroy the cyanides and other toxic

organics, while rendering all other

constituents immobile in a glassified,

inert slag. For each ton of K088, they

produce 0.85 ton of iron. Elkem plans a

demonstration plant in the U.S. next

year. They also plan to pilot a process

to recover fluoride from the molten slag.

• Ausmelt Limited is an Australian

company which has performed pilot

scale tests using their submerged lance

technology, which is a

pyrometallurgical process, to destroy

the toxic constituents in K088 and

produce a stable slag. Fluorides are

recovered for re-use in the aluminum

smelting process. Ausmelt has plans to

build a facility which could process

approximately 15,000 tons per year of

K088.

For more specific information on

these technologies, see the Best

Demonstrated Available Technology

Background Document (BDAT) for

Newly Listed or Identified Wastes for

K088, Spent Aluminum Potliners.

For the treatment standards being

proposed today for K088, see § 268.40

table— Treatment Standards for
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11725

Hazardous Wastes in the proposed

amendments to the regulatory language.

For performance data supporting these

standards, see the aforementioned K088

Background Document.

VII. Improvements to the Existing Land

Disposal Restrictions Program

A major part of today’s rule is

designed to improve the quality and

efficiency in the LDR program. Areas

that are addressed in this proposed rule

include: Completion/adjustments to

UTS and expansion/consolidation of

certain required methods of treatment.

A. Completion of Universal Treatment

Standards

Today’s rule proposes further

streamlining and simplification of the

LDR treatment standards based on the

UTS promulgated in the LDR Phase II

final rule (59 FR 47982, September 19,

1994). The proposed modifications

apply to: (1) all UTS and therefore to all

hazardous wastes regulated with

numerical treatment standards included

in the UTS as summarized in the

Consolidated Standards Table at

§ 268.40, and (2) the numerical

treatment standards proposed for

carbamate, organobromine and spent

aluminum potliner wastes. These

proposed changes to UTS therefore

extend to all F-, K-, U- and P- waste

codes with individually regulated

constituents plus ignitable, corrosive,

reactive and characteristically toxic

wastes with underlying hazardous

constituents.

1. Expansion to Cover All Components

of Newly Listed Wastes (Carbamates and

Organobromines)

A number of constituents regulated

with numerical treatment standards in

certain waste codes are not represented

in UTS. EPA lacked adequate data to

cover all the BDAT List with UTS in the

LDR Phase II final rule and today the

Agency is proposing numerical

treatment standards for additional

constituents in carbamate and

organobromine wastes which are not yet

on the current BDAT List. These 43

constituents are:

A2213

Aldicarb sulfone

Barban

Bendiocarb

Bendiocarb phenol

Benomyl

Butylate

Carbaryl

Carbenzadim

Carbofuran

Carbofuran phenol

Carbosulfan

Cycloate

Dimetilan

Dithiocarbamates (total)

EPTC

Formetanate hydrochloride

Formparanate

m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate

Isolan

Methiocarb

Methomyl

Metolcarb

Mexacarbate

Molinate

Oxamyl

Pebulate

o-Phenylenediamine

Physostigmine

Physostigmine salicylate

Promecarb

Propham

Propoxur

Prosulfocarb

Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate

Thiodicarb

Thiophanate-methyl

Tirpate

Triallate

2,4,6-Tribromophenol

Triethylamine

3-Iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate

Vernolate

The proposed UTS for these

constituents can be found in § 268.48 of

today’s proposed rule.

2. UTS for Constituents in Wastewater

and Nonwastewater Forms

For a number of constituents, there

exist UTS in wastewater forms of wastes

but none in nonwastewaters. EPA

believes that these constituents should

be controlled in both sets of waste

streams associated with a given waste

code. This enhances consistent and

complete treatment. The organic

constituents for which EPA has

promulgated wastewater UTS but no

nonwastewater UTS include acrolein, 4-

aminobiphenyl, aramite,

chlorobenzilate, 2-chlorovinylethyl

ether, 1,2-diphenylhydrazine, ethylene

oxide, methyl methanesulfonate, pdimethylaminoazobenzene, and 2-

naphthylamine.

Today’s rule requests comment on

potential UTS values for these

constituents in nonwastewaters.

Although EPA does not have definitive

treatability data on hand at the time of

proposal, EPA believes that

nonwastewater UTS for these

constituents would close gaps in the

current LDR framework and ensure

adequate treatment of all waste streams.

a. Nonwastewaters.

(i) The Environmental Technology

Council Data. EPA is soliciting comment

on the treatment standards originally

proposed, but not promulgated, in the

Third Third F039 standards for acrolein,

4-aminobiphenyl, chlorobenzilate, pdimethylaminoazobenzene, aramite, and

2-naphthylamine. EPA had withdrawn

these as constituents of nonwastewater

forms of F039 following comments from

the ETC that these were analytically

problematic. Specifically, in a study

reporting detection limits and spike

recoveries in incinerator ash from the

combustion of hazardous wastes (as

analyzed by six different laboratories),

ETC reported anomalous levels of

detection limits or spike recoveries for

these compounds. Detection limits and

spike recoveries are of concern because

the numerical treatment standard for

any constituent in incinerator ash is

equal to the product of the detection

limit times the accuracy correction

factor, the inverse of the percent

recovery times a variability factor

representing the extent of the data.

ETC reported detection limits and

percent recovery values for acrolein, pdimethylaminoazobenzene (p-DAB), 4-

aminobiphenyl (4AB), aramite,

chlorobenzilate (CB),

methylmethanesulfonate (MMS) and 2-

naphthylamine (2NA), and also for

dibenzo(a,e)pyrene (DBP). The detection

limit results are labeled LIMITS A–F to

represent the six different laboratories

and the percent recovery results are

similarly labeled % REC A–F to

represent the six different laboratories.

These data, together with the complete

ETC investigations for the Third Third

proposed rule and the subsequent

pesticide study are available for

inspection in the RCRA Docket for the

LDR Phase II final rule.

TABLE 1.—DETECTION LIMITS

Limit

Constituent

Acrolein p-DAB 4-AB Aramite CB DBP MMS 2-NA

A .......................................................... 0.029 1.82 6.94 17.18 4.87 9999 2.438 12.561

B .......................................................... 9999 3.2 9999 614.43 8.29 9999 1.85 26.82

C .......................................................... 0.161 9.43 26.89 243.05 7.98 18.72 2.3 6.96

D .......................................................... 9999 1.38 14.06 4.52 2.61 9999 0.75 2.214
11726 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—DETECTION LIMITS—Continued

Limit

Constituent

Acrolein p-DAB 4-AB Aramite CB DBP MMS 2-NA

E .......................................................... 9999 48.26 0.065 2.37 11.34 9999 9999 2.43

F .......................................................... 9999 1.78 14.18 9999 10.53 9999 1.37 9999

TABLE 2.—PERCENT RECOVERY

% Rec

Constituent

Acrolein p-DAB 4-AB Aramite CB DBP MMS 2-NA

A .......................................................... 1.6 36 13.661 5.47 138.04 0 50.7 8.77

B .......................................................... 0 118.87 473.41 79.23 175.85 0 63.54 125.48

C .......................................................... 1.954 40.77 34.95 120.34 105.99 27.34 100.38 18.73

D .......................................................... 0 126.74 1.69 0.11 160.43 0 74.11 3.98

E .......................................................... 0 134.65 31.54 80 247.725 0 0 8.89

F .......................................................... 0 558.13 17.55 330.24 436.82 0 33.31 3.08

Although ETC reports relatively few

detection limits for acrolein, the

consistently problematic low recoveries,

all below 2% were the basis of EPA’s

concern in the Third Third rule.

Similarly, dibenzo(a,e)pyrene exhibits

extremely and consistently low

recoveries while several detection limits

are missing from the report. Aramite

exhibited several extremely high

detection limits plus an erratic set of

percent recoveries ranging from very

high to very low. The other four

constituents, p-dimethylaminoazobenzene, 4-aminobiphenyl,

chlorobenzilate and 2-naphthylamine

show a pattern of generally high

detection limits and high recoveries,

with much variation in recoveries and

with several significantly high values in

each set. The methylmethanesulfonate

data were supplied by ETC despite the

fact that EPA did not propose a

nonwastewater standard for this

constituent in the Third Third rule; this

data is presented here for completeness

and to stimulate comment on the

development of today’s proposed

methylmethanesulfonate nonwastewater

standard discussed below.

(ii) EPA’s Treatability Data Detection

Limits and Recoveries. High or erratic

detection limits and recoveries are of

concern to EPA. For both parameters,

high values indicate a barrier to

quantification and erratic values

indicate unreliable quantification.

Analysis of the fourteen EPA

incinerator burns used to generate

nonwastewater treatability data shows

both a narrower range of detection

limits and lower values of detection

limits than the ETC study achieved. The

following table presents the ranges of

detection limits achieved.

In generating treatability data for

listed hazardous wastes EPA undertook

a series of fourteen incinerator burns.

Analysis of ash from these burns

provided the numerical basis for

nonwastewater standards. Detection

limit data were obtained from the ash

itself for all constituents. However,

recovery levels were determined for

only a handful of constituents. After

these recoveries were determined by

spiking ash with the selected

constituents and measuring the

percentage of the spike which was

recovered, these recovery values were

transferred to chemically similar

constituents and incorporated into the

nonwastewater treatment standard

calculations. EPA generally rejected

recoveries ranging outside the 20% to

200% range following the guidance of

the BDAT program’s Quality Assurance

Project Plan.

ORIGINAL EPA NONWASTEWATER

INCINERATOR BURN DETECTION LIMITS

EPA test burn

Detection

limits for

volatile

organics

Detection

limits for

semivolatile

organics

Test #1 .............. 0.1–10.0 0.11–10.0

Test #2 .............. 0.2–50.0 0.08–5.0

Test #3 .............. 0.05–10.0 0.01–10.1

Test #4 .............. 2.0–10.0 2.0–50.0

Test #5 .............. a 2.0–50.0 0.5–10.0

Test #6 .............. b 0.2–50.0 0.4–7.0

Test #7 .............. c 2.0–20 0.2–5

Test #8 .............. 0.025–2.0 1.0–10.0

Test #9 .............. 0.005–0.4 0.42–4.0

Test #10 ............ c 1.5–30 1.00–5.0

Test #11 ............ 0.005–0.4 0.531–4.0

Test #13 ............ 0.01–2.0 0.36–1.8

Test #14 ............ a 0.010–2 0.36–1.8

aExcluding one outlier out of 40 analytes.

bExcluding five outliers out of 40 analytes.

cExcluding two outliers out of 40 analytes.

(iii) Solicitation of Treatability Data.

EPA solicits additional treatability and

analytical data concerning

nonwastewater forms of these

constituents. By taking comment on

whether to promulgate nonwastewater

standards for these constituents, EPA is

reopening the discussion of the issues of

detection limits and recoveries raised by

ETC in the comments following the

Third Third proposal. EPA opens the

question of whether advances in

detectability, notably the use of HLPC

(high pressure liquid phase

chromatography) may allow reliable

measurement. EPA also solicits

comment whether more reliable

recovery values have been achieved for

these constituents, and at what

detection level are reliable results

achieved.

(iv) Additional Potential

Nonwastewater UTS Based on

Treatability Groups. EPA is also

soliciting comment on potential

treatment standards for 2-chlorovinyl

ether, 1,2-diphenylhydrazine, ethylene

oxide and methyl methanesulfonate

based on the Treatability Group

categories outlined in the LDR Phase II

Final Background Document for

Universal Standards, Volume A,

Universal Standards for Nonwastewater

Forms of Listed Hazardous Wastes.

Specifically, for each of the constituents

listed above, EPA is considering as

potential UTS the lowest nonwastewater

treatment standard for the treatability

group to which that constituent belongs.

Treatability groups collect the UTS

constituents into sets of chemically

similar compounds with similar

behavior in treatment processes and

analytical instruments. UTS for

nonwastewater UTS are based on the

detection limits of that compound in

incinerator ash. Since these detection

limits reflect the constituent’s ‘‘fate and

transport’’ in the analytical unit
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11727

13 At the time of signature of this rule, further

data on these effluent guidelines were forthcoming.

This additional data, if not available at the time of

publication of this rule, will be made available

shortly thereafter.

according to its chemical structure and

composition, transferring treatability

data among members of treatability

groups accounts for similarities in

analytical quantification as well as in

treatment.

NONWASTEWATER UTS

Compound NW UTS

(mg/l)

Acrolein ....................................... 2.8

4-Aminobiphenyl ......................... 13

Aramite ....................................... 2.5

Chlorobenzilate ........................... 6.6

2-Chlorovinyl ether ..................... 5.6

Dibenz(a,e)pyrene ...................... 22

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ................ 1.5

Ethylene oxide ............................ 0.75

Methyl methanesulfonate ........... 4.6

p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene ..... 29

2-Naphthylamine ......................... 15

(v) UTS for Sulfide in Nonwastewater

Form.

EPA is soliciting treatability data for

nonwastewater forms of sulfide. In the

absence of treatability data for this

inorganic ion in nonwastewater

matrices, EPA is not proposing

treatment standards but is requesting

treatability and analytical data on which

to develop a standard.

(vi) UTS for Fluoride in

Nonwastewater Form.

EPA is today proposing a 48 mg/l as

the UTS for the fluoride ion identical to

that proposed today for fluoride in K088

nonwastewaters. The basis of the K088

standard is discussed in the section of

today’s preamble proposing treatment

standards for K088 wastes. Today’s

proposed fluoride nonwastewater UTS,

like the K088 fluoride standard, is based

on the use of SW-846 leachate method

1311. Fluoride, like zinc, is not an

underlying hazardous constituent in

characteristic wastes, according to the

definition at § 268.2(i).

b. Wastewaters. Additionally, today’s

rule proposes a wastewater treatment

standard for 1,4-dioxane. 1,4-Dioxane is

the only UTS constituent for which EPA

had promulgated a nonwastewater

standard but not a wastewater standard.

Commenters reported analytical

difficulties in quantifying 1,4-dioxane at

the wastewater standard proposed in the

LDR Phase II UTS (0.12 mg/l); this

standard was based on a transfer from

ethyl ether. EPA consequently withdrew

that standard in the LDR Phase II final

rule. The docket for today’s rule

includes treatability data submitted by

one such commenter.

Today’s rule proposes a wastewater

UTS of 0.22 mg/l for 1,4-dioxane. This

standard is being proposed as the

maximum daily limit for 1,4-dioxane in

the proposed effluent guidelines for the

pharmaceuticals industry, based on the

performance of steam stripping followed

by biological treatment.

EPA also solicits comment on a

wastewater standard for 1,4-dioxane of

8.67 mg/l, followed by biological

treatment. The basis of this alternative

standard is treatability data for

distillation, which was developed for

the proposed pharmaceutical effluent

guidelines. The data supporting this

standard represents a transfer of

distillation performance data with

methanol to 1,4-dioxane.13

WASTEWATER UTS

Compound WW UTS

1,4-Dioxane ................................ 0.22 mg/l

3. Application to Listed Waste

a. Wastewater-nonwastewater pairs.

There are several cases where a

constituent is regulated in wastewater

forms of particular listed wastes with

UTS but not in nonwastewater and a

nonwastewater UTS exists for these

constituents, having been promulgated

in LDR Phase II. For these constituents,

EPA proposes to extend the UTS to

nonwastewaters, and vice versa. In other

words, in cases where the 40 CFR

268.40—Table of Treatment Standards

for Hazardous Wastes lists a numerical

treatment standard for a constituent in

one form of a listed waste but not in the

other, today’s rule proposes the UTS as

the standard for the other form. This

section of today’s rule does not propose

new UTS, rather it extends existing UTS

to gaps in the media-specific standards

for individual constituents in listed

wastes. An example is K019 where pdichlorobenzene, fluorene and 1,2,4,5-

tetrachlorobenzene are regulated with

UTS in wastewater forms of K019 but

are not regulated—indicated in the

Consolidated Table as ‘‘NA’’—in

nonwastewater forms of K019. Today’s

rule proposes filling in these ‘‘NA’s’’ for

p-dichlorobenzene, fluorene and 1,2,4,5-

tetrachlorobenzene in nonwastewater

for K019 with the UTS and similarly

applying UTS in other cases where UTS

now apply to a constituent in either

wastewaters and nonwastewaters but do

not apply to both. The gaps between

wastewater and nonwastewater coverage

for individual constituents in listed

wastes occurred because the Agency

decided on a waste code-by-waste code

basis whether to include constituents in

wastewater, nonwastewater or both

forms of a waste. EPA now believes that

applying UTS to wastewaters and

nonwastewaters consistently ensures

treatment of regulated constituents

regardless of the physical form of the

waste or the waste treatment residual

regulated under the ‘‘derived-from’’

rule.

The following tables show those

regulated constituents, by waste code,

where either a wastewater or a

nonwastewater UTS is added by today’s

proposal.

Waste

code Constituent

Wastewater

standard

(mg/l)

F006 ....... Silver .................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.43

F007 ....... Cadmium .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.69

Silver .................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.43

F008 ....... Cadmium .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.69

Silver .................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.43

F009 ....... Cadmium .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.69

Silver .................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.43

F011 ....... Cadmium .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.69

Silver .................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.43

F012 ....... Cadmium .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.69

Silver .................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.43

F038 ....... Nickel ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.98
11728 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Waste

code Constituent

Wastewater

standard

(mg/l)

K018 ....... Pentachloroethane ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.055

K030 ....... Hexachlorpropylene ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.035

Pentachlorobenzene ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.055

Pentachloroethane ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.055

K035 ....... Acenaphthene ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.059

Anthracene ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.059

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.055

Fluorene ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.068

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.0055

K048 ....... Nickel ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.98

K049 ....... Nickel ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.98

K050 ....... Nickel ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.98

K051 ....... Nickel ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.98

K052 ....... Nickel ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.98

K061 ....... Antimony .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1.9

Arsenic ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1.4

Barium .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1.2

Beryllium .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.82

Mercury ................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.15

Selenium .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.82

Silver .................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.43

Thallium ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1.4

Zinc ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.61

P013 ....... Barium .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1.2

Waste

code Constituent

Nonwastewater

standard (mg/kg unless otherwise

noted)

F001–5 ... Carbon disulfide ..................................................................................................................................................... 4.8 (mg/l TCLP)

Cyclohexanone ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)

Methanol ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)

F037 ....... Acenaphthene ........................................................................................................................................................ 3.4

Fluorene ................................................................................................................................................................. 3.4

Lead ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)

F038 ....... Fluorene ................................................................................................................................................................. 3.4

Lead ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)

F039 ....... Acetonitrile .............................................................................................................................................................. 38

Acrolein .................................................................................................................................................................. 2.8

4-Aminobiphenyl ..................................................................................................................................................... 13

Aramite ................................................................................................................................................................... 2.5

Carbon disulfide ..................................................................................................................................................... 4.8 (mg/l TCLP)

Chlorobenzilate ...................................................................................................................................................... 6.6

2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene .......................................................................................................................................... 0.28

Cyclohexanone ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)

Dibenz(a,e)pyrene .................................................................................................................................................. 22

Diphenylamine/diphenylnitrosamine ....................................................................................................................... 13

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ............................................................................................................................................ 1.5

Ethylene oxide ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.75

Methanol ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)

Methyl methanesulfonate ....................................................................................................................................... 4.6

2-Naphthylamine .................................................................................................................................................... 15

N-Nitrosodimethylamine ......................................................................................................................................... 2.3

Phthalic anhydride .................................................................................................................................................. 28

tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl)phosphate ......................................................................................................................... 0.10

Beryllium ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.014 (mg/l TCLP)

Fluoride .................................................................................................................................................................. 48

Thallium .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.078 (mg/l TCLP)

Vanadium ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.23 (mg/l TCLP)

K006 ....... Lead ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)

K018 ....... Chloromethane ....................................................................................................................................................... 30

K019 ....... p-Dichlorobenzene ................................................................................................................................................. 6.0

Fluorene ................................................................................................................................................................. 3.4

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene ................................................................................................................................... 14

K028 ....... Cadmium ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.19 (mg/l TCLP)

K030 ....... o-Dichlorobenzene ................................................................................................................................................. 6.0

p-Dichlorobenzene ................................................................................................................................................. 6.0

K048 ....... Fluorene ................................................................................................................................................................. 3.4

Lead ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)

K049 ....... Carbon disulfide ..................................................................................................................................................... 4.8 (mg/l TCLP)

2,4-Dimethylphenol ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11729

Waste

code Constituent

Nonwastewater

standard (mg/kg unless otherwise

noted)

Lead ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)

K050 ....... Lead ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)

K051 ....... Acenaphthene ........................................................................................................................................................ 3.4

Fluorene ................................................................................................................................................................. 3.4

Lead ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)

K052 ....... 2,4-Dimethylphenol ................................................................................................................................................ 14

Lead ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)

K083 ....... Cyclohexanone ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)

K086 ....... Cyclohexanone ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)

Methanol ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)

K101 ....... Cadmium ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.19 (mg/l TCLP)

Lead ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)

Mercury .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.025 (mg/l TCLP)

K102 ....... Cadmium ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.19 (mg/l TCLP)

Lead ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)

Mercury .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.025 (mg/l TCLP)

P003 ....... Acrolein .................................................................................................................................................................. 2.8

P056 ....... Fluoride .................................................................................................................................................................. 48

U038 ....... Chlorobenzilate ...................................................................................................................................................... 6.6

U042 ....... 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether ........................................................................................................................................ 5.6

U093 ....... p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene ................................................................................................................................. 29

U134 ....... Fluoride .................................................................................................................................................................. 48

U168 ....... 2-Naphthylamine .................................................................................................................................................... 15

b. Elimination of Redundant Methods

of Treatment. Several constituents had

been regulated with UTS in one

medium (wastewaters or

nonwastewaters) but were regulated

with a method of treatment in the other

as alternatives, namely P022 carbon

disulfide (nonwastewaters), U003

acetonitrile (nonwastewaters), U057

cyclohexanone (nonwastewaters), U108

1,4-dioxane (wastewaters and

nonwastewaters), U110 1,2-

diphenylhydrazine (wastewaters), U115

ethylene oxide (wastewaters), U154

methanol (wastewaters and

nonwastewaters). The LDR Phase II

proposal did not suggest that the

specified methods be replaced with the

UTS. However, in comments received

on the proposal, commenters requested

that EPA apply the UTS to these wastes.

Because EPA had not specifically

proposed such a change, the LDR Phase

II final rule allowed both the specified

method or the UTS.

EPA believes that the UTS are

appropriate so that the alternative

specified method is now unnecessary.

Numerical treatment standards, such as

UTS, ensure treatment more reliably

than do standards expressed as methods

of treatment because the target

concentrations allow for verification

that the waste has been treated.

Consequently, EPA intends to replace

required methods of treatment with

numerical standards whenever possible.

EPA believes UTS for these constituents

provides such an opportunity. Therefore

today’s rule proposes to eliminate the

alternative methods of treatment and

establishes UTS for both wastewater and

nonwastewater constituents.

4. Revision to the Acetonitrile Standard

a. The acetonitrile nonwastewater

standard. EPA reviewed the constituentspecific standard for acetonitrile

nonwastewaters, and believes that this

standard should be raised from 1.8 mg/

kg to 38 mg/kg. The 1.8 mg/kg standard,

which was based on incineration, is not

consistent with treatment data and

standards for other structurally related

organo-nitrogen UTS compounds. For

example, the nonwastewater treatment

standard for both acrylonitrile and

methacrylonitrile is 84 mg/kg. The

nonwastewater standards for ethyl

methacrylate and methyl methacrylate

are 160 mg/kg.

Acetonitrile is one of the compounds

singled out by the ETC as being

problematic to analyze for in

combustion residues (i.e.,

nonwastewaters). In response to the

Third Third Rulemaking, the ETC had

submitted data from which they

calculated a method detection limit of

6.678 mg/kg for other combustion

residues.

The Agency is soliciting data and

comment specifically on the analytical

achievability of the 1.8 mg/kg

acetonitrile nonwastewater standard in

combustion residues and the ability of

non-combustion technologies to achieve

the 1.8 mg/kg and the proposed

standard of 38 mg/kg for acetonitrile in

nonwastewaters.

b. Revoking the special wastewater/

nonwastewater definition for

acrylonitrile wastes. The Agency also

recognizes that K011/13/14

nonwastewaters could consist of over

90% water, and that wastewater

treatment is an appropriate means of

treating these wastes. For the above

reasons, the Agency is proposing to

revise the treatment standard for

acetonitrile in nonwastewaters to 38

mg/kg based on the existing treatment

data, which comes from treating K011/

13/14 wastes containing greater than 1%

TOC by steam stripping. (See the

background documents for K011/13/14

nonwastewaters in the Second Third

Final Rule Docket and the background

documents for K011/13/14

‘‘wastewaters’’ in the Third Third Final

Rule Docket).

5. Aggressive Biological Treatment as

BDAT for Petroleum Refinery Wastes

EPA solicits comment whether to

specify aggressive biological treatment

as the treatment standard for

decharacterized petroleum refining

wastewaters. Aggressive biological

treatment is defined in § 261.31(b)(2) as

one of the following four processes:

activated sludge, trickling filters,

rotating biological contactors or highrate mechanical aeration. The American

Petroleum Institute (API) has submitted

data to the Agency on ten of its facilities

using aggressive biological treatment.

Along with the data API requested that

EPA specify aggressive biological

treatment as the treatment standard for

their wastes. Such a standard, which

would operate in lieu of UTS, may

reduce the monitoring burden. EPA
11730 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

14A ‘‘prohibited’’ hazardous waste is one which

is actually subject to a prohibition on land disposal

without first being treated, or disposed in a nomigration unit. See 54 FR 36968 (Sept. 6, 1989).

15To the extent that these wastes or residues of

these wastes (i.e., biological treatment sludges)

contain significant organic content, combustion

may be an appropriate treatment technology. See

later discussion regarding this point.

solicits comment on proposing

aggressive biological treatment as BDAT

for these wastes. However, because

monitoring is required under CWA

permits, EPA is also soliciting comment

on whether a reduction in the number

of constituents monitored is significant.

The data which API submitted

demonstrate that aggressive biological

treatment in the industry may

consistently meet UTS. There was one

observation, however, for which a

constituent exceeded UTS, and other

observations which involved detection

limits which exceeded UTS. This data is

available in the docket for today’s rule.

B. Dilution Prohibition

Under the existing LDR dilution

prohibition (40 CFR 268.3), burning

inorganic metal-bearing hazardous

wastes can be a form of impermissible

dilution. On May 27, 1994, the Assistant

Administrator for the Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response issued

a Statement of Policy which clarified

this point (59 FR 27546–7). Today the

Agency is proposing to codify and

quantify these principles.

1. Dilution Prohibited as a Method of

Treatment

Under RCRA, the LDR prohibition on

dilution states generally that no person

‘‘shall in any way dilute a restricted

waste * * * as a substitute for adequate

treatment to achieve compliance with (a

treatment standard for that waste)’’. 40

CFR 268.3(a). This prohibition

implements the requirement of section

3004(m) of RCRA, which requires that

hazardous constituents in hazardous

wastes be destroyed, removed or

immobilized before these wastes can be

land disposed. Hazardous constituents

are not destroyed, removed or

immobilized if they are diluted. CWM v.

EPA, 976 F.2d at 16, 17, 19–20; see also

S. Rep. No. 298, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. 17

(1983) (‘‘the dilution of wastes by the

addition of other hazardous waste or

any other materials during waste

handling, transportation, treatment or

storage is not an acceptable method of

treatment to reduce the concentration of

hazardous constituents’’).

Consistent with these authorities, the

Agency has stated that the dilution

prohibition serves one chief purpose—

‘‘to ensure that prohibited wastes 14 are

treated by methods that are appropriate

for that type of waste.’’ (55 FR 22532,

June 1, 1990). Impermissible dilution

can occur under a number of

circumstances. The most obvious is

when solid wastes are added to a

prohibited waste to reduce

concentrations but not volumes of

hazardous constituents, or to mask their

presence. Impermissible dilution also

may occur when wastes not amenable to

treatment by a certain method (i.e.,

treated very ineffectively by that

treatment method) are nevertheless

‘treated’ by that method (55 FR 22666,

June 1, 1990) (biological treatment does

not effectively remove toxic metals from

wastes; therefore, prohibited wastes

with treatment standards for metals

ordinarily would be impermissibly

diluted if managed in biological

treatment systems providing no separate

treatment for the metals). See also 52 FR

at 25778–79 (July 8, 1987)

(impoundments which primarily

evaporate hazardous constituents do not

qualify as section 3005(j)(11)

impoundments which may receive

otherwise-prohibited hazardous wastes

that have not met the treatment

standard).

This proposed rule gives a general

distinction between ‘‘adequate

treatment’’ and potential violations of

the dilution prohibition. The Agency

has evaluated the listed wastes and has

determined that 43 of the RCRA listed

wastes (as set forth in 40 CFR 261)

typically appear to be such inorganic

hazardous wastes; i.e., they typically do

not contain organics, or contain only

insignificant amounts of organics, and

are not regulated for organics 15. BDAT

for these inorganic, metal-bearing listed

wastes is metal recovery or stabilization.

Thus, impermissible dilution may result

when these wastes are combusted.

This proposed rule reflects the

Agency’s concerns about the hazard

presented by toxic metals in the

environment. When an inorganic metalbearing hazardous waste with

insignificant organics is placed in a

combustion unit, legitimate treatment

for purposes of LDR ordinarily is not

occurring. No treatment of the inorganic

component occurs during combustion,

and therefore, metals are not destroyed,

removed, or immobilized. Since there

are no significant concentrations of

organic compounds in inorganic metalbearing hazardous wastes, it cannot be

maintained that the waste is being

properly or effectively treated via

combustion (i.e., thermally treated or

destroyed, removed, or immobilized).

In terms of the dilution prohibition, if

combustion is allowed as a method to

achieve a treatment standard for these

wastes, metals in these wastes will be

dispersed to the ambient air and will be

diluted by being mixed in with

combustion ash from other waste

streams. Adequate treatment

(stabilization or metal recovery to meet

LDR treatment standards) has not been

performed and dilution has occurred. It

is also inappropriate to regard eventual

stabilizing of such combustion ash as

providing adequate treatment for

purposes of the LDRs. Simply meeting

the numerical BDAT standards for the

ash fails to account for metals in the

original waste stream that were emitted

to the air and for reductions achieved by

dilution with other materials in the ash.

(In most cases, of course, the metalbearing wastes will have been mixed

with other wastes before combustion,

which mixing itself could be viewed as

impermissible dilution).

These inorganic, metal-bearing

hazardous wastes should be and are

usually treated by metal recovery or

stabilization technologies. These

technologies remove hazardous

constituents through recovery in

products, or immobilize them, and are

therefore permissible BDAT treatment

methods.

There are eight characteristic metal

wastes; however, only wastes that

exhibit the TC as measured by both the

TCLP and the EP for D004–D011 are

presently prohibited (see 55 FR 22660–

02, June 1, 1990). Characteristic wastes,

of course, cannot be generically

characterized as easily as listed wastes

because they can be generated from

many different types of processes. For

example, although some characteristic

metal wastes do not contain organics or

cyanide or contain only insignificant

amounts, others may have organics or

cyanide present which justify

combustion, such as a used oil

exhibiting the TC characteristic for a

metal. Thus, it is difficult to say which

D004–D011 wastes would be

impermissibly diluted when combusted,

beyond stating that as a general matter,

impermissible dilution would occur if

the D004–D011 waste does not have

significant organic or cyanide content

but is nevertheless combusted.

2. Permissible Dilution

EPA ordinarily would not consider

the following hazardous wastes to

contain ‘‘significant organic or cyanide

content’’, for which combustion would

otherwise be impermissible dilution

(the Agency is adding criteria beyond

that included in the May 27, 1994

policy memorandum to clarify

situations raised in comments received).

Combustion of the following inorganic

metal-bearing wastes is therefore not
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11731

prohibited under the LDR dilution

prohibition: (1) Wastes that, at the point

of generation, or after any bona fide

treatment such as cyanide destruction

prior to combustion, contain hazardous

organic constituents or cyanide at levels

exceeding the constituent-specific

treatment standard for UTS; (2) organic,

debris-like materials (e.g., wood, paper,

plastic, or cloth) contaminated with an

inorganic metal-bearing hazardous

waste; (3) wastes that, at point of

generation, have reasonable heating

value such as greater than or equal to

5000 Btu/lb (see 48 FR 11157, March 16,

1983); (4) wastes co-generated with

wastes that specify combustion as a

required method of treatment; (5)

wastes, including soil, subject to Federal

and/or State requirements necessitating

reduction of organics (including

biological agents); and (6) wastes with

greater than 1% Total Organic Carbon

(TOC). An ‘‘inorganic metal-bearing

waste’’ is one for which EPA has

established treatment standards for

metal hazardous constituents, and

which does not otherwise contain

significant organic or cyanide content.

(See 40 CFR Appendix XI proposed in

today’s rule for a list of waste codes

which EPA tentatively believes satisfies

this definition.) The foregoing six

categories of waste typically would

contain sufficient organic content to

indicate that combustion can be a

reasonable means of treating the wastes

prior to land disposal. EPA solicits

comments on whether there are other

inorganic wastes that would technically

justify combustion as a means of

complying with BDAT. For example, are

there metal bearing organic wastes or

complexing agents not covered by the

above criteria that prevent effective

stabilization of metals due to the

presence of unregulated organics?

However, as noted above, mixing

practices such as fuel blending to add

organics to inorganic metal-bearing

hazardous wastes ordinarily would be

considered to be impermissible dilution.

This is because, under current rules, the

dilution prohibition applies at the point

a hazardous waste is generated. CWM v.

EPA 976 F.2d at 22–3; see also 48 FR

11158, 11159 and nn. 2 and 4 (March

16, 1983); 53 FR at 522 (Jan. 8, 1988)

determinations of legitimacy of

recycling are made on a waste-by-waste

basis before any blending occurs.

The Agency is aware of a practice

within the foundry industry that

recycles foundry sand by thermally

oxidizing impurities. It is EPA’s view

that this process would violate the

policy against combustion of inorganics,

unless the foundry sand being oxidized

contains toxic organic constituents or

has a significant organic component (as

described above).

3. Cyanide-Bearing Wastes and

Combustion

A commenter questioned why EPA

allows the presence of cyanide to justify

combustion when there are adequate

alternative treatment methods. This

approach was adopted because cyanide

is destroyed by combustion. Existing

LDR rules, in many cases, identify

combustion as an appropriate BDAT for

destruction of cyanide-bearing wastes.

The May 27, 1994 policy statement did

not change BDAT determinations and

thus reflected that combustion could be

appropriate for destroying certain

cyanide-bearing wastes. EPA, however,

solicits comments on whether the

cyanide criterion should be dropped.

While cyanide is effectively treated in

combustion devices, EPA has received

comments that non-combustion

technologies such as alkaline

chlorination are available to effectively

treat metal bearing wastes that contain

cyanide and that BDAT for these wastes

should not include combustion. EPA

solicits comments on the relative

effectiveness and risks of combustion

versus alkaline chlorination in treating

cyanides in inorganic metal bearing

wastes.

4. Table of Inorganic Metal Bearing

Wastes

The table being proposed in 40 CFR

part 268, Appendix XI today indicates

the list of waste codes for which EPA

regulates only metals and/or cyanides

that would be affected by this proposed

rule. Except for P122, this list is

identical to the list originally published

in the aforementioned Policy Statement

on this subject. The Agency is removing

P122 (Zinc Phosphide greater than 10%)

from the list of restricted inorganic

metal-bearing wastes, because the

Agency has previously promulgated a

treatment standard of INCIN for the

nonwastewater forms of this waste. See

40 CFR 268.40. The policy memo was in

error on this point. The Agency solicits

comment on this issue, particularly with

respect to costs associated with the

segregation of these wastes.

5. The Addition of Iron Dust To

Stabilize Characteristic Hazardous

Wastes: Potential Classification as

Impermissible Dilution

The Agency has become aware that

certain industries may be adding iron

dust or iron filings to some

characteristic hazardous wastes as a

form of treatment. For example,

foundries are known to mix iron dust or

filing with the D008 waste sand

generated from their spent casting

molds, viewing this practice as a form

of stabilization. The Agency believes,

however, that such stabilization is

inadequate to minimize the threats

posed by land disposal of metalcontaining hazardous wastes, and is

today proposing to clarify that this

waste management practice is

‘‘impermissible dilution’’ under 40 CFR

268.3, for reasons discussed below.

In particular, when iron dust or filings

are added to a characteristic waste

foundry sand, it is considered

‘‘treatment’’ under the definition in 40

CFR 260.10. Nevertheless, the Agency

does not believe it to be adequate

treatment; rather, it is merely the

addition of material as a substitute for

adequate treatment, and thus constitutes

impermissible dilution. See § 268.3(b),

54 FR at 48494 (Nov. 1989), and 55 FR

at 22532 (June 1, 1990). The Agency

believes it is unlikely that any chemical

reactions are taking place when iron

dust or iron filings are added, because

the waste foundry sand would likely

contain only lead, silica, microscopic

pieces of castings, and binders (clays,

phenols, and tars) from the molds. The

Agency does not believe that simply

adding iron would provide treatment for

either the lead or the organics (i.e.,

phenol and tar).

While it is arguable that iron could

form temporary, weak, ionic complexes

with silica and/or phenate, so that when

analyzed by the TCLP test the lead

appears to have been stabilized, the

Agency believes that this ‘‘stabilization’’

is temporary, based upon the nature of

the complexing. In fact, a report

prepared by EPA on Iron Chemistry in

Lead Contaminated Materials (Feb. 22,

1994), which specifically addressed this

issue, found that iron lead bonds are

weak, adsorptive surface bonds, and

therefore not likely to be permanent.

Furthermore, as this iron-rich mixture is

exposed to moisture and oxidative

conditions over time, interstitial water

would likely acidify, which could

potentially reverse any temporary

stabilization, as well as increase the

leachability of the lead from the foundry

sand. Therefore, the addition of iron

dust or filings to characteristic waste

foundry sand does not appear to provide

long-term treatment.

Another related concern is that the

addition of iron has been demonstrated

to result in false negatives for lead when

wastes are analyzed by means of the
11732 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

16See memo from John V. Cignatta, Datanet to

John Gauthier, EPA Region 1, dated September 8,

1992.

17The Catalytic Extraction Process, used by

Molten Metal Technology, involves a molten metal

bath, with temperatures around 3000°F, into which

liquid wastes are injected, and solid wastes are fed

with a carrier gas (Ar). The process treats the wastes

in a high temperature reduction environment,

which reduces the compounds to their elemental

state. The metallic, inorganic ceramic, and gaseous

phases which result are then reused, or purified and

released.

18 Incidentally, the term ‘‘use’’ here has no

specific meaning other than the normal dictionary

definition. It is not meant to connote the phrase

‘‘used or reused’’ found in § 261.1(c)(5), which is a

term of art for determining the scope of the

exclusion in § 261.2(e)(1) (i) and (ii).

TCLP .16. This significant interference

with the analytical method for detecting

lead, in conjunction with the concerns

about the temporary nature of any

stabilization that would occur, fully

supports identifying this practice as

impermissible dilution or otherwise

failing to satisfy the requirements of

RCRA section 3004(m) to minimize

short- and long-term threats to human

health and the environment. Comments

and data are solicited on whether this

type of stabilization is effective in

achieving long-term treatment.

Comments and data are also solicited on

whether a test method other than the

TCLP is more appropriate for measuring

compliance for this waste.

D. Expansion of Methods Requiring

Incineration

EPA is proposing to modify the

treatment standard expressed as INCIN,

which specifies hazardous waste

incineration, to, CMBST, which allows

combustion in incinerators and boilers

and industrial furnaces. The INCIN

requirement was set before EPA had

issued air emission requirements for

boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs).

Now that BIF regulations are in place,

the need to constrain treatment to one

type of combustion device is no longer

appropriate. With the development of

innovative technologies, EPA also

solicits comment on whether the

Catalytic Extraction Process, for which

Molten Metal Technology received a

determination of equivalent treatment

under § 268.42(b) 17, should also be

allowed for all wastes which have a

treatment standard of CMBST, and

whether there are other technologies

which are equivalent to CMBST.

E. Clean Up of 40 CFR Part 268

EPA is proposing further changes to

the LDR program to achieve the goal of

simplified regulations. The Agency is

committed to improving the LDR

program by implementing participant

suggestions from the LDR Roundtable

held on January 12–14, 1993.

The LDR requirements are found,

primarily, in 40 CFR Part 268. EPA

intends to remove language that is outof-date, and to clarify language which

may be confusing, in an effort to make

the LDR program easier to understand,

implement, and enforce. This effort will

continue in the LDR Phase IV rule,

scheduled for proposal in June 1995.

1. Section 268.8

Section 268.8 stated that First and

Second Third wastes for which EPA did

not promulgate treatment standards by

their respective effective dates could

continue to be disposed of in landfill

and surface impoundment units until

May 8, 1990 (see 55 FR 22526). Because

treatment standards for all scheduled

wastes were promulgated in the Third

Third rule in 1990, these ‘‘soft hammer’’

requirements are no longer necessary.

Therefore, § 268.8 is proposed to be

removed from part 268.

2. Sections 268.10–268.12

The purpose of Subpart B of § 268 was

to set out a schedule for hazardous

wastes by the date when treatment

standards were to be established.

Sections 268.10, 268.11, and 268.12 of

Subpart B included the First Third,

Second Third, and Third Third

scheduled wastes respectively.

Deadlines in all three of these sections

were met on time, and the wastes are

subject to treatment standards.

Therefore, these three sections are no

longer necessary, and are proposed to be

removed.

3. Section 268.2(f)

The existing wastewater definition

found in § 268.2(f) includes wastes that

have less than 1% TOC and less than

1% TSS. There are three exceptions

given to this definition: (1) F001–F005

wastewaters have no criteria for TSS,

and must contain less than 1% solvent

constituents, (2) K011, K013, K014

wastewaters must contain less than 5%

TOC and less than 1% TSS, and (3)

K103 and K104 wastewaters must

contain less than 4% TOC and less than

1% TSS. With the promulgation of UTS

in the LDR Phase II final rule (59 FR

47982, September 19, 1994), such

distinctions are inconsistent and an

unnecessary complication of the

regulations. While such initial

classifications may have had some

meaning, after effective BDAT treatment

the residuals are appropriately regulated

by the wastewater or nonwastewater

limit as specified by the 1% TOC and

TSS criteria. The Agency is therefore

proposing to remove paragraphs (1)–(3)

from § 268.2(f).

VIII. Proposed Prohibition of

Hazardous Waste as Fill Material

EPA is also proposing today to amend

the LDR rules so as to prohibit the

placement of hazardous waste as a fill

material unless the prohibited waste is

treated so that short- and long-term

threats have been minimized. By ‘‘fill

material’’, the Agency means uses 18 of

waste as a substitute for low grade

material (such as sand or dirt) to raise

the level of land, occupy space, or

otherwise fill in depressions. Hazardous

waste includes, of course, any waste

that is identified or listed as hazardous

under § 261.3, and so includes wastes

(such as residues from treating listed

wastes) that are hazardous by virtue of

the mixture and derived-from rules. The

result of this rule, if finalized, would

thus be to confirm that such uses are

prohibited and therefore illegal unless

the fill area is a regulated unit (i.e., a

subtitle C landfill).

EPA in fact already interprets current

rules as ordinarily providing a similar

result. In the preamble to the May 19,

1980 rules establishing the subtitle C

hazardous waste management program,

EPA stated that an exemption from

regulation for legitimate recycling

activities does not apply to ‘‘sham uses

and recovery or reclamation—e.g.

‘landfilling’ or ‘land reclamation’ ’’. 45

FR at 33093. In the April 4, 1983

Federal Register Notice proposing a

separate regulatory regime for hazardous

wastes legitimately recycled in a

manner constituting disposal

(ultimately promulgated as 40 CFR

260.20–.23), the Agency stated that this

provision would not apply to hazardous

wastes used as fill material, the specific

example provided being ‘‘waste

stabilization processes where the

stabilized material is then used as fill.’’

48 FR at 14985. The Agency further

stated that it was ‘‘convinced that these

waste treatment operations are not

production processes and can therefore

be regulated as waste management.’’ Id.

The reasons for the Agency’s

interpretation are evident. The wastes

are being put into the environment

without any safeguards to prevent

exposure. Hazardous constituents can

migrate into the environment and reach

human and environmental receptors by

any number of direct pathways,

including inhalation, dermal contact,

surface runoff, and leaching to

groundwater. Indirect exposure

pathways exist as well.

The amended rule, if adopted, would

prohibit the use of hazardous waste as

fill material, and add a conforming

amendment to § 266.20(b) stating that
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11733

19Traditionally, capacity analyses have focused

on the demand for alternative capacity once

existing on-site capacity and captive off-site

capacity have been accounted for. However, for

some of the wastes at issue in this rule it may not

be feasible to ship wastes off site to a commercial

facility. In particular, facilities with large volumes

of wastewaters may not readily be able to transport

their waste to treatment facilities. Alternative

treatment for these wastes may need to be

constructed on site.

disposal of hazardous waste as fill

material is not a type of use constituting

disposal subject to the special standards

of Part 266 subpart C, but rather

disposal plain and simple, and hence

illegal unless occurring in a regulated

unit; or, as explained below, if the

prohibited waste can be shown to be

treated to satisfy section 3004(m).

Section 3004(m) of the statute states that

EPA is to establish ‘‘levels or methods

of treatment, if any, which substantially

reduce the likelihood of migration of

hazardous constituents from the wastes

so that short-term and long-term threats

to human health and the environment

are minimized.’’ (Emphasis added). In

this case, the Agency is unable to

determine any level of treatment of

hazardous wastes which can guarantee

the requisite minimization of short-term

and long-term threats when prohibited

hazardous wastes are used as fill

material.

Because there are no specifications or

constraints on placement of fill material,

reliable assessments pose particular

uncertainties and difficulties. These

uncertainties relate to release, transport,

and ultimate exposure, and include

uncertainties regarding release

mechanisms, types and amounts of

hazardous constituents released due to

potential waste variability, location of

human and environmental receptors,

and transport mechanisms. cf. HWTC

III, 886 F. 2d at 1362–63. The existing

LDR treatment standards do not fully

address these potential problems for at

least two reasons. First, the LDR

standards are technology-based, not

risk-based standards. Second, for metal

hazardous constituents, the LDR

standards do not regulate the total metal

content of hazardous wastes. Total

metal content is relevant to many

possible exposure pathways when

hazardous waste is used as fill material,

including inhalation and direct

ingestion pathways. See also 59 FR at

43499 (August 24, 1994), where EPA

made similar findings with respect to

use of hazardous waste K061 as antiskid or deicing material (uses which are

better defined, and hence more

assessable, than use as fill material).

Similarly, this type of disposal does not

appear to satisfy the ultimate

protectiveness standard in sections 3004

(d), (e), and (g) (which requires that

disposal of hazardous waste that meets

a treatment standard must nevertheless

still be protective, taking into account

enumerated uncertainties—including

long-term uncertainties associated with

the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and

propensity to bioaccumulate—of land

disposed hazardous waste and

hazardous constituents). See 56 FR at

41168 (August 19, 1991), adopting this

standard, which was first articulated in

NRDC v. EPA, 907 F. 2d 1146, 1171–2

(D.C. Cir. 1990) (dissenting opinion).

EPA is not, in this notice, proposing

to prohibit other uses of hazardous

waste that involve placement on the

land. Thus, hazardous waste presently

placed on the land as fill material can

be diverted to a less risky, more

acceptable activity. See 59 FR 8583

(Feb. 23, 1994) noting availability of

safer alternatives as justification for the

then-proposed prohibition on nonencapsulated uses of hazardous waste

K061. Nor would the agency preclude

the possibility that particular types of

prohibited waste could be used as fill

material, provided that it can be

established that threats to human health

and the environment have been

minimized, taking into account all of

the statutorily-enumerated uncertainties

cited above.

In a recent proposed rule on the

product use of High Temperature Metal

Recovery slags derived from K061,

F006, and K062 hazardous waste, the

Agency initially evaluated the risks that

result from a variety of uses of these

slags, including use as road subbase, an

ingredient in cement and asphalt, top

grade material for roads, etc. (59 FR

67256, December 29, 1994). While this

evaluation considered the possible

release and transport of waste

constituents, the uses examined did not

include the unrestricted use of the

waste-derived product as fill material.

Use as fill could result in placement of

the waste residual in almost any

location, including a residential setting.

Therefore, an evaluation of the risks

posed by use of waste-derived products

as fill would need to consider the

potential for direct exposure to

receptors located on-site (e.g., direct

ingestion or inhalation of the material),

in addition to the potential for

movement of the material off-site to

other receptors. Such an evaluation

would need to consider at a minimum

the volume of material used as fill, the

levels of toxic constituents in the

material (both total and leachable), the

placement site and proximity to

receptors, and activity at the site that

would promote release, transport, and

exposure. Indirect exposure pathways

also could be relevant, particularly for

hazardous wastes containing

bioaccumulative hazardous constituents

(including dioxins and dibenzofurans).

IX. Capacity Determinations

A. Introduction

This section summarizes the results of

the capacity analysis for the wastes

covered by this proposal. For

background information on data

sources, methodology, and a summary

of each analysis, see the Background

Document for Capacity Analysis for

Land Disposal Restrictions, Phase III—

Decharacterized Wastewaters,

Carbamate and Organobromine Wastes,

and Spent Potliners, found in the docket

for today’s rule.

In general, EPA’s capacity analysis

methodologies focus on the amount of

waste to be restricted from land disposal

that is currently managed in land-based

units and that will require alternative

treatment as a result of the LDRs. The

quantity of wastes that are not managed

in land-based units (e.g., wastewaters

managed only in RCRA exempt tanks,

with direct discharge to a POTW) is not

included in the quantities requiring

alternative treatment as a result of the

LDRs. Also, wastes that do not require

alternative treatment (e.g., those that are

currently treated using an appropriate

treatment technology) are not included

in these quantity estimates.

EPA’s decisions on whether to grant

a national capacity variance are based

on the availability of alternative

treatment or recovery technologies.

Consequently, the methodology focuses

on deriving estimates of the quantities

of waste that will require either

commercial treatment or the

construction of new on-site treatment

systems as a result of the LDRs—

quantities of waste that will be treated

adequately either on site in existing

systems or off site by facilities owned by

the same company as the generator (i.e.,

captive facilities) are omitted from the

required capacity estimates.19

B. Capacity Analysis Results Summary

For the decharacterized ICR and TC

wastes managed in CWA, CWAequivalent, and Class I injection well

systems, EPA estimates that between 3.5

and 15 billion tons will be affected as

a result of today’s proposal. EPA

believes that some affected facilities

need time to build treatment capacity

for these wastes, as wastewater volumes
11734 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

20The term ‘‘land-disposed wastes’’ denotes

wastes that are managed in land-based units at any

time during the waste’s storage, treatment, or

disposal.

generally make off-site treatment

impractical. EPA has determined that

sufficient alternative treatment capacity

is not available, and today is proposing

to grant a two-year national capacity

variance for decharacterized

wastewaters.

EPA estimates that approximately

90,000 tons of newly listed wastes

included in today’s proposal will

require alternative treatment. In

particular, approximately 4,500 tons of

carbamate wastes (K156–K161, P127,

P128, P185, P188–P192, P194, P196–

P199, P201–P205, U271, U277–U280,

U364–U367, U372, U373, U375–U379,

U381–U387, U389–U396, U400–U404,

U407, U409–U411) will require

alternative treatment. Less than 100 tons

of organobromine wastes (K140, U408)

are expected to require alternative

treatment capacity. In addition, 85,000

tons of spent aluminum potliners (K088)

will require alternative treatment

capacity. Sufficient commercial capacity

exists to manage all of these wastes, so

EPA is not proposing to grant a national

capacity variance for these wastes.

The quantities of radioactive wastes

mixed with wastes included in today’s

proposal are generated primarily by the

U.S. Department of Energy. EPA

estimates that 820 tons of high-level

waste and 360 tons of mixed low-level

waste that may be affected by this

proposal will be generated annually by

DOE. In addition, there are currently

7,000 tons of high-level waste, 10 tons

of mixed transuranic waste, and 2,700

tons of mixed low-level waste in storage

that may be affected by this proposal.

DOE currently faces treatment capacity

shortfalls for high-level wastes and

mixed transuranic wastes. Although

DOE does have some available treatment

capacity for mixed low-level wastes,

most of this capacity is limited to

treatment of wastewaters with less than

one percent total suspended solids and

is not readily adaptable for other waste

forms. DOE has indicated that it will

generally give treatment priority to

mixed wastes that are already restricted

under previous LDR rules. Therefore,

EPA is proposing to grant a two-year

national capacity variance to radioactive

wastes mixed with the hazardous wastes

affected by today’s proposal.

Table 1 lists each RCRA hazardous

waste code for which EPA is today

proposing LDR standards. For each

code, this table indicates whether EPA

is proposing to grant a national capacity

variance for land-disposed wastes.20

Also, EPA is proposing to grant a three

month national capacity variance for all

wastes in this proposed rule to handle

logistical problems associated with

complying with the new standards. EPA

is soliciting comment on these variance

determinations.

TABLE 1.—VARIANCES FOR NEWLY LISTED AND IDENTIFIED WASTES

[‘‘Yes’’ Indicates EPA is Proposing to Grant a Variance]

Waste description Surface-disposed

wastes

Deep well-injected

wastes

Ignitable Wastes 1(D001) .............................................................................................................................. YES ..................... YES.

Corrosive Wastes 1 (D002) ........................................................................................................................... YES ..................... YES.

Reactive Wastes 1 (D003) ............................................................................................................................ YES ..................... YES.

Newly Identified Pesticide Wastes 2 (D012-D017) ....................................................................................... YES ..................... YES.

Newly Identified TC Organic Wastewaters (D018-D043) ............................................................................ YES ..................... YES.

Spent Aluminum Potliners (K088) ................................................................................................................ NO ....................... NO.

Carbamate Production Wastes (K156-K161, P127, P128, P185, P188-P192, P194, P196-P199, P201-

P205, U271, U277-U280, U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-U379, U381-U387, U389-U396, U400-

U404, U407, U409-U411).

NO ....................... NO.

Organobromine Wastes (K140, U408) ......................................................................................................... NO ....................... NO.

Mixed Radioactive Wastes 3 ......................................................................................................................... YES ..................... YES.

1The variance determinations listed here apply only to decharacterized wastewaters managed in CWA, CWA-equivalent, and SDWA systems.

2The variance determinations listed here apply only to newly identified decharacterized D012-D017 wastewaters managed in CWA, CWAequivalent, and SDWA systems. 3The variance determinations given listed apply only to radioactive wastes mixed with decharacterized D001-D003 or newly identified D012-

D017 wastes managed in CWA, CWA-equivalent, and SDWA systems; to radioactive wastes mixed with newly identified TC organic

wastewaters; and to radioactive wastes mixed with spent aluminum potliners, carbamate production wastes, or organobromine production

wastes.

EPA is also proposing in this notice

to prohibit placement of hazardous

waste as fill material. To the extent this

can be viewed as a new prohibition

(which, given EPA’s consistent

interpretation that this activity should

be occurring in regulated units, is

unclear), EPA would not propose any

type of capacity variance. Hazardous

waste treatment residues satisfying LDR

standards can be land disposed in

subtitle C units, and there is no shortage

of such disposal capacity. In addition,

there may be opportunities for recycling

hazardous waste treatment residues

presently placed as fill (such as use in

asphalt, cement, or as light weight

aggregate) which would provide

adequate capacity.

C. Requests for Comment

EPA is soliciting general comment

and data on sources, quantities, and

management practices of characteristic

wastes, as well as presence and

quantities of underlying hazardous

constituents, from facilities managing

their wastes using Subtitle D surface

impoundments (CWA), or subsequent

land disposal of treated wastewaters

(CWA-equivalent), or Class I

nonhazardous injection wells, or tanks.

EPA requests specific information from

facilities managing de minimis ICRT

wastes, including information on waste

sources, quantities, and management

practices, as well as underlying

hazardous constituents.

EPA requests specific information on

volumes of carbamate and

organobromine wastes that are recycled,

mixed with, or co-managed with other

wastes, and the volumes and types of

residuals that are generated by the

various management practices

applicable to these wastes. EPA is also

soliciting information, including

quantities, management practices, and

waste characteristics, for soil and debris

contaminated with carbamate and/or

organobromine wastes. EPA also seeks

comments from the aluminum industry

on volumes of K088 generated and

future management of this waste.

EPA is soliciting specific data on

reactive wastes which are deactivated
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11735

using processes that may cause

explosions, including quantities,

management practices, and waste

characteristics, and is requesting data

for mixed TC/radioactive wastes which

are deepwell injected.

X. State Authority

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized

States

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA

may authorize qualified States to

administer and enforce the RCRA

program within the State. Following

authorization, EPA retains enforcement

authority under sections 3008, 3013,

and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized

States have primary enforcement

responsibility. The standards and

requirements for authorization are

found in 40 CFR Part 271.

Prior to HSWA, a State with final

authorization administered its

hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA

administering the Federal program in

that State. The Federal requirements no

longer applied in the authorized State,

and EPA could not issue permits for any

facilities that the State was authorized

to permit. When new, more stringent

Federal requirements were promulgated

or enacted, the State was obliged to

enact equivalent authority within

specified time frames. New Federal

requirements did not take effect in an

authorized State until the State adopted

the requirements as State law.

In contrast, under RCRA section

3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new

requirements and prohibitions imposed

by HSWA take effect in authorized

States at the same time that they take

effect in nonauthorized States. EPA is

directed to carry out these requirements

and prohibitions in authorized States,

including the issuance of permits, until

the State is granted authorization to do

so. While States must still adopt HSWArelated provisions as State law to retain

final authorization, HSWA applies in

authorized States in the interim.

Today’s rule is being proposed

pursuant to sections 3004 (d) through

(k), and (m), of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6924(d)

through (k), and (m)). It is proposed to

be added to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j),

which identifies the Federal program

requirements that are promulgated

pursuant to HSWA and that take effect

in all States, regardless of their

authorization status. States may apply

for final authorization for the HSWA

provisions in Table 1, as discussed in

the following section of this preamble.

Table 2 in 40 CFR 271.1(j) is also

modified to indicate that this rule is a

self-implementing provision of HSWA.

EPA’s proposal to prohibit hazardous

waste as fill material is also a HSWA

regulation. It implements RCRA sections

3004 (d), (e), (g)(5), and (m), which

provisions require EPA to prohibit all

land disposal of hazardous waste that is

not capable of being done in a manner

that is protective and that minimizes

short-term and long-term threats to

human health and the environment

from hazardous waste disposal. See also

59 FR 43499 (August 24, 1994), which

is a HSWA rule prohibiting K061 as

anti-skid/de-icing material and

implements these same LDR provisions.

Consequently, this provision, if enacted,

would be effective immediately in

authorized states.

B. Effect on State Authorization

As noted above, EPA is today

proposing a rule that, when final, will

be implemented in authorized States

until their programs are modified to

adopt these rules and the modification

is approved by EPA. Because the rule is

proposed pursuant to HSWA, a State

submitting a program modification may

apply to receive interim or final

authorization under RCRA section

3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on

the basis of requirements that are

substantially equivalent or equivalent to

EPA’s. The procedures and schedule for

State program modifications for final

authorization are described in 40 CFR

271.21.

Section 271.21(e)(2) requires that

States with final authorization must

modify their programs to reflect Federal

program changes and to subsequently

submit the modification to EPA for

approval. The deadline by which the

State would have to modify its program

to adopt these regulations is specified in

section 271.21(e). This deadline can be

extended in certain cases (see section

271.21(e)(3)). Once EPA approves the

modification, the State requirements

become Subtitle C RCRA requirements.

States with authorized RCRA

programs may already have

requirements similar to those in today’s

proposed rule. These State regulations

have not been assessed against the

Federal regulations being proposed

today to determine whether they meet

the tests for authorization. Thus, a State

is not authorized to implement these

requirements in lieu of EPA until the

State program modifications are

approved. Of course, states with existing

standards could continue to administer

and enforce their standards as a matter

of State law. In implementing the

Federal program, EPA will work with

States under agreements to minimize

duplication of efforts. In many cases,

EPA will be able to defer to the States

in their efforts to implement their

programs rather than take separate

actions under Federal authority.

States that submit official applications

for final authorization less than 12

months after the effective date of these

regulations are not required to include

standards equivalent to these

regulations in their application.

However, the State must modify its

program by the deadline set forth in

§ 271.21(e). States that submit official

applications for final authorization 12

months after the effective date of these

regulations must include standards

equivalent to these regulations in their

application. The requirements a state

must meet when submitting its final

authorization application are set forth in

40 CFR 271.3.

The regulations being proposed today

need not affect the State’s UIC primacy

status. A State currently authorized to

administer the UIC program under the

SDWA could continue to do so without

seeking authority to administer the

amendments that will be promulgated at

a future date. However, a State which

wished to implement Part 148 and

receive authorization to grant

exemptions from the LDRs would have

to demonstrate that it had the requisite

authority to administer sections 3004(f)

and (g) of RCRA. The conditions under

which such an authorization may take

place are discussed in a July 15, 1985

final rule (50 FR 28728).

XI. Regulatory Requirements

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant

to Executive Order 12866

Executive Order No. 12866 requires

agencies to determine whether a

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ The

Order defines a ‘‘significant’’ regulatory

action as one that ‘‘is likely to result in

a rule that may: (1) Have an annual

effect on the economy of $100 million

or more or adversely affect, in a material

way, the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create

serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients; or (4) raise novel legal or

policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive

Order.’’

The Agency estimated the costs of

today’s proposed rule to determine if it

is a significant regulation as defined by
11736 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

the Executive Order. The analysis

considers compliance cost and

economic impacts for both characteristic

wastes and newly listed wastes affected

by this rule. For characteristic wastes,

the potential cost impacts of this rule

depend on whether facilities’ current

wastewater treatment systems will meet

the UTS levels or if additional treatment

will be required. If current treatments

are adequate, facilities will only incur

administrative costs to have their

permits revised. A rough estimate

would be that there would be one-time

incremental costs of $0.9 to $2.9 million

for all incrementally impacted facilities.

However, at the high end, if current

wastewater treatment systems need to

be augmented with additional treatment

steps, the incremental compliance costs

for today’s rule could be as high as $1

million per affected facility. If 20% of

the firms comply by installing

additional treatment, treatment costs are

estimated to be $6.5–$18.1 million/year.

The Agency does not have adequate

data to estimate how many, if any,

facilities may require modification to

their treatment facilities. The Agency

requests comment and data on how

often additional treatment may be

required and what type of treatment

may be needed.

For newly listed wastes, the costs are

substantially higher and will be

incurred each year. These costs range

from approximately $11.9 million to

$47.3 million and are attributable

primarily to thermal treatment of spent

aluminum potliner wastes (K088).

Therefore, today’s proposed rule may be

considered an economically significant

rule. Because today’s proposed rule is

significant, the Agency analyzed the

costs, economic impacts, and benefits.

This section of the preamble for

today’s proposed rule provides a

discussion of the methodology used for

estimating the costs, economic impacts

and the benefits attributable to today’s

proposed rule, followed by a

presentation of the cost, economic

impact and benefit results. More

detailed discussions of the methodology

and results may be found in the

background document, ‘‘Regulatory

Impact Analysis of the Proposed Rule

for the LDR Phase III Newly Listed and

Identified Wastes,’’ which has been

placed in the docket for today’s

proposed rule.

1. Methodology Section

In today’s proposed rule, the Agency

is establishing treatment standards for

the following wastes: end-of-pipe

standards for ICR wastewaters managed

in CWA and CWA-equivalent systems,

and Class I nonhazardous UIC wells, TC

pesticide (D012-17) and organic (D018-

43) wastewaters managed in CWA and

CWA-equivalent systems, and Class I

nonhazardous UIC wells (all UIC

managed volumes are covered under a

different section of the preamble for

today’s rule), and newly listed wastes

from three industries - organobromines,

spent aluminum potliners, and

carbamates.

a. Methodology for Estimating the

Affected Universe. In determining the

costs, economic impacts, and benefits

associated with today’s rule, the Agency

estimated the volumes of waste affected

by today’s rule. The procedure for

estimating the volumes of ICR waste and

TC organic and pesticide waste, and

newly listed wastes affected by today’s

rule is summarized below.

First, the Agency examined all

industries which might be likely to

produce wastes covered under today’s

standards. Through reviewing

comments to the Supplemental Notice

of Data Availability published by the

Agency in 1993, reviewing runs from

the Biennial Reporting System (BRS) of

volumes generated from particular

industry sectors, as well as discussions

with industry, and discussions with the

Office of Water at EPA HQ, the Agency

narrowed it down to 16 industries

which would potentially have

significant volumes of wastewater

affected by today’s rule.

Using a host of databases and/or

sources, the Agency collected data on

the quantities, constituents, and

concentrations of the volumes affected

from each of the 16 industries. In

addition, the Agency gathered any data

on current management practices, plant

design, etc. The following sources were

used: Section 308 data from the Office

of Water, Industrial Studies Database

(ISDB), 1991 Biennial Reporting System

(BRS), primary summary and

development documents from effluent

guidelines, Toxicity Characteristic

Regulatory Impact Analysis documents,

data gathered in the capacity analysis

performed for today’s rule, as well as

comments from potentially affected

industries.

The Agency obtained volume

information for the newly listed

wastes—organobromines (K140), spent

aluminum potliners (K088), and

carbamate wastes (K156–161)—from the

listing documents prepared for these

wastes during the listing procedure.

b. Cost Methodology. The cost

analysis estimates the national level

incremental costs which will be

incurred as a result of today’s rule. The

cost estimates for both the baseline and

post-regulatory scenarios are calculated

employing: (i) The facility wastestream

volume, (ii) the management practice

(baseline or post-regulatory) assigned to

that wastestream, and (iii) the unit cost

associated with that practice. Summing

the costs for all facilities produces the

total costs for the given waste and

scenario. Subtracting the baseline cost

from the post-regulatory cost produces

the national incremental cost associated

with today’s rule for the given waste.

The cost methodology section

includes three subsections: (i) ICR and

TC Pesticide and Organic Wastes

Managed in CWA and CWA-Equivalent

Systems, (ii) Newly Listed Wastes, (iii)

Testing and Recordkeeping Costs. (The

costs for wastes managed in Class I

nonhazardous waste deep wells are

discussed in section B.)

(i) ICR and TC Pesticide and Organic

Wastes Managed in CWA and CWAEquivalent Systems. The Agency

employed the following approach to

estimate the incremental costs for the

ICR and TC wastes. First, using

information available on the affected

industries, the Agency created averagesized model facilities for each industry.

Second, for a given model facility in an

affected industry, the Agency used

available unit cost data to develop costs

for the baseline management practices

(usually treatment in surface

impoundments followed by discharge

into receiving waters through a NPDES

permit). Third, the Agency used data on

the constituents and waste quantities for

each industry, where applicable, to

determine the necessary treatment

required to reduce to UTS levels the

constituents present. Fourth, the Agency

used unit costs to develop costs for the

post-regulatory management practices

for the treatment requirements

determined in the third step. Fifth,

subtracting the baseline from the postregulatory costs for an average facility in

an industry sector and using the data

available on the number of facilities

affected within each industry, the

Agency was able calculate the

incremental cost for a given industry.

Sixth, summing costs across affected

industries, the Agency determined the

incremental cost for the rule for the endof-pipe treatment standards.

(ii) Newly Listed Wastes. The costs for

treatment of organobromines (K140),

spent aluminum potliners (K088), and

carbamate wastes (K156–161) will be

determined using data from the listings

on baseline management practices,

judgment on the technology(s) required

to meet the UTS standards for these

wastes, and available unit cost data.

(iii) Testing and Recordkeeping Costs.

Testing and recordkeeping costs,

including costs that facilities will incur

for ensuring that hazardous constituents
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11737

in characteristic waste are meeting new

treatment standards and costs associated

with permit modifications will be based

upon an average, one-time testing cost

and an Information Collection Request,

respectively.

c. Economic Impact Methodology.

The economic effects of today’s

proposed rule are defined as the

difference between the industrial

activity under post-regulatory

conditions and the industrial activity in

the absence of regulation (i.e., baseline

conditions).

The Agency used (1) historic average

capital expenditures for each industry,

(2) historic average operating

expenditures for each industry, (3)

historic revenues, and (4) historic

average pollution abatement and control

expenditures (PACE) to determine the

economic impacts. However, the

Agency was unable to examine the

impacts on a facility-specific basis due

to lack of data. Therefore, the impacts

are assessed on an industry-specific

basis.

d. Benefits Methodology. The

approach for estimating benefits

associated with today’s rule involves

three components: (i) estimation of

pollutant loadings reductions, (ii)

estimation of reductions in exceedances

of health-based levels, and, (iii)

qualitative description of the potential

benefits. The benefits assessment is

based upon the waste quantity and

concentration data collected for the cost

analysis. This incremental assessment

focuses upon reductions in toxic

concentrations at the point of discharge

and does not consider any potential

benefits resulting from reductions in air

emissions or impacts on impoundment

leaks and sludges which may occur as

part of treating wastes to comply with

the LDRs.

EPA has not conducted an assessment

of the benefits related to the effects of

the proposed rule on newly listed

wastes. These benefits depend on the

incremental risk reductions that may

result from treatment of the wastes prior

to disposal at a subtitle C facility. EPA

data indicate that between 100,000 and

118,000 tons of spent aluminum

potliners are generated annually.

Improper management of these wastes

has caused many serious past damage

incidents. (See listing Background

Document for K088). However, data are

limited with regard to current

management practices and risk levels

for these wastes. Therefore, EPA is not

yet able to evaluate the benefits

resulting under the proposed rule for

these wastes. Because the quantity of

waste is very small, benefits for newly

listed organobromine and carbamate

wastes are expected to be minimal.

(i) Estimation of Pollutant Loadings

Reductions. An incremental approach

was used to estimate reductions in

pollutant loadings. For the baseline

scenario, contaminant concentrations

were based upon data or estimates of

current effluent discharge concentration

levels. For the post-regulatory scenario,

concentration levels were assumed to

equal UTS levels.

(ii) Estimation of Reductions in

Exceedances of Health-Based Levels.

The methods used for evaluating the

benefits associated with cancer and

noncancer risk reductions resulting

from the proposed rule entail comparing

constituent concentration levels to

health-based standards to evaluate

whether implementation of the

proposed rule reduces concentration

levels below levels that pose risk to

human health.

To estimate benefits from cancer risk

reductions resulting from the proposed

rule, a simple screening analysis was

performed. This analysis compared

contaminant concentrations for the

baseline and post-regulatory scenario to

health-based levels for carcinogens.

Further analysis may be undertaken to

quantify benefits associated with

facility/ wastestream combinations

identified in the contaminant

concentration comparisons.

Benefits associated with reductions in

non-cancer exceedances are estimated

based upon comparisons of contaminant

concentration levels in effluent

discharges of the affected wastestreams

to the reference health levels. These

benefits are expressed in terms of the

number of exceedances of health-based

levels under the baseline scenario

compared to the number of exceedances

under the proposed rule.

(iii) Qualitative Description of the

Potential Benefits. A qualitative

assessment of potential benefits likely to

result from the proposed rule is used

where data are limited. The Agency

acknowledges limited data availability

in developing waste volumes affected,

constituents, concentrations, cost

estimates, economic impacts, and

benefits estimates for the proposed LDR

Phase III rulemaking. The Agency

respectfully requests comment from

industry regarding constituents,

concentrations, waste volumes, and

current management practices.

2. Results

a. Volume Results. The Agency has

estimated the volumes of formerly

characteristic wastes potentially affected

by today’s rule to total in the range of

33.5 to 500 million tons. The Agency

requests comment on waste volumes

affected by the proposed LDR Phase III

rule. For newly listed wastes, the

analyses supporting the listing

determination showed about 4,500 tons

of carbamate wastes, less than 100 tons

of organobromine wastes, and 100,000

to 118,000 tons of spent aluminum

potliners are potentially affected by this

rule.

b. Cost Results. For characteristic

wastes, the potential cost impacts of this

rule depend on whether facilities’

current wastewater treatment systems

will meet the UTS levels or if additional

treatment will be required. If current

treatments are adequate, facilities will

only incur administrative costs to have

their permits revised. A rough estimate

would be that there would be one-time

incremental costs of $0.9 to $2.9 million

for all incrementally impacted facilities.

However, at the high end, if current

wastewater treatment systems need to

be augmented with additional treatment

steps, the incremental compliance costs

could be as high as $1 million per

affected facility. The Agency does not

have adequate data to estimate how

many, if any, facilities may require

modification to their treatment facilities.

The Agency requests comment and data

on how often additional treatment may

be required.

For newly listed wastes, the costs are

substantially higher and will be

incurred each year. These costs range

from approximately $11.9 million to

$47.3 million and are attributable

primarily to thermal treatment of spent

aluminum potliner wastes (K088). The

Agency requests comment on these

estimates.

c. Economic Impact Results. The

Agency has estimated the economic

impacts of today’s rule to represent less

than one percent of historic pollution

control and operating costs for the

organic chemical and petroleum

refining industries. However, for those

facilities that may need to treat to UTS

to comply with today’s rule, costs could

be more significant. The estimated

compliance costs for treating newly

listed spent aluminum potliners

represents 40 percent of pollution

control operating costs for aluminum

reducers; however, treatment costs

represent only one percent of total

historic operating costs. The Agency

requests comment on anticipated

economic impacts resulting from the

proposed LDR Phase III rule.

d. Benefit Estimate Results. The

Agency has estimated the benefits

associated with today’s rule to be small.

Assuming facilities comply with the

proposed rule by treating their affected

wastestreams, loadings reductions
11738 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

estimates range between 36 and 407

tons per year for direct dischargers, and

between 1,490 and 24,391 tons per year

for indirect dischargers. For direct

dischargers, loadings reductions

represent between .03 to .30 percent of

total Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)

chemical loadings to surface waters. For

indirect dischargers, loadings

reductions represent between .8 and

12.8 percent of all TRI loadings

transferred to POTWs. Based upon the

results of this screening, and more

detailed risk assessments, the estimated

baseline risks associated with only four

wastestreams exceed commonly

assumed threshold cancer and

noncancer risk levels. EPA estimated

that three wastestreams containing

aniline pose baseline cancer risks

ranging from 1 x 10-5 to 1 x 10-4 which

potentially would be reduced to

between 8 x 10-8 and 3 x 10-6 under the

Phase III rule. A fourth wastestream

containing acrylamide poses baseline

cancer risk at a level of 2 x 10-3. The

proposed rule is estimated to reduce

this risk to between 2 x 10-4 and

4 x 10-3. All four of these wastestreams

are currently discharged to POTWs; if

POTW treatment removes these

constituents from the wastewater prior

to discharge to surface water and/or if

no drinking water intake is located

downstream from the POTW’s outfall,

baseline risks will be lower than those

estimated above. The Agency requests

comment and any available information

related to these wastestreams.

B. Regulatory Impact Analysis for

Underground Injected Wastes

The Agency has completed a separate

regulatory impact analysis for

underground injected wastes affected by

the LDR Phase III proposed rule. This

analysis describes and evaluates the

regulatory impacts only to the Class I

injection well universe. The new

proposed Phase III LDRs cover

decharaterized ICR and TC organic

wastes, and other newly-identified

hazardous wastes that are distinctly

industrial wastes injected by owners

and operators of only Class I hazardous

and non-hazardous injection wells.

According to the available data

outlined in the RIA, indications are that

of the 223 Class I injection facilities in

the nation, up to 154 could be affected

by the new Phase III LDRs. Of these

facilities, 101 inject nonhazardous waste

and 53 inject hazardous waste.

Combined, these facilities may inject up

to 14 billion gallons of waste annually

into Class I wells. These Class I

injection facilities will now be required

to either treat wastes, or file no

migration petitions as outlined in 40

CFR 148 (See 53 FR 28118 (July 26,

1988)) preamble for a more thorough

discussion of the no migration petition

review process). Additional options for

compliance with the proposed Phase III

LDRs, including a de minimis

exemption and a pollution prevention

option are discussed in more detail in

the RIA.

Of these newly affected Class I

facilities, 38 already have no migration

exemptions approved by EPA, but may

face additional requirements requiring

some modifications of their petitions

due to the proposed LDR Phase III rule.

For the facilities which do not have

approved no migration exemptions,

today’s proposed rule will add

compliance costs to those currently

incurred as a result of previous

rulemakings. The Agency analyzed costs

and benefits for today’s rule by using

the same approach and methodology

developed in the Regulatory Impact

Analysis of the Underground Injection

Control Program: Proposed Hazardous

Waste Disposal Injection Restrictions

used for the final rule (53 FR 28118) and

subsequent rulemaking. An analysis was

performed to assess the economic effect

of associated compliance costs for the

additional volumes of injected wastes

attributable to this proposed rule.

In general, Class I injection facilities

affected by the LDR Phase III rule will

have several options. As previously

mentioned, some facilities will modify

existing no migration petitions already

approved by the Agency, other facilities

may submit entirely new petitions, and

still others may accept the prohibitions

and either continue to inject wastes after

treatment or cease injection operations

altogether, EPA assessed compliance

costs for Class I facilities submitting nomigration petitions, employing

alternative treatment, and/or

implementing pollution prevention

measures. Although facilities using

pollution prevention/waste

minimization to comply with the Phase

III LDRs will likely lower overall

regulatory compliance costs, these

situations are site-specific and,

therefore, EPA cannot estimate these

cost savings.

For Class I facilities opting to use

alternative treatment, the Agency

derived costs for both treating wastes

on-site, and/or shipping wastes and

treating them off-site at a commercial

facility. However, the Agency believes

that transportation of large volumes of

liquid wastes off-site is not practical.

This makes the off-site treatment

scenario, at best, a highly conservative

analysis. EPA expects most facilities

that treat their wastes will do so on-site.

Preliminary EPA estimates show that

the total annual compliance cost for

petitions and alternative on-site

treatment to industry affected by the

new LDR Phase III prohibitions will

range between $9.2 million to $13.2

million. The noncommercial facilities

choosing to segregate their wastes may

incur additional costs totaling $2.98

million. The average annual compliance

costs per affected facility employing onsite alternative treatment ranges from

$59,740 to $85,714. The overall annual

regulatory compliance cost to industry

for petitions and alternatively treating

wastes off-site will range between

$486.5 million to $805.3 million. The

range of costs for alternative treatment

is the result of applying a sensitivity

analysis. Only the incremental

treatment costs for the new waste

listings are calculated in this RIA. All of

these costs will be incurred by Class I

injection well owners and operators.

The estimated economic impacts of the

proposed rule were based on the

random assignment of injection

facilities to petition and treatment

outcomes using a decision tree analysis

method described in the RIA. The

Agency requests comment as to how

frequently facilities with Class I

nonhazardous injection wells will be

able to receive a no-migration variance.

The Agency also requests comment on

how frequently owners will choose to

treat their waste and whether that

treatment will occur on-site.

The benefits to human health and the

environment in the RIA are generally

defined as reduced human health risk

resulting from fewer instances of ground

water contamination. In general,

potential health risks from Class I

injection wells are extremely low. EPA

conducted a preliminary quantitative

assessment of the potential human

health risks associated with two worstcase scenarios involving well

malfunction. EPA applied the approach

taken in an earlier study to measure

health risks of two LDR Phase III

contaminants: benzene and carbon

tetrachloride. The results of this

preliminary analysis show that all of the

cancer and noncancer risks calculated

are below regulatory concern, with the

exception of the cancer risk and hazard

index calculated for carbon

tetrachloride, assuming an abandoned

borehole is near the injection well,

drinking water pumping is occurring,

and the local geology is typical of the

East Gulf Coast Region. The

assumptions used in deriving these

results were based on conservative,

upper-bound estimates. The Agency

intends to expand this analysis in the

final rule to include other constituents
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11739

and facilities. The Agency is interested

in comments on this methodology and

any data on actual injection volumes

and constituents.

The economic analysis of LDR Phase

III compliance costs suggests that

publicly traded companies affected by

the rule will probably not be

significantly economically impacted.

The limited data available for the

privately held companies suggests,

however, that they may face significant

impacts due to the proportionally larger

expenses they may face as a result of the

proposed rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., when

an agency publishes a notice of

rulemaking, for a rule that will have a

significant effect on a substantial

number of small entities, the agency

must prepare and make available for

public comment a regulatory flexibility

analysis that considers the effect of the

rule on small entities (i.e.: small

businesses, small organizations, and

small governmental jurisdictions).

Under the Agency’s Revised Guidelines

for Implementing The Regulatory

Flexibility Act (May 4, 1992), the

Agency committed to considering

regulatory alternatives in rulemakings

when there were any economic impacts

estimated on any small entities. See

RCRA sections 3004(d), (e), and (g)(5),

which apply uniformly to all hazardous

wastes. Previous guidance required

regulatory alternatives to be examined

only when significant economic effects

were estimated on a substantial number

of small entities.

In assessing the regulatory approach

for dealing with small entities in today’s

proposed rule, for both surface disposal

of wastes and underground injection

control, the Agency considered two

factors. First, data on potentially

affected small entities are unavailable.

Second, due to the statutory

requirements of the RCRA LDR program,

no legal avenues exist for the Agency to

provide relief from the LDR’s for small

entities. The only relief available for

small entities is the existing small

quantity generator provisions and

conditionally exempt small quantity

generator exemptions found in 40 CFR

262.11-12, and 261.5, respectively.

These exemptions basically prescribe

100 kg per calendar month generation of

hazardous waste as the limit below

which one is exempted from complying

with the RCRA standards.

Given these two factors, the Agency

was unable to frame a series of small

entity options from which to select the

lowest cost approach; rather, the Agency

was legally bound to regulate the land

disposal of the hazardous wastes

covered in today’s rule without regard

to the size of the entity being regulated.

See also § 268.1(c)(1), which states that

LDR rules do not apply to small

quantity generators.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The new information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to the

Office of Management and Budget under

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. Four Information Collection

Request (ICR) documents has been

prepared by EPA, covering the three

programs impacted (i.e., the LDR

program, the UIC program, and the

CWA NPDES program: LDR ICR#

1442.08; UIC ICR# 1738.01; NPDES

Application ICR# 0226.11; and NPDES

Discharge Monitoring Report ICR#

0229.10). The overall reporting and

recordkeeping burden is estimated to be

approximately 632,500 hours (sum from

the four ICRs). The average burden per

respondent is slightly more than 4,000

hours (sum from the four ICRs.). Only

incremental burdens are discussed in

the ICRs. These incremental burdens

will eventually be merged with: the UIC

program ICR, the LDR program ICR, the

NPDES permit program ICR, and the

Discharge Monitoring Report program

ICR.

The public reporting burden for these

collections is estimated to average: for

the LDR program, 75 hours per

respondent; for the UIC program, 3800

hours per respondent; for the NPDES

application program, 37.5 hours per

respondent; and for the NPDES

discharge monitoring report, 211.5

hours per respondent. This includes

time for reviewing instructions,

gathering and compiling data,

maintaining the data, and preparing and

submitting all data.

A copy of the ICRs for this rule may

be obtained from the Sandy Farmer,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Information Policy Branch, 401 M

Street, S.W. (Mail Code 2136),

Washington D.C. 20460 or by calling

(202) 260-2740. The public should send

comments regarding the burden

estimate, or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing burden to EPA;

and to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

D.C. 20460, marked ‘‘Attention: Desk

Officer for EPA.’’

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 148

Administrative practice and

procedure, Hazardous waste, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Water

supply.

40 CFR Part 266

Hazardous waste, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 268

Hazardous waste, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 271

Administrative practice and

procedure, Hazardous materials

transportation, Hazardous waste,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: February 16, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 148—HAZARDOUS WASTE

INJECTION RESTRICTIONS

1. The authority citation for part 148

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 3004, Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.

6901, et seq.

2. Section 148.1 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) to

read as follows:

§ 148.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.

* * * * *

(a) This part identifies wastes that are

restricted from disposal into Class I

wells and defines those circumstances

under which a waste, otherwise

prohibited from injection, may be

injected.

(b) The requirements of this part

apply to owners or operators of Class I

hazardous waste injection wells used to

inject hazardous waste; and, owners or

operators of Class I injection wells used

to inject wastes which once exhibited a

prohibited characteristic of hazardous

waste identified in subpart C of part 261

of this chapter, at the point of

generation, and no longer exhibit the

characteristic at the point of injection.

* * * * *

(d) Wastes that are only

characteristically hazardous and

otherwise prohibited are not prohibited

if the wastes are disposed into a

nonhazardous injection well defined

under 40 CFR 144.6(a) and do not
11740 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

exhibit any prohibited characteristic of

hazardous waste identified in subpart C

of part 261 of this chapter, and do not

contain any hazardous constituents

identified in 40 CFR 268.48 diluted

below the Universal Treatment Standard

levels prior to injection.

3. Section 148.3 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 148.3 Dilution prohibited as a substitute

for treatment.

(a) The provisions of § 268.3 of this

chapter shall apply to owners or

operators of Class I wells used to inject

a waste which is hazardous at the point

of generation whether or not the waste

is hazardous at the point of injection.

(b) Owners or operators of Class I

nonhazardous waste injection wells

which inject waste formerly exhibiting a

hazardous characteristic which has been

removed by dilution, may address

underlying hazardous constituents by

treating the hazardous waste, obtaining

an exemption pursuant to a petition

filed under § 148.20, or complying with

the provisions set forth in § 268.9 of this

chapter.

4. Section 148.4 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 148.4 Procedures for case-by-case

extensions to an effective date.

The owner or operator of a Class I

hazardous or nonhazardous waste

injection well may submit an

application to the Administrator for an

extension of the effective date of any

applicable prohibition established

under subpart B of this part according

to the procedures of § 268.5 of this

chapter.

5. Section 148.18 is added to subpart

B to read as follows:

§ 148.18 Waste specific prohibitions—

Newly Identified Wastes.

(a) On [Insert date 90 days from date

of publication of final rule], the wastes

specified in 40 CFR part 261.32 as EPA

Hazardous waste numbers K088, K140,

K156–K161, P127, P128, P185, P188–

P192, P194, P196–P199, P201–P205,

U271, U277–U280, U364–U367, U372,

U373, U375–U379, U381–387, U389–

U396, U400–U404, and U407–U411 are

prohibited from underground injection.

(b) On [Insert date 2 years from

effective date of the final rule], the

wastes specified in 40 CFR part 261 as

EPA Hazardous waste numbers D018–

043, and Mixed TC/Radioactive wastes,

are prohibited from underground

injection.

(c) On [Insert date 2 years from

effective date of the final rule], the

wastes specified in 40 CFR part 261 as

EPA Hazardous waste numbers D001–

D003 are prohibited from underground

injection.

6. Section 148.20 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) introductory text

to read as follows:

§ 148.20 Petitions to allow injection of a

waste prohibited under Subpart B.

(a) Any person seeking an exemption

from a prohibition under subpart B of

this part for the injection of a restricted

hazardous waste, including a hazardous

waste exhibiting a characteristic and

containing underlying hazardous

constituents at the point of generation,

but no longer exhibiting a characteristic

when injected into a Class I injection

well or wells, shall submit a petition to

the Director demonstrating that, to a

reasonable degree of certainty, there will

be no migration of hazardous

constituents from the injection zone for

as long as the waste remains hazardous.

This demonstration requires a showing

that:

* * * * *

PART 266—STANDARDS FOR THE

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC

HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC

TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

7. The authority citation for part 266

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,

and 6934.

8. In Subpart C, § 266.20, paragraph

(b) is amended by adding one sentence

to the end of the paragraph to read as

follows:

§ 266.20 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) * * * This provision does not

apply to hazardous waste used as a fill

material (i.e., a substitute for sand, dirt

or comparable material) to fill in holes,

occupy space, raise land levels, or be

used for other similar purposes.

* * * * *

PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL

RESTRICTIONS

9. The authority citation for part 268

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,

and 6924.

Subpart A—General

10. Section 268.1 is amended by

revising paragraph (e)(4) and by

removing paragraph (e)(5) to read as

follows:

§ 268.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(4) De minimis losses of characteristic

wastes to wastewaters are defined as:

(i) Losses from normal material

handling operations (e.g. spills from the

unloading or transfer of materials from

bins or other containers, leaks from

pipes, valves or other devices used to

transfer materials); minor leaks of

process equipment, storage tanks or

containers; leaks from well-maintained

pump packings and seals; sample

purgings; and relief device discharges;

discharges from safety showers and

rinsing and cleaning of personal safety

equipment; rinsate from empty

containers or from containers that are

rendered empty by that rinsing; and

laboratory wastes not exceeding one per

cent of the flow of wastewater into the

facility’s headworks on an annual basis;

or

(ii) Characteristic wastes which are

injected into Class I nonhazardous wells

whose combined volume is less than

one per cent of the total flow at the

wellhead on an annualized basis, and

which any underlying hazardous

constituents in the characteristic wastes

are present at the point of generation at

levels less than ten times the treatment

standards found at § 268.48.

11. Section 268.2 is amended by

revising the introductory text to

paragraph (f), by removing paragraphs

(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3), and by adding

paragraph (j) to read as follows:

§ 268.2 Definitions applicable in this part.

* * * * *

(f) Wastewaters are wastes that

contain less than 1% by weight total

organic carbon (TOC) and less than 1%

by weight total suspended solids (TSS).

* * * * *

(j) Inorganic metal-bearing waste is

one for which EPA has established

treatment standards for metal hazardous

constituents, and which does not

otherwise contain significant organic or

cyanide content as described in

§ 268.3(b)(1), and is specifically listed in

appendix XI of this part.

12. Section 268.3 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 268.3 Dilution prohibited as a substitute

for treatment.

(a) No generator, transporter, handler,

or owner or operator of a treatment,

storage, or disposal facility shall in any

way dilute a restricted waste or the

residual from treatment of a restricted

waste as a substitute for adequate

treatment to achieve compliance with

subpart D of this part, to circumvent the

effective date of a prohibition in subpart

C of this part, to otherwise avoid a

prohibition in subpart C of this part, or

to circumvent a land disposal
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11741

prohibition imposed by RCRA section

3004.

(b) Combustion of hazardous waste is

prohibited, unless the waste, at the

point of generation, or after any bona

fide treatment such as cyanide

destruction prior to combustion, can be

demonstrated to comply with one or

more of the following criteria (unless

otherwise specifically prohibited from

combustion):

(1) The waste contains hazardous

organic constituents or cyanide at levels

exceeding the constituent-specific

treatment standard found in § 268.48;

(2) The waste consists of organic,

debris-like materials (e.g., wood, paper,

plastic, or cloth) contaminated with an

inorganic metal-bearing hazardous

waste;

(3) The waste, at point of generation,

has reasonable heating value such as

greater than or equal to 5000 BTU per

pound;

(4) The waste is co-generated with

wastes for which combustion is a

required method of treatment;

(5) The waste is subject to Federal

and/or State requirements necessitating

reduction of organics (including

biological agents); or

(6) The waste contains greater than

1% Total Organic Carbon (TOC).

13. Section 268.7 is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(5)(v) to read as

follows:

§ 268.7 Waste analysis and recordkeeping.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) * * *

(v) For characteristic wastes D001,

D002, D003 and D012–D043 that

contain underlying hazardous

constituents as defined in § 268.2(i) that

are treated on-site to remove the

hazardous characteristic and to treat

underlying hazardous constituents to

levels in § 268.48 Universal Treatment

Standards, the certification must state

the following:

I certify under penalty of law that the

waste has been treated in accordance with

the requirements of 40 CFR 268.40 to remove

the hazardous characteristic. This

decharacterized waste contained underlying

hazardous constituents that have been treated

on-site to meet § 268.48 Universal Treatment

Standards. I am aware that there are

significant penalties for submitting a false

certification, including the possibility of fine

and imprisonment.

* * * * *

§ 268.8 [Removed and Reserved]

14. Section 268.8 is removed and

reserved.

15. Section 268.9 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d)(1)(i),

(d)(1)(ii), (d)(2) introductory text; and by

adding paragraphs (d)(3), (e) and (f) to

read as follows:

§ 268.9 Special rules regarding wastes that

exhibit a characteristic.

(a) The initial generator of a solid

waste must determine each EPA

Hazardous Waste Number (waste code)

applicable to the waste in order to

determine the applicable treatment

standards under subpart D of this part.

For purposes of part 268, the waste will

carry the waste code for any applicable

listing under 40 CFR part 261, subpart

D. In addition, the waste will carry one

or more of the waste codes under 40

CFR part 261, subpart C, where the

waste exhibits a characteristic, except in

the case when the treatment standard

for the waste code listed in 40 CFR part

261, subpart D operates in lieu of the

standard for the waste code under 40

CFR part 261, subpart C, as specified in

paragraph (b) of this section. If the

generator determines that his waste

displays a hazardous characteristic (and

the waste is not a D004—D011 waste, a

High TOC D001, or is not treated by

CMBST, or RORGS of § 268.42, Table 1),

the generator must determine what

underlying hazardous constituents (as

defined in § 268.2 of this Part), are

reasonably expected to be present above

the universal treatment standards found

in § 268.48 of this part.

(b) Where a prohibited waste is both

listed under 40 CFR part 261, subpart D

and exhibits a characteristic under 40

CFR part 261, subpart C, the treatment

standard for the waste code listed in 40

CFR part 261, subpart D will operate in

lieu of the standard for the waste code

under 40 CFR part 261, subpart C,

provided that the treatment standard for

the listed waste includes a treatment

standard for the constituent that causes

the waste to exhibit the characteristic

and for any underlying hazardous

constituents reasonably expected to be

present in the waste. Otherwise, the

waste must meet the treatment

standards for all applicable listed and

characteristic waste codes.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) For characteristic wastes other than

those managed on-site in a wastewater

treatment system subject to the Clean

Water Act (CWA), zero-dischargers

engaged in CWA-equivalent treatment,

or Class I nonhazardous injection wells,

the name and address of the Subtitle D

facility receiving the waste shipment;

(ii) For all characteristic wastes, a

description of the waste as initially

generated, including the applicable EPA

Hazardous Waste Number(s), treatability

group(s), and underlying hazardous

constituents;

(2) The certification must be signed by

an authorized representative and must

state the language found in § 268.7(b)(5).

* * * * *

(3) For characteristic wastes whose

ultimate disposal will be into a Class I

nonhazardous injection well, and

compliance with the treatment

standards found in § 268.48 for

underlying hazardous constituents is

achieved through pollution prevention,

the following information must also be

included:

(i) A description of the pollution

prevention mechanism;

(ii) The mass of each underlying

hazardous constituent before pollution

prevention;

(iii) The mass of each underlying

hazardous constituent that must be

removed, normalized for production;

and,

(iv) The mass reduction of each

underlying hazardous constituent that is

achieved.

(e) For decharacterized wastes

managed on-site in a wastewater

treatment system subject to the Clean

Water Act (CWA), zero-dischargers

engaged in CWA-equivalent treatment,

or Class I nonhazardous injection wells,

compliance with the treatment

standards found at § 268.48 must be

monitored quarterly. Monitoring results

must be kept in on-site files for 5 years.

(f) For characteristic wastes whose

ultimate disposal will be into a Class I

nonhazardous injection well which

qualifies for the de minimis exclusion

described in § 268.1, information

supporting that qualification must be

kept in on-site files.

§ 268.10—§ 268.12 [Removed and

Reserved]

16. Sections 268.10 through 268.12

are removed and reserved.

17. In subpart C, § 268.39 is added to

read as follows:

* * * * *

§ 268.39 Waste specific prohibitions—

spent aluminum potliners, carbamates and

organobromine wastes.

(a) On [Insert date 90 days from date

of publication of the final rule], the

wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as

EPA Hazardous Waste numbers K088,

K140, K156–K161; and in 40 CFR

261.33 as EPA Hazardous Waste

numbers P127, P128, P185, P188–P192,

P194, P196–P199, P201–P205, U271,

U277–U280, U364–U367, U372, U373,

U375–U379, U381–U387, U389–U396,

U400–U404, and U407–U411 are

prohibited from land disposal. In

addition, soil and debris contaminated
11742 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

with these wastes are prohibited from

land disposal.

(b) On [Insert date two years from

date of publication of the final rule],

characteristic wastes that are managed

in systems whose discharge is regulated

under the Clean Water Act (CWA), or

that are zero dischargers that engage in

CWA-equivalent treatment before

ultimate land disposal, are prohibited

from land disposal. Radioactive wastes

mixed with K088, K140, K156–K161,

P127, P128, P185, P188–P192, P194,

P196–P199, P201–P205, U271, U277–

U280, U364–U367, U372, U373, U375–

U379, U381–U387, U389–U396, U400–

U404, and U407–U411 are also

prohibited from land disposal. In

addition, soil and debris contaminated

with these radioactive mixed wastes are

prohibited from land disposal.

(c) Between [Insert date 90 days from

date of publication of the final rule] and

[Insert date two years from date of

publication of the final rule], the wastes

included in paragraph (b) of this section

may be disposed in a landfill or surface

impoundment, only if such unit is in

compliance with the requirements

specified in § 268.5(h)(2).

(d) The requirements of paragraphs

(a), (b), and (c) of this section do not

apply if:

(1) The wastes meet the applicable

treatment standards specified in subpart

D of this part;

(2) Persons have been granted an

exemption from a prohibition pursuant

to a petition under § 268.6, with respect

to those wastes and units covered by the

petition;

(3) The wastes meet the applicable

alternate treatment standards

established pursuant to a petition

granted under § 268.44;

(4) Persons have been granted an

extension to the effective date of a

prohibition pursuant to § 268.5, with

respect to these wastes covered by the

extension.

(e) To determine whether a hazardous

waste identified in this section exceeds

the applicable treatment standards

specified in § 268.40, the initial

generator must test a sample of the

waste extract or the entire waste,

depending on whether the treatment

standards are expressed as

concentrations in the waste extract or

the waste, or the generator may use

knowledge of the waste. If the waste

contains constituents in excess of the

applicable subpart D levels, the waste is

prohibited from land disposal, and all

requirements of part 268 are applicable,

except as otherwise specified.

18. The table in § 268.40 is amended

as follows:

a. By revising the entries for D001

through F012, F037 through F039, K006,

K018, K019, K028, K030, K035, K048

through K052, K061, K083, K086, K101,

K102, P003, P013, P056, U038, U042,

U093, U134, and U168.

b. By adding in alpha-numerical order

entries for K088, K140, K156 through

K161, P127, P128, P185, P188 through

P192, P194, P196 through P199, P201

through P205, U271, U277 through

U280, U364 through U367, U372, U373,

U375 through U379, U381 through

U387, U389 through U396, U400

through U404, and U407 through U411.

§ 268.40 Applicability of treatment

standards.

* * * * *

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

D001 ............ Ignitable Characteristic Wastes, except for the § 261.21(a)(1) High

TOC Subcategory.

NA ....................................... NA DEACT and meet

§ 268.48 standards; or

RORGS; or

CMBST.

DEACT and meet

§ 268.48 standards; or

RORGS; or

CMBST.

High TOC Ignitable Characteristic Liquids Subcategory based on 40

CFR 261.21(a)(1)—Greater than or

equal to 10% total organic carbon.

(Note: This subcategory consists of

nonwastewaters only.).

NA ....................................... NA NA ........................ RORGS; or

CMBST.

D002 ............ Corrosive Characteristic Wastes ........ NA ....................................... NA DEACT and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

DEACT and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D002, D004,

D005,

D006,

D007,

D008,

D009,

D010,

D011.

Radioactive high level wastes generated during the reprocessing of

fuel rods. (Note: This subcategory

consists of nonwastewaters only.).

Corrosivity (pH) ...................

Arsenic ................................

Barium .................................

Cadmium .............................

Chromium (Total) ................

NA

7440–38–2

7440–39–3

7440–43–9

7440–47–3

NA ........................

NA ........................

NA ........................

NA ........................

NA ........................

HLVIT.

HLVIT.

HLVIT.

HLVIT.

HLVIT.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 NA ........................ HLVIT.

Mercury ............................... 7439–97–6 NA ........................ HLVIT.

Selenium ............................. 7782–49–2 NA ........................ HLVIT.

Silver ................................... 7440–22–4 NA ........................ HLVIT.

D003 ............ Reactive Sulfides Subcategory based

on § 261.23(a)(5).

NA ....................................... NA DEACT and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

DEACT and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

Explosives Subcategory based on

§ 261.23(a)(6), (7), and (8).

NA ....................................... NA DEACT and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

DEACT and meet

§ 268.48 standards.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11743

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

Other Reactives Subcategory based

on § 261.23(a)(1).

NA ....................................... NA DEACT and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

DEACT and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

Water Reactive Subcategory based

on § 261.23(a)(2), (3), and (4).

(Note: This subcategory consists of

nonwastewaters only.).

NA ....................................... NA NA ........................ DEACT and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

Reactive Cyanides Subcategory

based on § 261.23(a)(5).

Cyanides (Total) 7 ................

Cyanides (Amenable) 7 .......

57–12–5

57–12–5

Reserved ..............

0.86 ......................

590.

30.

D004 ............ Wastes that exhibit, or are expected

to exhibit, the characteristic of toxicity for arsenic based on the extraction procedure (EP) in SW846

Method 1310.

Arsenic ................................ 7440–38–2 5.0 ........................ 5.0 mg/l EP.

Arsenic; altermate6 standard

for nonwastewaters only.

7440–38–2 NA ........................ 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

D005 ............ Wastes that exhibit, or are expected

to exhibit, the characteristic of toxicity for barium based on the extraction procedure (EP) in SW846

Method 1310.

Barium ................................. 7440–39–3 100 ....................... 100 mg/l TCLP.

D006 ............ Wastes that exhibit, or are expected

to exhibit, the characteristic of toxicity for cadmium based on the extraction procedure (EP) in SW846

Method 1310.

Cadmium ............................. 7440–43–9 NA ........................ 1.0 mg/l TCLP.

Cadmium Containing Batteries Subcategory. (Note: This subcategory

consists of nonwastewaters only.).

Cadmium ............................. 7440–43–9 NA ........................ RTHRM.

D007 ............ Wastes that exhibit, or are expected

to exhibit, the characteristic of toxicity for chromium based on the extraction procedure (EP) in SW846

Method 1310.

Chromium (Total) ................ 7440–47–3 5.0 ........................ 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

D008 ............ Wastes that exhibit, or are expected

to exhibit, the characteristic of toxicity for lead based on the extraction procedure (EP) in SW846

Method 1310.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 5.0 ........................ 5.0 mg/l EP.

Lead; altermate6 standard

for nonwastewaters only.

7439–92–1 NA ........................ 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

Lead Acid Batteries Subcategory

(Note: This standard only applies to

lead acid batteries that are identified as RCRA hazardous wastes

and that are not excluded elsewhere from regulation under the

land disposal restrictions of 40 CFR

268 or exempted under other EPA

regulations (see 40 CFR 266.80).

This subcategory consists of

nonwastewaters only.).

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 NA ........................ RLEAD.
11744 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

Radioactive Lead Solids Subcategory

(Note: these lead solids include,

but are not limited to, all forms of

lead shielding and other elemental

forms of lead. These lead solids do

not include treatment residuals

such as hydroxide sludges, other

wastewater treatment residuals, or

incinerator ashes that can undergo

conventional pozzolanic stabilization, nor do they include organolead materials that can be incinerated and stabilized as ash. This

subcategory consists of

nonwastewaters only.).

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 NA ........................ MACRO.

D009 ............ Nonwastewaters that exhibit, or are

expected to exhibit, the characteristic of toxicity for mercury based on

the extraction procedure (EP) in

SW846 Method 1310; and contain

greater than or equal to 260 mg/kg

total mercury that also contain

organics and are not incinerator

residues. (High Mercury-Organic

Subcategory).

Mercury ............................... 7439–97–6 NA ........................ IMERC; or

RMERC.

Nonwastewaters that exhibit, or are

expected to exhibit, the characteristic of toxicity for mercury based on

the extraction procedure (EP) in

SW846 Method 1310; and contain

greater than or equal to 260 mg/kg

total mercury that are inorganic, including incinerator residues and

residues from RMERC. (High Mercury-Inorganic Subcategory).

Mercury ............................... 7439–97–6 NA ........................ RMERC.

Nonwastewaters that exhibit, or are

expected to exhibit, the

characterisitc of toxicity for mercury

based on the extraction procedure

(EP) in SW846 Method 1310; and

contain less than 260 mg/kg total

mercury. (Low Mercury Subcategory).

Mercury ............................... 7439–97–6 NA ........................ 0.20 mg/l TCLP.

All D009 wastewaters. ........................ Mercury ............................... 7439–97–6 0.20 ...................... NA.

Elemental mercury contaminated with

radioactive materials. (Note: This

subcategory consists of

nonwastewaters only.).

Mercury ............................... 7439–97–6 NA ........................ AMLGM.

Hydraulic oil contaminated with Mercury Radioactive Materials Subcategory. (Note: This subcategory

consists of nonwastewaters only.).

Mercury ............................... 7439–97–6 NA ........................ IMERC.

D010 ............ Wastes that exhibit, or are expected

to exhibit, the characteristic of toxicity for selenium based on the extraction procedure (EP) in SW846

Method 1310.

Selenium ............................. 7782–49–2 1.0 ........................ 5.7 mg/l TCLP.

D011 ............ Wastes that exhibit, or are expected

to exhibit, the characteristic of toxicity for silver based on the extraction procedure (EP) in SW846

Method 1310.

Silver ................................... 7440–22–4 5.0 ........................ 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11745

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

D012 ............ Wastes that are TC for Endrin based

on the TCLP in SW846 Method

1311.

Endrin ..................................

Endrin aldehyde ..................

72–20–8

7421–93–4

BIODG; or INCIN .

BIODG; or INCIN .

0.13 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

0.13 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D013 ............ Wastes that are TC for Lindane

based on the TCLP in SW846

Method 1311.

alpha-BHC ...........................

beta-BHC .............................

319–84–6

319–85–7

CARBN; or INCIN

CARBN; or INCIN

0.066 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

0.066 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

delta-BHC ............................ 319–86–8 CARBN; or INCIN 0.066 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

gamma-BHC (Lindane) ....... 58–89–9 CARBN; or INCIN 0.066 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D014 ............ Wastes that are TC for Methoxychlor

based on the TCLP in SW846

Method 1311.

Methoxychlor ....................... 72–43–5 WETOX or INCIN . 0.18 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D015 ............ Wastes that are TC for Toxaphene

based on the TCLP in SW846

Method 1311.

Toxaphene .......................... 8001–35–2 BIODG or INCIN .. 2.6 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D016 ............ Wastes that are TC for 2,4-D (2,4-

Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) based

on the TCLP in SW846 Method

1311.

2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid).94–75–7 CHOXD, BIODG,

or INCIN.

10 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D017 ............ Wastes that are TC for 2,4,5-TP

(Silvex) based on the TCLP in

SW846 Method 1311.

2,4,5-TP (Silvex) ................. 93–72–1 CHOXD or INCIN . 7.9 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D018 ............ Wastes that are TC for Benzene

based on the TCLP in SW846

Method 1311.

Benzene .............................. 71–43–2 0.14 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

10 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D019 ............ Wastes that are TC for Carbon tetrachloride based on the TCLP in

SW846 Method 1311.

Carbon tetrachloride ............ 56–23–5 0.057 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

6.0 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D020 ............ Wastes that are TC for Chlordane

based on the TCLP in SW846

Method 1311.

Chlordane (alpha and

gamma isomers).

57–74–9 0.0033 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

0.26 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D021 ............ Wastes that are TC for

Chlorobenzene based on the TCLP

in SW846 Method 1311.

Chlorobenzene .................... 108–90–7 0.057 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

6.0 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D022 ............ Wastes that are TC for Chloroform

based on the TCLP in SW846

Method 1311.

Chloroform ........................... 67–66–3 0.046 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

6.0 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D023 ............ Wastes that are TC for o-Cresol

based on the TCLP in SW846

Method 1311.

o-Cresol ............................... 95–48–7 0.11 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

5.6 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D024 ............ Wastes that are TC for m-Cresol

based on the TCLP in SW846

Method 1311.

m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from p-cresol).108–39–4 0.77 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

5.6 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D025 ............ Wastes that are TC for p-Cresol

based on the TCLP in SW846

Method 1311.

p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from m-cresol).106–44–5 0.77 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

5.6 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D026 ............ Wastes that are TC for Cresols

(Total) based on the TCLP in

SW846 Method 1311.

Cresol-mixed isomers (Cresylic acid) (sum of o-, m-,

and p-cresol concentrations).

1319–77–3 0.88 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

11.2 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D027 ............ Wastes that are TC for pDichlorobenzene based on the

TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.

p-Dichlorobenzene (1,4-

Dichlorobenzene).

106–46–7 0.090 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

6.0 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D028 ............ Wastes that are TC for 1,2-

Dichloroethane based on the TCLP

in SW846 Method 1311.

1,2-Dichloroethane .............. 107–06–2 0.21 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

6.0 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.
11746 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

D029 ............ Wastes that are TC for 1,1-

Dichloroethylene based on the

TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.

1,1-Dichloroethylene ........... 75–35–4 0.025 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

6.0 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D030 ............ Wastes that are TC for 2,4-Dinitrotoluene based on the TCLP in

SW846 Method 1311.

2,4-Dinitrotoluene ................ 121–14–2 0.32 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

140 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D031 ............ Wastes that are TC for Heptachlor

based on the TCLP in SW846

Method 1311.

Heptachlor ........................... 76–44–8 0.0012 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

0.066 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

Heptachlor epoxide ............. 1024–57–3 0.016 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

0.066 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D032 ............ Wastes that are TC for

Hexachlorobenzene based on the

TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.

Hexachlorobenzene ............ 118–74–1 0.055 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

10 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D033 ............ Wastes that are TC for

Hexachlorobutadiene based on the

TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.

Hexachlorobutadiene .......... 87–68–3 0.055 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

5.6 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D034 ............ Wastes that are TC for Hexachloroethane based on the TCLP in

SW846 Method 1311.

Hexachloroethane ............... 67–72–1 0.055 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

30 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D035 ............ Wastes that are TC for Methyl ethyl

ketone based on the TCLP in

SW846 Method 1311.

Methyl ethyl ketone ............. 78–93–3 0.28 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

36 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D036 ............ Wastes that are TC for Nitrobenzene

based on the TCLP in SW846

Method 1311.

Nitrobenzene ....................... 98–95–3 0.068 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

14 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D037 ............ Wastes that are TC for

Pentachlorophenol based on the

TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.

Pentachlorophenol .............. 87–86–5 0.089 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

7.4 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D038 ............ Wastes that are TC for Pyridine

based on the TCLP in SW846

Method 1311.

Pyridine ............................... 110–86–1 0.014 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

16 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D039 ............ Wastes that are TC for

Tetrachloroethylene based on the

TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.

Tetrachloroethylene ............. 127–18–4 0.056 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

6.0 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D040 ............ Wastes that are TC for

Trichloroethylene based on the

TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.

Trichloroethylene ................. 79–01–6 0.054 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

6.0 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D041 ............ Wastes that are TC for 2,4,5-

Trichlorophenol based on the TCLP

in SW846 Method 1311.

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol .......... 95–95–4 0.18 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

7.4 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D042 ............ Wastes that are TC for 2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol based on the TCLP

in SW846 Method 1311.

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol .......... 88–06–2 0.035 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

7.4 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

D043 ............ Wastes that are TC for Vinyl chloride

based on the TCLP in SW846

Method 1311.

Vinyl chloride ....................... 75–01–4 0.27 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.

6.0 and meet

§ 268.48 standards.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11747

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

F001, F002,

F003, F004

& F005.

F001, F002, F003, F004 and/or F005

solvent wastes that contain any

combination of one or more of the

following spent solvents: acetone,

benzene, n-butyl alcohol, carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride,

chlorinated fluorocarbons,

chlorobenzene, o-cresol, m-cresol,

p-cresol, cyclohexanone, odichlorobenzene, 2-ethoxyethanol,

ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl

ether, isobutyl alcohol, methanol,

methylene chloride, methyl ethyl

ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone,

nitrobenzene, 2-nitropropane, pyridine, tetrachloroethylene, toluene,

1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-

trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloro1,2,2-trifluorethane,

trichloroethylene,

trichloromonofluoromethane, and/or

xylenes [except as specifically

noted in other subcategories]. See

further details of these listings in

§ 261.31.

Acetone ...............................

Benzene ..............................

n-Butyl alcohol .....................

Carbon disulfide ..................

Carbon tetrachloride ............

Chlorobenzene ....................

o-Cresol ...............................

m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from p-cresol) .........

67–64–1

71–43–2

71–36–3

75–15–0

56–23–5

108–90–7

95–48–7

108–39–4

106–44–5

0.28 ......................

0.14 ......................

5.6 ........................

3.8 ........................

0.057 ....................

0.057 ....................

0.11 ......................

0.77 ......................

0.77 ......................

160.

10.

2.6.

4.8 mg/l TCLP.

6.0.

6.0.

5.6.

5.6.

5.6.

p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from m-cresol).

Cresol-mixed isomers (Cresylic acid) (sum of o-, m-,

and p-cresol concentrations) ................................

1319–77–3 0.88 ...................... 11.2.

Cyclohexanone .................... 108–94–1 0.36 ...................... 0.75 mg/l TCLP.

o-Dichlorobenzene .............. 95–50–1 0.088 .................... 6.0.

Ethyl acetate ....................... 141–78–6 0.34 ...................... 33.

Ethyl benzene ..................... 100–41–4 0.057 .................... 10.

Ethyl ether ........................... 60–29–7 0.12 ...................... 160.

Isobutyl alcohol ................... 78–83–1 5.6 ........................ 170.

Methanol .............................. 67–56–1 5.6 ........................ 0.75 mg/l TCLP.

Methylene chloride .............. 75–9–2 0.089 .................... 30.

Methyl ethyl ketone ............. 78–93–3 0.28 ...................... 36.

Methyl isobutyl ketone ........ 108–10–1 0.14 ...................... 33.

Nitrobenzene ....................... 98–95–3 0.068 .................... 14.

Pyridine ............................... 110–86–1 0.014 .................... 16.

Tetrachloroethylene ............. 127–18–4 0.056 .................... 6.0.

Toluene ............................... 108–88–3 0.080 .................... 10.

1,1,1-Trichloroethane .......... 71–55–6 0.054 .................... 6.0.

1,1,2-Trichloroethane .......... 79–00–5 0.054 .................... 6.0.

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-

trifluoroethane.

76–13–1 0.057 .................... 30.

Trichloroethylene ................. 79–01–6 0.054 .................... 6.0.

Trichloromonofluoromethane 75–69–4 0.020 .................... 30.

Xylenes-mixed isomers

(sum of o-, m-, and p-xylene concentrations).

1330–20–7 0.32 ...................... 30.

F003 and/or F005 solvent wastes that

contain any combination of one or

more of the following three solvents

as the only listed F001–5 solvents:

carbon disulfide, cyclohexanone,

and/or methanol. (formerly

§ 268.41(c)).

Carbon disulfide ..................

Cyclohexanone ....................

Methanol ..............................

75–15–0

108–94–1

67–56–1

3.8 ........................

0.36 ......................

5.6 ........................

4.8 mg/l TCLP.

0.75 mg/l TCLP.

0.75 mg/l TCLP.

F005 solvent waste containing 2-

Nitropropane as the only listed

F001–5 solvent.

2-Nitropropane .................... 79–46–9 (WETOX or

CHOXD) fb

CARBN; or

INCIN.

INCIN.
11748 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

F005 solvent waste containing 2-

Ethoxyethanol as the only listed

F001–5 solvent.

2-Ethoxyethanol .................. 110–80–5 BIODG: or INCIN . INCIN.

F006 ............. Wastewater treatment sludges from

electroplating operations except

from the following processes: (1)

Sulfuric acid anodizing or aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon

steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated

basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum plating on

carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping

associated with tin, zinc and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and

(6) chemical etching and milling of

aluminum.

Cadmium .............................

Chromium (Total) ................

Cyanides (Total) 7 ................

Cyanides (Amenable) 7 .......

Lead ....................................

Nickel ...................................

Silver ...................................

7440–43–9

7440–47–3

57–12–5

57–12–5

7439–92–1

7440–02–0

7440–22–4

0.69 ......................

2.77 ......................

1.2 ........................

0.86 ......................

0.69 ......................

3.98 ......................

0.43 ......................

0.19 mg/l TCLP.

0.86 mg/l TCLP.

590.

30.

0.37 mg/l TCLP.

5.0 mg/l TCLP.

0.30 mg/l TCLP.

F007 ............. Spent cyanide plating bath solutions

from electroplating operations.

Cadmium .............................

Chromium (Total) ................

7440–43–9

7440–47–3

0.69 ......................

2.77 ......................

0.19 mg/l TCLP.

0.86 mg/l TCLP.

Cyanides (Total) 7 ................ 57–12–5 1.2 ........................ 590.

Cyanides (Amenable) 7 ....... 57–12–5 0.86 ...................... 30.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.98 ...................... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

Silver ................................... 7440–22–4 0.43 ...................... 0.30 mg/l TCLP.

F008 ............. Plating bath residues from the bottom

of plating baths from electroplating

operations where cyanides are

used in the process.

Cadmium .............................

Chromium (Total) ................

Cyanides (Total) 7 ................

7440–43–9

7440–47–3

57–12–5

0.69 ......................

2.77 ......................

1.2 ........................

0.19 mg/l TCLP.

0.86 mg/l TCLP.

590.

Cyanides (Amenable) 7 ....... 57–12–5 0.86 ...................... 30.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.98 ...................... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

Silver ................................... 7440–22–4 0.43 ...................... 0.30 mg/l TCLP.

F009 ............. Spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in

the process.

Cadmium .............................

Chromium (Total) ................

Cyanides (Total) 7 ................

7440–43–9

7440–47–3

57–12–5

0.69 ......................

2.77 ......................

1.2 ........................

0.19 mg/l TCLP.

0.86 mg/l TCLP.

590.

Cyanides (Amenable) 7 ....... 57–12–5 0.86 ...................... 30.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.98 ...................... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

Silver ................................... 7440–22–4 0.43 ...................... 0.30 mg/l TCLP.

F010 ............. Quenching bath residues from oil

baths from metal heat treating operations where cyanides are used

in the process.

Cyanides (Total) 7 ................

Cyanides (Amenable) 7 .......

57–12–5

57–12–5

1.2 ........................

0.86 ......................

590.

30.

F011 ............. Spent cyanide solutions from salt

bath pot cleaning from metal heat

treating operations.

Cadmium .............................

Chromium (Total) ................

Cyanides (Total) 7 ................

7440–43–9

7440–47–3

57–12–5

0.69 ......................

2.77 ......................

1.2 ........................

0.19 mg/l TCLP.

0.86 mg/l TCLP.

590.

Cyanides (Amenable) 7 ....... 57–12–5 0.86 ...................... 30.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.98 ...................... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

Silver ................................... 7440–22–4 0.43 ...................... 0.30 mg/l TCLP.

F012 ............. Quenching wastewater treatment

sludges from metal heat treating

operations where cyanides are

used in the process.

Cadmium .............................

Chromium (Total) ................

Cyanides (Total) 7 ................

7440–43–9

7440–47–3

57–12–5

0.69 ......................

2.77 ......................

1.2 ........................

0.19 mg/l TCLP.

0.86 mg/l TCLP.

590.

Cyanides (Amenable) 7 ....... 57–12–5 0.86 ...................... 30.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.98 ...................... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

Silver ................................... 7440–22–4 0.43 ...................... 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11749

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

* * * * * * *

F037 ............. Petroleum refinery primary oil/water/

solids separation sludge–Any

sludge generated from the gravitational separation of oil/water/solids

during the storage or treatment of

process wastewaters and oily cooling wastewaters from petroleum refineries. Such sludges include, but

are not limited to, those generated

in: oil/water/solids separators; tanks

and impoundments; ditches and

other conveyances; sumps; and

stormwater units receiving dry

weather flow. Sludge generated in

stormwater units that do not receive dry weather flow, sludges

generated from non–contact once–

through cooling waters segregated

from treatment form other process

or oily cooling waters, sludges generated in aggressive biological

treatment units as defined in

§ 261.31(b)(2) (including sludges

generated in one or more additional

units after wastewaters have been

treated in aggressive biological

treatment units) and K051 wastes

are not included in this listing.

Acenaphthene .....................

Anthracene ..........................

Benzene ..............................

Benz(a)anthracene ..............

Benzo(a)pyrene ...................

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate ..

Chrysene .............................

Di-n-butyl phthalate .............

Ethylbenzene .......................

Fluorene ..............................

Naphthalene ........................

Phenanthrene ......................

Phenol .................................

Pyrene .................................

Toluene ...............................

Xylenes-mixed isomers .......

(sum of o-, m-, p-xylene

concentrations).

Chromium (Total) ................

Cyanides (Total) 7 ................

Lead ....................................

Nickel ...................................

83–32–9

120–12–7

71–43–2

56–55–3

50–32–8

117–81–7

218–01–9

84–74–2

100–41–4

86–73–7

91–20–3

85–01–8

108–95–2

129–00–0

108–88–3

1330–20–7

7440–47–3

57–12–5

7439–92–1

7440–02–0

0.059 ....................

0.059 ....................

0.14 ......................

0.059 ....................

0.061 ....................

0.28 ......................

0.059 ....................

0.057 ....................

0.057 ....................

0.059 ....................

0.059 ....................

0.059 ....................

0.039 ....................

0.067 ....................

0.080 ....................

0.32 ......................

2.77.

1.2 ........................

0.69 ......................

3.98 ......................

3.4.

3.4.

10.

3.4.

3.4.

28.

3.4.

28.

10.

3.4.

5.6.

5.6.

6.2.

8.2.

10.

30.

0.86 mg/l TCLP.

590.

0.37 mg/l TCLP.

5.0 mg/l TCLP.

F038 ............. Petroleum refinery secondary

(emulsified) oil/water/solids separation sludge and/or float generated

from the physical and/or chemical

separation of oil/water/solids in

process wastewaters and oil cooling wastewaters from petroleum refineries. Such wastes include, but

are not limited to, all sludges and

floats generated in: induced air

floatation (IAF) units, tanks and impoundments, and all sludges generated in DAF units. Sludges generated in stormwater units that do

not receive dry weather flow,

sludges generated from non-contact once-through cooling waters

segregated for treatment from other

process or oily cooling waters,

sludges and floats generated in aggressive biological treatment units

as defined in § 261.31(b)(2) (including sludges and floats generated in

one or more additional units after

wastewaters have been treated in

aggressive biological units) and

F037, K048, and K051 are not included in this listing.

Benzene ..............................

Benzo(a)pyrene ...................

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate ..

Chrysene .............................

Di-n-butyl phthalate .............

Ethylbenzene .......................

Fluorene ..............................

Naphthalene ........................

Phenanthrene ......................

Phenol .................................

Pyrene .................................

Toluene ...............................

Xylenes-mixed isomers

(sum of o-, m-, and p-xylene concentrations)..

Chromium (Total) ................

Cyanides (Total) 7 ...............

Lead ....................................

Nickel ...................................

71–43–2

50–32–8

117–81–7

218–01–9

84–74–2

100–41–4

86–73–7

91–20–3

85–01–8

108–95–2

129–00–0

108–88–3

1330–20–7

7440–47–3

57–12–5

7439–92–1

7440–02–0

0.14 ......................

0.061 ....................

0.28 ......................

0.059 ....................

0.057 ....................

0.057 ....................

0.059 ....................

0.059 ....................

0.059 ....................

0.039 ....................

0.067 ....................

0.080 ....................

0.32 ......................

2.77 ......................

1.2 ........................

0.069 ....................

3.98 ......................

10.

3.4.

28.

3.4.

28.

10.

3.4.

5.6.

5.6.

6.2.

8.2.

10.

30.

0.86 mg/l TCLP.

590.

0.37 mg/l TCLP.

5.0 mg/l TCLP.
11750 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

F039 ............. Leachate (liquids that have percolated through land disposed

wastes) resulting from the disposal

of more than one restricted waste

classified as hazardous under subpart D of this part. (Leachate resulting from the disposal of one or

more of the following EPA Hazardous Wastes and no other Hazardous Wastes retains its EPA Hazardous Waste Number(s): F020,

F021, F022, F026, F027, and/or

F028.).

Acenaphthylene ...................

Acenaphthene .....................

Acetone ...............................

Acetonitrile ...........................

Acetophenone .....................

2-Acetylaminofluorene .........

Acrolein ...............................

Acrylonitrile ..........................

Aldrin ...................................

4-Aminobiphenyl ..................

Aniline ..................................

208–96–8

83–32–9

67–64–1

75–05–8

96–86–2

53–96–3

107–02–8

107–13–1

309–00–2

92–67–1

62–53–3

0.059 ....................

0.059 ....................

0.28 ......................

5.6 ........................

0.010 ....................

0.059 ....................

0.29 ......................

0.24 ......................

0.021 ....................

0.13 ......................

0.81 ......................

3.4.

3.4.

160.

38.

9.7.

140

2.9.

84.

0.066.

13.

14.

Anthracene .......................... 120–12–7 0.059 .................... 3.4.

Aramite ................................ 140–57–8 0.36 ...................... 2.5.

alpha-BHC ........................... 319–84–6 0.00014 ................ 0.066.

beta-BHC ............................. 319–85–7 0.00014 ................ 0.066.

delta-BHC ............................ 319–86–8 0.023 .................... 0.066.

gamma-BHC ........................ 58–89–9 0.0017 .................. 0.066.

Benzene .............................. 71–43–2 0.14 ...................... 10.

Benz(a)anthracene .............. 56–55–3 0.059 .................... 3.4.

Benzo (b) fluoranthene (difficult to distinguiah from

benzo (k) fluoranthene).

207–08–9 0.11 ...................... 6.8.

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ........... 191–24–2 0.0055 .................. 1.8.

Benzo(a)pyrene ................... 50–32–8 0.061 .................... 3.4.

Bromodichloromethane ....... 75–27–4 0.35 ...................... 15.

Methyl bromide

(Bromomethane).

74–83–9 0.11 ...................... 15.

4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101–55–3 0.055 .................... 15.

n-Butyl alcohol ..................... 71–36–3 5.6 ........................ 2.6.

Butyl benzyl ohthalate ......... 85–68–7 0.017 .................... 28.

2-sec-Butyl-4, 6-

dinitrophenol (Dinoseb).

88–85–7 0.066 .................... 2.5.

Carbon disulfide .................. 75–15–0 3.8 ........................ 4.8 mg/l TCLP.

Carbon tetrachloride ............ 56–23–5 0.057 .................... 6.0.

Chlordane (alpha and

gamma isomers).

57–74–9 0.0033 .................. 0.26.

p-Chloroaniline .................... 106–47–8 0.46 ...................... 16.

Chlorobenzene .................... 108–90–7 0.057 .................... 6.0.

Chlorobenzilate ................... 510–15–6 0.10 ...................... 6.6.

2-Chloro-1, 3-butadiene ...... 126–99–8 0.057 .................... 0.28.

Chlorodibromomethane ....... 124–48–1 0.057 .................... 15.

Chloroethane ....................... 75–00–3 0.27 ...................... 6.0.

bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 111–91–1 0.036 .................... 7.2.

bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether ........ 111–44–4 0.033 .................... 6.0.

Chloroform ........................... 67–66–3 0.046 .................... 6.0.

bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether . 39638–32–9 0.055 .................... 7.2.

p-Chloro-m-cresol ................ 59–50–7 0.018 .................... 14.

Chloromethane (Methyl

chloride).

74–87–3 0.19 ...................... 30.

2-Chloronaphthalene ........... 91–58–7 0.055 .................... 5.6.

2-Chlorophenol .................... 95–57–8 0.044 .................... 5.7.

3-Chloroprophylene ............. 107–05–1 0.036 .................... 30.

Chrysene ............................. 218–01–9 0.059 .................... 3.4.

o-Cresol ............................... 95–48–7 0.11 ...................... 5.6.

m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from p-cresol).108–39–4 0.77 ...................... 5.6.

p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from m-cresol.106–44–5 0.77 ...................... 5.6

Cyclohexanone .................... 108–94–1 0.36 ...................... 0.75 mg/l TCLP.

1,2-Dibromo-3-

chloropropane.

96–12–8 0.11 ...................... 15.

Ethylene dibromide (1,2-

Dibromoethane).

106–93–4 0.028 .................... 15.

Dibromomethane ................. 74–95–3 0.11 ...................... 15.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11751

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

2,4-D (2,4-

Dichlorophenoxyacetic

acid).

94–75–7 0.72 ...................... 10.

o,p#-DDD ............................ 53–19–0 0.023 .................... 0.087.

p,p#-DDD ............................ 72–54–8 0.023 .................... 0.087.

o,p#-DDE ............................. 3424–82–6 0.031 .................... 0.087.

p,p#-DDE ............................. 72–55–9 0.031 .................... 0.087.

o,p#-DDT ............................. 789–02–6 0.0039 .................. 0.087.

p,p#-DDT ............................. 50–29–3 0.0039 .................. 0.087.

Dibenz(a,h) anthracene ....... 53–70–3 0.055 .................... 8.2.

Dibenz(a,e)pyrene ............... 192–65–4 0.061 .................... 22.

m-Dichlorobenzene ............. 541–73–1 0.036 .................... 6.0.

o-Dichlorobenzene .............. 95–50–1 0.088 .................... 6.0.

p-Dichlorobenzene .............. 106–46–7 0.090 .................... 6.0.

Dichlorodifluoromethane ..... 75–71–8 0.23 ...................... 7.2.

1,1-Dichloroethane .............. 75–34–3 0.059 .................... 6.0.

1,2-Dichloroethane .............. 107–06–2 0.21 ...................... 6.0.

1,1-Dichloroethylene ........... 75–35–4 0.025 .................... 6.0.

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene .. 156–60–5 0.054 .................... 30.

2,4-Dichlorophenol .............. 120–83–2 0.044 .................... 14.

2,6-Dichlorophenol .............. 87–65–0 0.044 .................... 14.

1,2-Dichloropropane ............ 78–87–5 0.85 ...................... 18.

cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene .... 10061–01–5 0.036 .................... 18.

trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene 10061–02–6 0.036 .................... 18.

Dieldrin ................................ 60–57–1 0.017 .................... 0.13.

Diethyl phthalate ................. 84–66–2 0.20 ...................... 28.

2,4-Dimethyl phenol ............ 105–67–9 0.036 .................... 14.

Dimethyl phthalate .............. 131–11–3 0.047 .................... 28.

Di-n-butyl phthalate ............. 64–74–2 0.057 .................... 28.

1,4-Dinitrobenzene .............. 100–25–4 0.32 ...................... 2.3.

4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol .............. 534–52–1 0.28 ...................... 160.

2,4-Dinitrophenol ................. 51–28–5 0.12 ...................... 160.

2,4-Dinitrotoluene ................ 121–14–2 0.32 ...................... 140.

2,6-Dinitrotoluene ................ 606–20–2 0.55 ...................... 28.

Di-n-octyl phthalate ............. 117–84–0 0.017 .................... 28.

Di-n-propylnitrosamine ........ 621–64–7 0.40 ...................... 14.

1,4-Dioxane ......................... 123–91–1 8.67 ...................... 170.

Diphenylamine (difficult to

distinguish from

diphenylnitrosamine).

122–39–4 0.92 ...................... 13.

Diphenylnitrosamine (diffult

to distinguish from

diphenylamine).

86–30–6 0.92 ...................... 13.

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ......... 122–66–7 0.087 .................... 1.5.

Disulfoton ............................ 298–04–4 0.017 .................... 6.2.

Endosulfan I ........................ 939–98–8 0.023 .................... 0.066

Endosulfan II ....................... 33213–6–5 0.029 .................... 0.13.

Endosulfan sulfate ............... 1–31–07–8 0.029 .................... 0.13.

Endrin .................................. 72–20–8 0.0028 .................. 0.13.

Endrin aldehyde .................. 7421–93–4 0.025 .................... 0.13

Ethyl acetate ....................... 141–78–6 0.34 ...................... 33.

Ethyl cyanide

(Propanenitrile).

107–12–0 0.24 ...................... 360.

Ethyl benzene ..................... 100–41–4 0.057 .................... 10.

Ethyl ether ........................... 60–29–7 0.12 ...................... 160.

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate ... 117–81–7 0.28 ...................... 28.

Ethyl methacrylate ............... 97–63–2 0.14 ...................... 160.

Ethylene oxide ..................... 75–21–8 0.12 ...................... 0.75.

Famphur .............................. 52–85–7 0.017 .................... 15.

Fluoranthene ....................... 206–44–0 0.068 .................... 3.4.

Fluorene .............................. 86–73–7 0.059 .................... 3.4.

Heptachlor ........................... 76–44–8 0.0012 .................. 0.066.

Heptachlor epoxide ............. 1024–57–3 0.016 .................... 0.066.

Hexachlorobenzene ............ 118–74–1 0.055 .................... 10.

Hexachlorobutadiene .......... 87–68–3 0.055 .................... 5.6.

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77–47–4 0.057 .................... 2.4.
11752 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

HxCDDs (All

Hexachlorodibenzo-pdioxins).

NA 0.000063 .............. 0.001.

HxCDFs (All

Hexachlorodibenzofurans).

NA 0.000063 .............. 0.001.

Hexachloroethane ............... 67–72–1 0.055 .................... 30.

Hexachloropropylene .......... 1888–71–7 0.035 .................... 30.

Indeno (1,2,3-c,d) pyrene .... 193–39–5 0.0055 .................. 3.4.

Iodomethane ....................... 74–88–4 0.19 ...................... 65.

Isobutyl alcohol ................... 78–83–1 5.6 ........................ 170.

Isodrin .................................. 465–73–6 0.021 .................... 0.066.

Isosafrole ............................. 120–58–1 0.081 .................... 2.6.

Kepone ................................ 143–50–8 0.0011 .................. 0.13.

Methacrylonitrile .................. 126–98–7 0.24 ...................... 84.

Methanol .............................. 67–56–1 5.6 ........................ 0.75 mg/l TCLP.

Methapyrilene ...................... 91–80–5 0.081 .................... 1.5.

Methoxychlor ....................... 72–43–5 0.25 ...................... 0.18.

3-Methylcholanthrene .......... 56–49–5 0.0055 .................. 15.

4,4-Methylene bis(2-

chloroaniline).

101–14–4 0.50 ...................... 30.

Methylene chloride .............. 75–09–2 0.089 .................... 30.

Methyl ethyl ketone ............. 78–93–3 0.28 ...................... 36.

Methyl isobutyl ketone ........ 108–10–1 0.14 ...................... 33.

Methyl methacrylate ............ 80–62–6 0.14 ...................... 160.

Methyl methansulfonate ...... 66–27–3 0.018 .................... 4.6.

Methyl parathion .................. 298–00–0 0.014 .................... 4.6.

Naphthalene ........................ 91–20–3 0.059 .................... 5.6.

2-Naphthylamine ................. 91–59–8 0.52 ...................... 15.

p-Nitroaniline ....................... 100–01–6 0.028 .................... 28.

Nitrobenzene ....................... 98–95–3 0.068 .................... 14.

5-Nitro-o-toluidine ................ 99–55–8 0.32 ...................... 28.

p-Nitrophenol ....................... 100–02–7 0.12 ...................... 29.

N-Nitrosodiethylamine ......... 55–18–5 0.40 ...................... 28.

N-Nitrosodimethylamine ...... 62–75–9 0.40 ...................... 2.3.

N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine ... 924–16–3 0.40 ...................... 17.

N-Nitrosomethylethylamine . 10595–95–6 0.40 ...................... 2.3.

N-Nitrosomorpholine ........... 59–89–2 0.40 ...................... 2.3.

N-Nitrosopiperidine .............. 100–75–4 0.013 .................... 35.

N-Nitrosopyrrolidine ............. 930–55–2 0.013 .................... 35.

Parathion ............................. 56–38–2 0.014 .................... 4.6.

Total PCBs (sum of all PCB

isomers, or all Aroclors).

1336–36–3 0.10 ...................... 10.

Pentachlorobenzene ........... 608–93–5 0.055 .................... 10.

PeCDDs (All

Pentachlorodibenzo-pdioxins).

NA 0.000063 .............. 0.001.

PeCDFs (All

Pentachlorodibenzofurans).

NA 0.000035 .............. 0.001.

Pentachloronitrobenzene .... 82–68–8 0.055 .................... 4.8.

Pentachlorophenol .............. 87–86–5 0.089 .................... 7.4.

Phenacetin .......................... 62–44–2 0.081 .................... 16.

Phenanthrene ...................... 85–01–8 0.059 .................... 5.6.

Phenol ................................. 108–95–2 0.039 .................... 6.2.

Phorate ................................ 298–02–2 0.021 .................... 4.6.

Phthalic anhydride ............... 85–44–9 0.055 .................... 28.

Pronamide ........................... 23950–58–5 0.093 .................... 1.5.

Pyrene ................................. 129–00–0 0.067 .................... 8.2.

Pyridine ............................... 110–86–1 0.014 .................... 16.

Safrole ................................. 94–59–7 0.081 .................... 22.

Silvex (2,4,5-TP) ................. 93–72–1 0.72 ...................... 7.9.

2,4,5-T ................................. 93–76–5 0.72 ...................... 7.9.

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95–94–3 0.055 .................... 14.

TCDDs (All

Tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxins).

NA 0.000063 .............. 0.001.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11753

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

TCDFs (All

Tetrachlorodibenzofurans).

NA 0.000063 .............. 0.001.

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ... 630–20–6 0.057 .................... 6.0.

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ... 79–34–6 0.057 .................... 6.0.

Tetrachloroethylene ............. 127–18–4 0.056 .................... 6.0.

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ... 58–90–2 0.030 .................... 7.4.

Toluene ............................... 108–88–3 0.080 .................... 10.

Toxaphene .......................... 8001–35–2 0.0095 .................. 2.6.

Bromoform

(Tribromomethane).

75–25–2 0.63 ...................... 15.

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ....... 120–82–1 0.055 .................... 19.

1,1,1-Trichloroethane .......... 71–55–6 0.054 .................... 6.0.

1,1,2-Trichloroethane .......... 79–00–5 0.054 .................... 6.0.

Trichloroethylene ................. 79–01–6 0.054 .................... 6.0.

Trichloromonofluoromethane 75–69–4 0.020 .................... 30.

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol .......... 95–95–4 0.18 ...................... 7.4.

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol .......... 88–06–2 0.035 .................... 7.4.

1,2,3-Trichloropropane ........ 96–18–4 0.85 ...................... 30.

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-

trifluoroethane.

76–13–1 0.057 .................... 30.

tris(2,3-Dibromopropyl)

phosphate.

126–72–7 0.11 ...................... 0.10.

Vinyl chloride ....................... 75–01–4 0.27 ...................... 6.0.

Xylenes-mixed isomers

(sum of o-, m-, and p-xylene concentrations).

1330–20–7 0.32 ...................... 30.

Antimony ............................. 7440–36–0 1.9 ........................ 2.1 mg/l TCLP.

Arsenic ................................ 7440–38–2 1.4 ........................ 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

Barium ................................. 7440–39–3 1.2 ........................ 7.6 mg/l TCLP.

Beryllium .............................. 7440–41–7 0.82 ...................... 0.014 mg/l TCLP.

Cadmium ............................. 7440–43–9 0.69 ...................... 0.19 mg/l TCLP.

Chromium (Total) ................ 7440–47–3 2.77 ...................... 0.86 mg/l TCLP.

Cyanides (Total) 7 ................ 57–12–5 1.2 ........................ 590.

Cyanides (Amenable) 7 ....... 57–12–5 0.86 ...................... 30.

Fluoride ............................... 16964–48–8 35 ......................... 48.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Mercury ............................... 7439–97–6 0.15 ...................... 0.025 mg/l TCLP.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.98 ...................... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

Selenium ............................. 7782–49–2 0.82 ...................... 0.16 mg/l TCLP.

Silver ................................... 7440–22–4 0.43 ...................... 0.30 mg/l TCLP.

Sulfide ................................. 8496–25–8 14 ......................... NA.

Thallium ............................... 7440–28–0 1.4 ........................ 0.078 mg/l TCLP.

Vanadium ............................ 7440–62–2 4.3 ........................ .023.

* * * * * * *

K006 ............ Wastewater treatment sludge from

the production of chrome oxide

green pigments (anhydrous).

Chromium (Total) ................

Lead ....................................

7440–47–3

7439–92–1

2.77 ......................

0.69 ......................

0.86 mg/l TCLP.

0.37mg/l TCLP.

Wastewater treatment sludge from

the production of chrome oxide

green pigments (hydrated).

Chromium (Total) ................

Lead ....................................

7440–47–3

7439–92–1

2.77 ......................

0.69 ......................

0.86 mg/l TCLP.

0.37mg/l TCLP.

* * * * * * *

K018 ............ Heavy ends from the fractionation

column in ethyl chloride production..

Chloroethane .......................

Chloromethane ....................

1,1-Dichloroethane ..............

75–00–3

74–87–3

75–34–3

0.27 ......................

0.19 ......................

0.059 ....................

6.0.

30.

6.0.

1,2-Dichloroethane .............. 107–06–2 0.21 ...................... 6.0.

Hexachlorobenzene ............ 118–74–1 0.055 .................... 10.

Hexachlorobutadiene .......... 87–68–3 0.055 .................... 5.6.

Hexachloroethane ............... 67–72–1 0.055 .................... 30.

Pentachloroethane .............. 76–01–7 0.055 .................... 6.0.

1,1,1-Trichloroethane .......... 71–55–6 0.054 .................... 6.0.

K019 ............ Heavy ends from the distillation of

ethylene dichloride in ethylene dichloride production.

bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether ........

Chlorobenzene ....................

Chloroform ...........................

111–44–4

108–90–7

67–66–3

0.033 ....................

0.057 ....................

0.046 ....................

6.0.

6.0.

6.0.

p-Dichlorobenzene .............. 106–46–7 0.090 .................... 6.0.

1,2-Dichloroethane .............. 107–06–2 0.21 ...................... 6.0.
11754 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

Fluorene .............................. 86–73–7 0.059 .................... 3.4

Hexachloroethane ............... 67–72–1 0.055 .................... 30.

Naphthalene ........................ 91–20–3 0.059 .................... 5.6.

Phenanthrene ...................... 85–01–8 0.059 .................... 5.6.

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95–94–3 0.055 .................... 14.

Tetrachlorothylene ............... 127–18–4 0.056 .................... 6.0.

1,2,4-Tetrachlorobenzene ... 120–82–1 0.055 .................... 19.

1,1,1-Trichloroethane .......... 71–55–6 0.054 .................... 6.0

* * * * * * *

K028 ............ Spent catalyst from the

hydrochlorinator reactor in the production of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.

1,1-Dichloroethane .............. 75–34–3 0.059 .................... 6.0.

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene .. 156–60–5 0.054 .................... 30.

Hexachlorobutadiene .......... 87–68–3 0.055 .................... 5.6.

Hexachloroethane ............... 67–72–1 0.055 .................... 30.

Pentachloroethane .............. 76–01–7 0.055 .................... 6.0.

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ... 630–20–6 0.057 .................... 6.0.

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ... 79–34–6 0.057 .................... 6.0.

Tetrachloroethylene ............. 127–18–4 0.056 .................... 6.0.

1,1,1-Trichloroethane .......... 71–55–6 0.054 .................... 6.0.

1,1,2-Trichloroethane .......... 79–00–5 0.054 .................... 6.0.

Cadmium ............................. 7440–43–9 0.69 ...................... 0.19 mg/l TCLP.

Chromium (Total) ................ 7440–47–3 2.77 ...................... 0.86 mg/l TCLP.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.98 ...................... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

* * * * * * *

K030 ............ Column bodies or heavy ends from

the combined production of

trichloroethylene and

perchloroethylene.

o-Dichlorobenzene ..............

p-Dichlorobenzene ..............

Hexachlorobutadiene ..........

95–50–1

106–46–7

87–68–3

0.088 ....................

0.090 ....................

0.055 ....................

6.0.

6.0.

5.6.

Hexachloroethane ............... 67–72–1 0.055 .................... 30.

Hexachloropropylene .......... 1888–71–7 0.035 .................... 30.

Pentachlorobenzene ........... 608–93–5 0.055 .................... 10.

Pentachloroethane .............. 76–01–7 0.055 .................... 6.0.

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95–94–3 0.055 .................... 14.

Tetrachloroethylene ............. 127–18–4 0.056 .................... 6.0.

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ....... 120–82–1 0.055 .................... 19.

* * * * * * *

K035 ............ Wastewater treatment sludges generated in the production of creosote.Acenaphthene ..................... 83–32–9 0.059 .................... 3.4.

Anthracene .......................... 120–12–7 0.059 .................... 3.4.

Benz (a) anthracene ........... 56–55–3 0.059 .................... 3.4.

Benzo (a) pyrene ................ 50–32–8 0.061 .................... 3.4.

Chrysene ............................. 218–01–9 0.059 .................... 3.4.

o-Cresol ............................... 95–48–7 0.11 ...................... 5.6.

m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from p-cresol).108–39–4 0.77 ...................... 5.6.

p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from m-cresol).106–44–5 0.77 ...................... 5.6.

Dibenz(a,h)- anthracene ..... 53–70–3 0.055 .................... 8.2.

Fluoranthene ....................... 206–44–0 0.068 .................... 3.4.

Fluorene .............................. 86–73–7 0.068 .................... 3.4.

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ....... 193–39–5 0.0055 .................. 3.4.

Naphthalene ........................ 91–20–3 0.059 .................... 5.6.

Phenanthrene ...................... 85–01–8 0.059 .................... 5.6.

Phenol ................................. 108–95–2 0.039 .................... 6.2.

Pyrene ................................. 129–00–0 0.067 .................... 8.2.

* * * * * * *

K048 ............ Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float

from the petroleum refining industry.

Benzene .............................. 71–43–2 0.14 ...................... 10.

Benzo(a)pyrene ................... 50–32–8 0.061 .................... 3.4.

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate .. 117–81–7 0.28 ...................... 28.

Chrysene ............................. 218–01–9 0.059 .................... 3.4.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11755

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

Di-n-butyl phthalate ............. 84–74–2 0.057 .................... 28.

Ethylbenzene ....................... 100–41–4 0.057 .................... 10.

Fluorene .............................. 86–73–7 0.059 .................... 3.4.

Naphthalene ........................ 91–20–3 0.059 .................... 5.6.

Phenanthrene ...................... 85–01–8 0.059 .................... 5.6.

Phenol ................................. 108–95–2 0.039 .................... 6.2.

Pyrene ................................. 129–00–0 0.067 .................... 8.2.

Toluene ............................... 108–88–33 0.080 .................... 10.

Xylenes-mixed isomers

(sum of o-, m-, and p-xylene concentrations).

1330–20–7 0.32 ...................... 30.

Chromium (Total) ................ 7440–47–3 2.77 ...................... 0.86 mg/l TCLP.

Cyanides (Total) 7 ................ 57–12–5 1.2 ........................ 590.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.98 ...................... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

K049 ............ Slop oil emulsion solids from the petroleum refining industry.Anthracene .......................... 120–12–7 0.059 .................... 3.4.

Benzene .............................. 71–43–2 0.14 ...................... 10.

Benzo(a)pyrene ................... 50–32–8 0.061 .................... 3.4.

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate .. 117–81–7 0.28 ...................... 28.

Carbon disulfide .................. 75–15–0 3.8 ........................ 4.8 mg/l TCLP.

Chrysene ............................. 2218–01–9 0.059 .................... 3.4.

2,4-Dimethylphenol ............. 105–67–9 0.036 .................... 14.

Ethylbenzene ....................... 100–41–4 0.057 .................... 10.

Naphthalene ........................ 91–20–3 0.059 .................... 5.6.

Phenanthrene ...................... 85–01–8 0.059 .................... 5.6.

Phenol ................................. 108–95–2 0.039 .................... 6.2.

Pyrene ................................. 129–00–0 0.067 .................... 8.2.

Toluene ............................... 108–88–3 0.080 .................... 10.

Xylenes-mixed isomers

(sum of o-, m-, and p-xylene concentrations).

1330–20–7 0.32 ...................... 30.

Cyanides (Total) 7 ................ 57–12–5 1.2 ........................ 590.

Chromium (Total) ................ 7440–47–3 2.77 ...................... 0.86 mg/l TCLP.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.96 ...................... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

K050 ............ Heat exchanger bundle cleaning

sludge from the petroleum refining

industry.

Benzo(a)pyrene ................... 50–32–8 0.061 .................... 3.4

Phenol ................................. 108–95–2 0.039 .................... 6.2.

Cyanides (Total) 7 ................ 57–12–5 1.2 ........................ 590.

Chromium (Total) ................ 7440–47–3 2.77 ...................... 0.86 mg/l TCLP.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.98 ...................... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

K051 ............ API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry.Acenaphthene ..................... 83–32–9 0.059 .................... 3.4.

Anthracene .......................... 120–12–7 0.059 .................... 3.4.

Benz(a)anthracene .............. 56–55–3 0.059 .................... 3.4.

Benzene .............................. 71–43–2 0.14 ...................... 10.

Benzo(a)pyrene ................... 50–32–8 0.061 .................... 3.4.

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate .. 117–81–7 0.28 ...................... 28.

Chrysene ............................. 2218–01–9 0.059 .................... 3.4.

Di-n-butyl phthalate ............. 105–67–9 0.057 .................... 28.

Ethylbenzene ....................... 100–41–4 0.057 .................... 10.

Fluorene .............................. 86–73–7 0.059 .................... 3.4.

Naphthalene ........................ 91–20–3 0.059 .................... 5.6.

Phenanthrene ...................... 85–01–8 0.059 .................... 5.6.

Phenol ................................. 108–95–2 0.039 .................... 6.2.

Pyrene ................................. 129–00–0 0.067 .................... 8.2.

Toluene ............................... 108–88–3 0.08 ...................... 10.

Xylenes-mixed isomers

(sum of 0-, m-, and p-xylene concentrations).

1330–20–7 0.32 ...................... 30.

Cyanides (Total)7 ................ 57–12–5 1.2 ........................ 590.

Chromium (Total) ................ 7440–47–3 2.77 ...................... 0.86 mg/l TCLP.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.98 ...................... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
11756 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

K052 ............ Tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining industry.Benzene ..............................

Benzo(a)pyrene ...................

71–43–2

50–32–8

0.14 ......................

0.061 ....................

10.

3.4.

o-Cresol ............................... 95–48–7 0.11 ...................... 5.6.

m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from p-cresol).108–39–4 0.77 ...................... 5.6.

p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from m-cresol).106–44–5 0.77 ...................... 5.6.

2,4-Dimethylphenol ............. 105–67–9 0.036 .................... 14.

Ethylbenzene ....................... 100–41–4 0.057 .................... 10.

Naphthalene ........................ 91–20–3 0.059 .................... 5.6.

Phenanthrene ...................... 85–01–8 0.059 .................... 5.6.

Phenol ................................. 108–95–2 0.039 .................... 6.2.

Toluene ............................... 108–88–3 0.08 ...................... 10.

Xylenes-mixed isomers

(sum of o-, m-, and p-xylene concentrations).

1330–20–7 0.32 ...................... 30.

Chromium (Total) ................ 7440–47–3 2.77 ...................... 0.86 mg/l TCLP.

Cyanides (Total)7 ................ 57–12–5 1.2 ........................ 590.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.98 ...................... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

* * * * * * *

K061 ............ Emission control dust/sludge from the

primary production of steel in electric furnaces.

Antimony .............................

Arsenic ................................

Barium .................................

7440–36–0

7440–38–2

7440–39–3

1.9 ........................

1.4 ........................

1.2 ........................

2.1 mg/l TCLP.

5.0 mg/l TCLP.

7.6 mg/l TCLP.

Beryllium .............................. 7440–41–7 0.82 ...................... 0.014 mg/l TCLP.

Cadmium ............................. 7440–43–9 0.69 ...................... 0.19 mg/l TCLP.

Chromium (Total) ................ 7440–47–3 2.77 ...................... 0.86 mg/l TCLP.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Mercury ............................... 7439–97–6 0.15 ...................... 0.025 mg/l TCLP.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.98 ...................... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

Selenium ............................. 7782–49–2 0.82 ...................... 0.16 mg/l TCLP.

Silver ................................... 7440–22–4 0.43 ...................... 0.30 mg/l TCLP.

Thallium ............................... 7440–28–0 1.4 ........................ 0.078 mg/l TCLP.

Zinc ...................................... 7440–66–6 2.61 ...................... 5.3 mg/l TCLP.

* * * * * * *

K083 ............ Distillation bottoms from aniline production.Aniline ..................................

Benzene ..............................

62–53–3

71–43–2

0.81 ......................

0.14 ......................

14.

10.

Cyclohexanone .................... 108–94–1 0.36 ...................... 0.75 mg/l TCLP.

Diphenylamine (difficult to

distinguish from

diphenylnitrosamine).

122–39–4 0.92 ...................... 13.

Diphenylnitrosamine (difficult to distinguish from

diphenylamine).

86–30–6 0.92 ...................... 13.

Nitrobenzene ....................... 98–95–3 0.068 .................... 14.

Phenol ................................. 108–95–2 0.039 .................... 6.2.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.98 ...................... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

* * * * * * *

K086 ............ Solvent wastes and sludges, caustic

washes and sludges, or water

washes and sludges from cleaning

tubs and equipment used in the formulation of ink from pigments, driers, soaps, and stabilizers containing chromium and lead.

Acetone ...............................

Acetophenone .....................

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate ..

n-Butyl alcohol .....................

67–64–1

96–86–2

117–81–7

71–36–3

0.28 ......................

0.010 ....................

0.28 ......................

5.6 ........................

160.

9.7.

28.

2.6.

Butylbenzyl phthalate .......... 85–68–7 0.017 .................... 28.

Cyclohexanone .................... 108–94–1 0.36 ...................... 0.75 mg/l TCLP.

o-Dichlorobenzene .............. 95–50–1 0.088 .................... .6.0

Diethyl phthalate ................. 84–66–2 0.20 ...................... 28.

Dimethyl phthalate .............. 131–11–3 0.047 .................... 28.

Di-n-butyl phthalate ............. 84–74–2 0.057 .................... 28.

Di-n-octyl phthalate ............. 117–84–0 0.017 .................... 28.

Ethyl acetate ....................... 141–78–6 0.34 ...................... 33.

Ethylbenzene ....................... 100–41–4 0.057 .................... 10.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11757

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

Methanol .............................. 67–56–1 5.6 ........................ 0.75 mg/l TCLP.

Methyl ethyl ketone ............. 78–93–3 0.28 ...................... 36.

Methyl isobutyl ketone ........ 108–10–1 0.14 ...................... 33.

Methylene chloride .............. 75–09–2 0.089 .................... 30.

Naphthalene ........................ 91–20–3 0.059 .................... 5.6.

Nitrobenzene ....................... 98–95–3 0.068 .................... 14.

Toluene ............................... 108–88–3 0.080 .................... 10.

1,1,1-Trichloroethane .......... 71–55–6 0.054 .................... 6.0.

Trichloroethylene ................. 79–01–6 0.054 .................... 6.0.

Xylenes-mixed isomers (sun

of o-, m-, and p-xylene

concentrations).

1330–20–7 0.32 ...................... 30.

Chromium (Total) ................ 7440–47–3 2.77 ...................... 0.86 mg/l TCLP.

Cyanides (Total) 7 ................ 57–12–5 1.2 ........................ 590.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

* * * * * * *

K088 ............ Spent potliners from primary aluminum reduction.Acenaphthene .....................

Anthracene ..........................

83–32–9

120–12–7

0.059 ....................

0.059 ....................

3.4.

3.4.

Benz(a)anthracene .............. 56–55–3 0.059 .................... 3.4.

Benzo(a)pyrene ................... 50–32–8 0.061 .................... 3.4.

Benzo(b)fluoranthene .......... 205–99–2 0.11 ...................... 6.8.

Benzo(k)fluoranthene .......... 207–08–9 0.11 ...................... 6.8.

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ........... 191–24–2 0.0055 .................. 1.8.

Chrysene ............................. 218–01–9 0.059 .................... 3.4.

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ........ 53–70–3 0.055 .................... 8.2.

Fluoranthene ....................... 206–44–0 0.068 .................... 3.4.

Indeno(1,2,3,-c,d)pyrene ..... 193–39–5 0.0055 .................. 3.4.

Phenanthrene ...................... 85–01–8 0.059 .................... 5.6.

Pyrene ................................. 129–00–0 0.067 .................... 8.2.

Antimony ............................. 7440–36–0 1.9 ........................ 2.1.

Arsenic ................................ 7440–38–2 1.4 ........................ 5.0.

Barium ................................. 7440–39–3 1.2 ........................ 7.6.

Beryllium .............................. 7440–41–7 0.82 ...................... 0.014.

Cadmium ............................. 7440–43–9 0.69 ...................... 0.19.

Chromium (Total) ................ 7440–47–3 2.77 ...................... 0.86.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37.

Mercury ............................... 7439–97–6 0.15 ...................... 0.025.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.98 ...................... 5.0.

Selenium ............................. 7782–49–2 0.82 ...................... 0.16.

Silver ................................... 7440–22–4 0.43 ...................... 0.30.

Cyanide (Total) .................... 57–12–5 1.2 ........................ 590.

Cyanide (Amenable) ........... 57–12–5 0.86 ...................... 30.

Fluoride ............................... 16964–48–8 35 ......................... 48.

* * * * * * *

K101 ............ Distillation tar residues from the distillation of aniline-based compounds

in the production of veterinary pharmaceuticals from arsenic or

organo-arsenic compounds.

o-Nitroaniline .......................

Arsenic ................................

Cadmium .............................

Lead ....................................

88–74–4

7440–38––2

7440–43–9

7439–92–1

0.27 ......................

1.4 ........................

0.69 ......................

0.69 ......................

14.

5.0 mg/l TCLP.

0.19 mg/l TCLP.

0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Mercury ............................... 7439–97–6 0.15 ...................... 0.025 mg/l TCLP.

K102 ............ Residue from the use of activated

carbon for decolorization in the production of veterinary pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organo-arsenic compounds.

o-Nitrophenol .......................

Arsenic ................................

Cadmium .............................

88–75–5

7440–38–2

7440–43–9

0.028 ....................

1.4 ........................

0.69 ......................

13.

5.0 mg/l TCLP.

0.19 mg/l TCLP.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Mercury ............................... 7439–97–6 0.15 ...................... 0.025 mg/l TCLP.

* * * * * * *

K–140 .......... Waste solids and filter cartridges from

the production of 2,4,6-

tribromophenol.

2,4,6-Tribromophenol ..........

Tolurene ..............................

118–79–6

108–88–3

0.035 ....................

0.080 ....................

7.4

10.
11758 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

* * * * * * *

K156 ............ Organic waste (including heavy ends,

still bottoms, light ends, spent solvents, filtrates, and decantates)

from the production of carbamates

and carbamoyl oximes.

Acetonitrile ...........................

Acetophenone .....................

Aniline ..................................

Benomyl ..............................

75–05–8

96–86–2

62–53–3

17804–35–2

5.6 ........................

0.010 ....................

0.81 ......................

0.056 ....................

1.8.

9.7.

14.

1.4.

Benzene .............................. 71–43–2 0.14 ...................... 10.

Carbaryl ............................... 63–25–2 0.006 .................... 0.14.

Carbenzadim ....................... 10605–21–7 0.056 .................... 1.4.

Carbofuran .......................... 1563–66–2 0.006 .................... 0.14.

Carbosulfan ......................... 55285–14–8 0.028 .................... 1.4.

Chlorobenzene .................... 108–90–7 0.057 .................... 6.0.

Chloroform ........................... 67–66–3 0.046 .................... 6.0.

o-Dichlorobenzene .............. 95–50–1 0.088 .................... 6.0.

Methomyl ............................. 16752–77–5 0.028 .................... 0.14.

Methylene chloride .............. 75–09–2 0.089 .................... 30.

Methyl ethyl ketone ............. 78–93–3 0.28 ...................... 36.

Naphthalene ........................ 91–20–3 0.059 .................... 5.6.

Phenol ................................. 108–95–2 0.039 .................... 6.2.

Pyridine ............................... 110–86–1 0.014 .................... 16.

Toluene ............................... 108–88–3 0.080 .................... 10.

Triethylamine ....................... 121–44–8 0.081 .................... 1.5.

K157 ............ Wastewaters (including scrubber waters, condenser waters,

washwaters, and separation waters) from the production of

carbamates and carbamoly oximes.

Carbon tetrachloride ............

Chloroform ...........................

Chloromethane ....................

Methomyl .............................

56–23–5

67–66–3

74–87–3

16752–77–5

0.057 ....................

0.046 ....................

0.19 ......................

0.028 ....................

6.0.

6.0.

30.

0.14.

Methylene chloride .............. 75–09–2 0.089 .................... 30.

Methyl ethyl ketone ............. 78–93–3 0.28 ...................... 36.

o-Phenylenediamine ............ 95–54–5 0.056 .................... 5.6.

Pyridine ............................... 110–86–1 0.014 .................... 16.

Triethylamine ....................... 121–44–8 0.081 .................... 1.5.

K158 ............ Bag house dusts and filter/separation

solids from the production of

carbamates and carbamoly oximes.

Benomyl ..............................

Benzene ..............................

Carbenzadim .......................

17804–35–2

71–43–2

10605–21–7

0.056 ....................

0.14 ......................

0.056 ....................

1.4.

10.

1.4.

Carbofuran .......................... 1563–66–2 0.006 .................... 0.14.

Carbosulfan ......................... 55285–14–8 0.028 .................... 1.4.

Chloroform ........................... 67–66–3 0.046 .................... 6.0.

Methylene chloride .............. 75–09–2 0.089 .................... 30.

Phenol ................................. 108–95–2 0.039 .................... 6.2.

K159 ............ Organics from the treatment of

thiocarbamate wastes.

Benzene ..............................

Butylate ...............................

71–43–2

2008–41–5

0.14 ......................

0.003 ....................

10.

1.5.

EPTC (Eptam) ..................... 759–94–4 0.003 .................... 1.4.

Molinate ............................... 2212–67–1 0.003 .................... 1.4.

Pebulate .............................. 1114–71–2 0.003 .................... 1.4.

Vemolate ............................. 1929–77–7 0.003 .................... 1.4.

K160 ............ Solids (including filter wastes, separation solids, and spent catalysts)

from the production of

thiocarabamates and solids from

the treatment of thiocarbamate

wastes.

Butylate ...............................

EPTC (Eptam) .....................

Molinate ...............................

Pebulate ..............................

2008–41–5

759–94–4

2212–67–1

t1114–71–2

0.003 ....................

0.003 ....................

0.003 ....................

0.003 ....................

1.5.

1.4.

1.4.

1.4.

Toluene ............................... 108–88–3 0.080 .................... 10.

Vemolate ............................. 1929–77–7 0.003 .................... 1.4.

K161 ............ Purification solids (including filtration,

evaporation, and centrifugation solids), baghouse dust and floor

sweepings from the production of

dithiocarbamate acids and their

salts.

Antimony .............................

Arsenic ................................

Carbon disulfide ..................

Dithiocarbamates (total).

7440–36–0

7440–38–2

75–15–0

137–30–4

1.9 ........................

1.4 ........................

3.8 ........................

0.028 ....................

2.1 mg/l TCLP.

5.0 mg/l TCLP.

4.8 mg/l TCLP.

28.

Lead .................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 ...................... 0.37 mg/l TCLP.

Nickel ................................... 7440–02–0 3.98 ...................... 5.0 mg/l TCLP.

Selenium ............................. 7782–49–2 0.82 ...................... 0.16 mg/l TCLP.

* * * * * * *

P003 ............ Acrolein ............................................... Acrolein ............................... 107–02–8 0.29 ...................... 2.8.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11759

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

* * * * * * *

P013 ............ Barium cyanide ................................... Barium ................................. 7440–39–3 1.2 ........................ 7.6 mg/l TCLP.

Cyanides (Total) 7 ................ 57–12–5 1.2 ........................ 590.

Cyanides (Amenable) 7 ....... 57–12–5 0.86 ...................... 30.

* * * * * * *

P056 ............ Fluorine ............................................... Fluoride (measured in

wastewaters only).

16964–48–8 35 ......................... 48.

* * * * * * *

P127 ............ Carbofuran .......................................... Carbofuran .......................... 1563–66–2 0.006 .................... 0.14.

P128 ............ Mexacarbate ....................................... Mexacarbate ........................ 315–18–4 0.056 .................... 1.4.

P185 ............ Tirpate ................................................ Tirpate ................................. 26419–73–8 0.056 .................... 0.28.

P188 ............ Physostigmine salicylate .................... Physostigmine salicylate ..... 57–64–7 0.056 .................... 1.4.

P189 ............ Carbosulfan ........................................ Carbosulfan ......................... 55285–14–8 0.028 .................... 1.4.

P190 ............ Metolcarb ............................................ Metolcarb ............................. 1129–41–5 0.056 .................... 1.4.

P191 ............ Dimetilan ............................................. Dimetilan ............................. 644–64–4 0.056 .................... 1.4.

P192 ............ Isolan .................................................. Isolan ................................... 119–38–0 0.056 .................... 1.4.

P194 ............ Oxamyl ............................................... Oxamyl ................................ 23135–22–0 0.056 .................... 0.28.

P196 ............ Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate . Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

P197 ............ Formparanate ..................................... Formparanate ...................... 17702–57–7 0.056 .................... 1.4.

P198 ............ Formetanate hydrochloride ................ Formetanate hydrochloride . 23422–53–9 0.056 .................... 1.4.

P199 ............ Methiocarb .......................................... Methiocarb ........................... 2032–65–7 0.056 .................... 1.4.

P201 ............ Promecarb .......................................... Promecarb ........................... 2631–37–0 0.056 .................... 1.4.

P202 ............ m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate ............ m-Cumenyl

methylcarbamate.

64–00–6 0.056 .................... 1.4.

P203 ............ Aldicarb sulfone .................................. Aldicarb sulfone ................... 1646–88–4 0.056 .................... 0.28.

P204 ............ Physostigmine .................................... Physostigmine ..................... 57–47–6 0.056 .................... 1.4.

P205 ............ Ziram .................................................. Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

* * * * * * *

U038 ............ Chlorobenzilate ................................... Chlorobenzilate ................... 510–15–6 0.10 ...................... 6.6.

* * * * * * *

U042 ............ 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether .................... 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether ..... 110–75–8 0.062 .................... 5.6.

U093 ............ p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene ............. pDimethylaminoazobenzene.60–11–7 0.13 ...................... 29.

* * * * * * *

U134 ............ Hydrogen fluoride ............................... Fluoride (measured in

wastewaters only).

16964–48–8 35 ......................... 48.

* * * * * * *

U168 ............ 2-Naphthylamine ................................ 2-Naphthylamine ................. 91–59–8 0.52 ...................... 15.

* * * * * * *

U271 ............ Benomyl .............................................. Benomyl .............................. 17804–35–2 0.056 .................... 1.4.

U277 ............ Sulfallate ............................................. Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

U278 ............ Bendiocarb ......................................... Bendiocarb .......................... 22781–23–3 0.056 .................... 1.4.

U279 ............ Carbaryl .............................................. Carbaryl ............................... 63–25–2 0.006 .................... 0.14.

U280 ............ Barban ................................................ Barban ................................. 101–27–9 0.056 .................... 1.4.

* * * * * * *

U364 ............ Bendiocarb phenol ............................. Bendiocarb phenol .............. 22961–82–6 0.056 .................... 1.4.

U365 ............ Molinate .............................................. Molinate ............................... 2212–67–1 0.003 .................... 1.4.

U366 ............ Dazomet ............................................. Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

U367 ............ Carbofuran phenol .............................. Carbofuran phenol .............. 1563–38–8 0.056 .................... 1.4.

U372 ............ Carbendazim ...................................... Carbendazim ....................... 10605–21–7 0.056 .................... 1.4.

U373 ............ Propham ............................................. Propham .............................. 122–42–9 0.056 .................... 1.4.

U375 ............ 3-Iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate .. 3-Iodo-2-propynyl nbutylcarbamate.55406–53–6 0.056 .................... 1.4.

U376 ............ Selenium, tetrakis

(dimethyldithiocarbamate).

Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

Selenium ............................................. Selenium ............................. 7782–49–2 0.82 ...................... 0.16 mg/l TCLP.

U377 ............ Potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate .. Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

U378 ............ Potassium n-hydroxymethyl-nmethyldithiocarbamate.Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

U379 ............ Sodium dibutyldithiocarbamate .......... Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.
11760 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued

Waste code Waste description and treatment/regulatory subcategory 1

Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters

Common name CAS2 No.

Concentration in

mg/l 3; or technology code 4

Concentration in

mg/kg 5 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’; or technology code

U381 ............ Sodium diethyldithiocarbamate .......... Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

U382 ............ Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate ....... Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

U383 ............ Potassium dimethyl dithiocarbamate .. Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

U384 ............ Metam Sodium ................................... Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

U385 ............ Vemolate ............................................ Vemolate ............................. 1929–77–7 0.003 .................... 1.4.

U386 ............ Cycloate .............................................. Cycloate .............................. 1134–23–2 0.003 .................... 1.4.

U387 ............ Prosulfocarb ....................................... Prosulfocarb ........................ 52888–80–9 0.003 .................... 1.4.

U389 ............ Triallate ............................................... Triallate ................................ 2303–17–5 0.003 .................... 1.4.

U390 ............ EPTC .................................................. EPTC ................................... 759–94–4 0.003 .................... 1.4.

U391 ............ Pebulate ............................................. Pebulate .............................. 1114–71–2 0.003 .................... 1.4.

U392 ............ Butylate ............................................... Butylate ............................... 2008–41–5 0.003 .................... 1.4.

U393 ............ Copper dimethyldithiocarbamate ........ Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

U394 ............ A2213 ................................................. A2213 .................................. 30558–43–1 0.003 .................... 1.4.

U395 ............ Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate .......... Diethylene glycol,

dicarbamate.

5952–26–1 0.056 .................... 1.4.

U396 ............ Ferbam ............................................... Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

U400 ............ Bis(pentamethylene)thiuram

tetrasulfide.

Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

U401 ............ Tetramethyl thiuram monosulfide ....... Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

U402 ............ Tetrabutylthiuram disulfide ................. Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

U403 ............ Disulfiram ............................................ Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

U404 ............ Triethylamine ...................................... Triethylamine ....................... 101–44–8 0.081 .................... 1.5.

U407 ............ Ethyl Ziram ......................................... Dithiocarbamates (total) ...... 137–30–4 0.028 .................... 28.

U408 ............ 2,4,6-Tribromophenol ......................... 2,4,6-Tribromophenol .......... 118–79–6 0.035 .................... 7.4.

U409 ............ Thiophanate-methyl ............................ Thiophanate-methyl ............. 23564–05–8 0.056 .................... 1.4.

U410 ............ Thiodicarb ........................................... Thiodicarb ............................ 59669–26–0 0.019 .................... 1.4.

U411 ............ Propoxur ............................................. Propoxur .............................. 114–26–1 0.056 .................... 1.4.

1The waste descriptions provided in this table do not replace waste descriptions in 40 CFR part 261. Descriptions of treatment/regulatory

subcategories are provided, as needed, to distinguish between applicability of different standards. 2 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical

with its salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only. 3 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/l are based on analysis of composite samples.

4All treatment standards expressed as a Technology Code or combination of Technology Codes are explained in detail in 40 CFR 268.42,

Table 1—Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology-Based Standards. 5Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration

were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O

or part 265, subpart O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements. A facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters

are based on analysis of grab samples. 6Where an alternate treatment standard or set of alternate standards has been indicated, a facility may comply with this alternate standard, but

only for the Treatment/Regulatory Subcategory or physical form (i.e., wastewater and/or nonwastewater) specified for that alternate standard. 7Both Cyanides (Total) and Cyanides (Amenable) for nonwastewaters are to be analyzed using Method 9010 or 9012, found in ‘‘Test Methods

for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods’’, EPA Publication SW–846, as incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, with a sample size of 10 grams and a distillation time of 1 hour and 15 minutes.

Note: NA means not applicable.

19. Section 268.44 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 268.44 Variance from a treatment

standard.

(a) Where the treatment standard is

expressed as a concentration in a waste

or waste extract and a waste cannot be

treated to the specified level, or where

the treatment technology is not

appropriate to the waste, the generator

or treatment facility may petition the

Administrator for a variance from the

treatment standard. The petitioner must

demonstrate that because the physical

or chemical properties of the waste

differs significantly from wastes

analyzed in developing the treatment

standard, the waste cannot be treated to

specified levels or by the specified

methods. The petitioner may also

demonstrate that it is treating

underlying hazardous constituents in

characteristically hazardous

wastewaters by sending the waste to a

properly designed and operated BAT/

PSES system, which may not be

achieving the treatment standards found

in § 268.48.

* * * * *

20. In subpart D, § 268.48, the table in

paragraph (a) is revised to read as

follows:

(a) * * *

§ 268.48 Universal Treatment Standards.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11761

§ 268.48 TABLE UTS—UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS

Regulated constituent/common name CAS1 No.

Wastewater

standard

Nonwastewater

standard

Concentration in

mg/l 2

Concentration in

mg/kg 3 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’

A2213 ................................................................................................................................. 30558–43–1 0.003 1.4

Acenaphthylene .................................................................................................................. 208–96–8 0.059 3.4

Acenaphthene .................................................................................................................... 83–32–9 0.059 3.4

Acetone .............................................................................................................................. 67–64–1 0.28 160

Acetonitrile .......................................................................................................................... 75–05–8 5.6 1.8

Acetophenone .................................................................................................................... 96–86–2 0.010 9.7

2-Acetylaminofluorene ........................................................................................................ 53–96–3 0.059 140

Acrolein ............................................................................................................................... 107–02–8 0.29 NA

Acrylamide .......................................................................................................................... 79–06–1 19 23

Acrylonitrile ......................................................................................................................... 107–13–1 0.24 84

Aldicarb sulfone .................................................................................................................. 1646–88–4 0.056 0.28

Aldrin .................................................................................................................................. 309–00–2 0.021 0.066

4-Aminobiphenyl ................................................................................................................. 92–67–1 0.13 NA

Aniline ................................................................................................................................. 62–53–3 0.81 14

Anthracene ......................................................................................................................... 120–12–7 0.059 3.4

Aramite ............................................................................................................................... 140–57–8 0.36 NA

alpha-BHC .......................................................................................................................... 319–84–6 0.00014 0.066

beta-BHC ............................................................................................................................ 319–85–7 0.00014 0.066

delta-BHC ........................................................................................................................... 319–86–8 0.023 0.066

gamma-BHC ....................................................................................................................... 58–89–9 0.0017 0.066

Barban ................................................................................................................................ 101–27–9 0.056 1.4

Bendiocarb ......................................................................................................................... 22781–23–3 0.056 1.4

Bendiocarb phenol ............................................................................................................. 22961–82–6 0.056 1.4

Benomyl .............................................................................................................................. 17804–35–2 0.056 1.4

Benzene ............................................................................................................................. 71–43–2 0.14 10

Benz(a)thracene ................................................................................................................. 56–55–3 0.059 3.4

Benzal choride .................................................................................................................... 98–87–3 0.055 6.0

Benzo(b)florathene (difficult to distingush from benzo(k)fluoranthene) ............................. 205–99–2 0.11 6.8

Benzo(k)fluorathene (difficult to distinguish from benzo(b)fluoranthene ............................ 207–08–9 0.11 6.8

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene .......................................................................................................... 191–24–2 0.0055 1.8

Benzo(a)pyrene .................................................................................................................. 50–32–8 0.061 3.4

Bromodichloromethane ...................................................................................................... 75–27–4 0.35 15

Bromomethane/Methyl bromide ......................................................................................... 74–83–9 0.11 15

4–Bromophenyl phenyl ether ............................................................................................. 101–55–3 0.055 15

n-Butyl alcohol .................................................................................................................... 71–36–3 5.6 2.6

Butylate ............................................................................................................................... 2008–41–5 0.003 1.4

Butyle benzyl phthalate ...................................................................................................... 85–68–7 0.017 28

2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol/Dinoseb ............................................................................... 88–85–7 0.066 2.5

Carbaryl .............................................................................................................................. 63–25–2 0.006 0.14

Carbenzadim ...................................................................................................................... 10605–21–7 0.056 1.4

Carbofuran .......................................................................................................................... 1563–66–2 0.006 0.14

Carbofuran phenol .............................................................................................................. 1563–38–8 0.056 1.4

Carbon disulfide ................................................................................................................. 75–15–0 3.8 4.8 mg/l TCLP

Carbon tetrachloride ........................................................................................................... 56–23–5 0.057 6.0

Carbosulfan ........................................................................................................................ 55285–14–8 0.028 1.4

Chlordane (alpha and gamma isomers) ............................................................................ 57–74–9 0.0033 0.26

p-Chloroaniline ................................................................................................................... 106–47–8 0.46 16

Chlorobenzene ................................................................................................................... 108–90–7 0.057 6.0

Chlorobenzilate ................................................................................................................... 510–15–6 0.10 NA

2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene ....................................................................................................... 126–99–8 0.057 0.28

Chlorodibromomethane ...................................................................................................... 124–48–1 0.057 15

Choroethane ....................................................................................................................... 75–00–3 0.27 6.0

bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane .............................................................................................. 111–91–1 0.036 7.2

bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether ....................................................................................................... 111–44–4 0.033 6.0

Chloroform .......................................................................................................................... 67–66–3 0.046 6.0

bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether ................................................................................................ 39638–32–9 0.055 7.2

p-Chloro-m-cresol ............................................................................................................... 59–50–7 0.018 14

2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether .................................................................................................... 110–75–8 0.062 NA

Chloromethane/Methyl chloride .......................................................................................... 74–87–3 0.19 30

2-Chloronaphthalene .......................................................................................................... 91–58–7 0.055 5.6

2-Chlorophenol ................................................................................................................... 95–57–8 0.044 5.7

3-Chloropropylene .............................................................................................................. 107–05–1 0.036 30

Chrysene ............................................................................................................................ 218–01–9 0.059 3.4

o-Cresol .............................................................................................................................. 95–48–7 0.11 5.6

m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from p-cresol) .................................................................. 108–39–4 0.77 5.6

p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from m-cresol) .................................................................. 106–44–5 0.77 5.6

m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate ............................................................................................ 64–00–6 0.056 1.4
11762 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

§ 268.48 TABLE UTS—UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS—Continued

Regulated constituent/common name CAS1 No.

Wastewater

standard

Nonwastewater

standard

Concentration in

mg/l 2

Concentration in

mg/kg 3 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’

Cycloate .............................................................................................................................. 1134–23–2 0.003 1.4

Cyclohexanone ................................................................................................................... 108–94–1 0.36 0.75 mg/l TCLP

o,p’-DDD ............................................................................................................................. 53–19–0 0.023 0.087

p,p’-DDD ............................................................................................................................. 72–54–8 0.023 0.087

o,p’-DDE ............................................................................................................................. 3424–82–6 0.031 0.087

p,p’-DDE ............................................................................................................................. 72–55–9 0.031 0.087

o,p’-DDT ............................................................................................................................. 789–02–6 0.0039 0.087

p,p’-DDT ............................................................................................................................. 50–29–3 0.0039 0.087

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ....................................................................................................... 53–70–3 0.055 8.2

Dibenz(a,e)pyrene .............................................................................................................. 192–65–4 0.061 NA

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ............................................................................................ 96–12–8 0.11 15

1,2-Dibromoethane/Ethylene dibromide ............................................................................. 106–93–4 0.028 15

Dibromomethane ................................................................................................................ 74–95–3 0.11 15

m-Dichlorobenzene ............................................................................................................ 541–73–1 0.036 6.0

o-Dichlorobenzene ............................................................................................................. 95–50–1 0.088 6.0

p-Dichlorobenzene ............................................................................................................. 106–46–7 0.090 6.0

Dichlorodifluoromethane ..................................................................................................... 75–71–8 0.23 7.2

1,1-Dichloroethane ............................................................................................................. 75–34–3 0.059 6.0

1,2-Dichloroethane ............................................................................................................. 107–06–2 0.21 6.0

1,1-Dichloroethylene ........................................................................................................... 75–35–4 0.025 6.0

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene ................................................................................................. 156–60–5 0.054 30

2,4-Dichlorophenol ............................................................................................................. 120–83–2 0.044 14

2,6-Dichlorophenol ............................................................................................................. 87–65–0 0.044 14

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid/2,4-D ................................................................................ 94–75–7 0.72 10

1,2-Dichloropropane ........................................................................................................... 78–87–5 0.85 18

cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene ................................................................................................... 10061–01–5 0.036 18

trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene ............................................................................................... 10061–02–6 0.036 18

Dieldrin ............................................................................................................................... 60–57–1 0.017 0.13

Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate .......................................................................................... 5952–26–1 0.056 1.4

Diethyl phthalate ................................................................................................................. 84–66–2 0.20 28

p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene ............................................................................................. 60–11–7 0.13 NA

2-4-Dimethyl phenol ........................................................................................................... 105–67–9 0.036 14

Dimethyl phthalate .............................................................................................................. 131–11–3 0.047 28

Dimetilan ............................................................................................................................. 644–64–4 0.056 1.4

Di-n-butyl phthalate ............................................................................................................ 84–74–2 0.057 28

1,4-Dinitrobenzene ............................................................................................................. 100–25–4 0.32 2.3

4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ............................................................................................................. 534–52–1 0.28 160

2,4-Dinitrophenol ................................................................................................................ 51–28–5 0.12 160

2,4-Dinitrotoluene ............................................................................................................... 121–14–2 0.32 140

2,6-Dinitrotoluene ............................................................................................................... 606–20–2 0.55 28

Di-n-octyl phthalate ............................................................................................................ 117–84–0 0.017 28

Di-n-propylnitrosamine ....................................................................................................... 621–64–7 0.40 14

1,4-Dioxane ........................................................................................................................ 123–91–1 0.22 170

Diphenylamine (difficult to distinguish from diphenylnitrosamine) ..................................... 122–39–4 0.92 13

Diphenylnitrosamine (difficult to distinguish from diphenylamine) ..................................... 86–30–6 0.92 13

1,2-Dephenylhydrazine ....................................................................................................... 122–66–7 0.087 NA

Disulfoton ............................................................................................................................ 298–04–4 0.017 6.2

Dithiocarbamates (total) ..................................................................................................... 137–30–4 0.028 28

Endosulfan I ....................................................................................................................... 939–98–8 0.023 0.066

Endosulfan II ...................................................................................................................... 33213–6–5 0.029 0.13

Endosulfan sulfate .............................................................................................................. 1–31–07–8 0.029 0.13

Endrin ................................................................................................................................. 72–20–8 0.0028 0.13

Endrin aldehyde ................................................................................................................. 7421–93–4 0.025 0.13

EPTC .................................................................................................................................. 759–94–4 0.003 1.4

Ethyl acetate ....................................................................................................................... 141–78–6 0.34 33

Ethyl benzene ..................................................................................................................... 100–41–4 0.057 10

Ethyl cyanide/Propanenitrile ............................................................................................... 107–12–0 0.24 360

Ethyl ether .......................................................................................................................... 60–29–7 0.12 160

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate ................................................................................................. 117–81–7 0.28 28

Ethyl methacrylate .............................................................................................................. 97–63–2 0.14 160

Ethylene oxide .................................................................................................................... 75–21–8 0.12 NA

Famphur ............................................................................................................................. 52–85–7 0.017 15

Fluoranthene ...................................................................................................................... 206–44–0 0.068 3.4

Fluorene ............................................................................................................................. 86–73–7 0.059 3.4

Formetanate hydrochloride ................................................................................................ 23422–53–9 0.056 1.4

Formparanate ..................................................................................................................... 17702–57–7 0.056 1.4

Heptachlor .......................................................................................................................... 76–44–8 0.0012 0.066
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11763

§ 268.48 TABLE UTS—UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS—Continued

Regulated constituent/common name CAS1 No.

Wastewater

standard

Nonwastewater

standard

Concentration in

mg/l 2

Concentration in

mg/kg 3 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’

Heptachlor epoxide ............................................................................................................ 1024–57–3 0.016 0.066

Hexachlorobenzene ............................................................................................................ 118–74–1 0.055 10

Hexachlorobutadiene .......................................................................................................... 87–68–3 0.055 5.6

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ............................................................................................... 77–47–4 0.057 2.4

HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins) ....................................................................... NA 0.00063 0.001

HxCDFs (All Hexachlorodibenzofurans) ............................................................................ NA 0.00063 0.001

Hexachloroethane .............................................................................................................. 67–72–1 0.055 30

Hexachloropropylene .......................................................................................................... 1888–71–7 0.035 30

Indeno (1,2,3-c,d) pyrene ................................................................................................... 193–39–5 0.0055 3.4

Iodomethane ....................................................................................................................... 74–88–4 0.19 65

3-lodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate ................................................................................... 55406–53–6 0.056 1.4

Isobutyl alcohol ................................................................................................................... 78–83–1 5.6 170

Isodrin ................................................................................................................................. 456–73–6 0.021 0.066

Isolan .................................................................................................................................. 119–38–0 0.056 1.4

Isosafrole ............................................................................................................................ 120–58–1 0.081 2.6

Kepone ............................................................................................................................... 143–50–8 0.0011 0.13

Methacrylonitrile ................................................................................................................. 126–98–7 0.24 84

Methanol ............................................................................................................................. 67–56–1 5.6 0.75 mg/l TCLP

Methapyrilene ..................................................................................................................... 91–80–5 0.081 1.5

Methiocarb .......................................................................................................................... 2032–65–7 0.056 1.4

Methomyl ............................................................................................................................ 16752–77–5 0.028 0.14

Methoxychlor ...................................................................................................................... 72–43–5 0.25 0.18

3-Methylcholanthrene ......................................................................................................... 56–49–5 0.0055 15

4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) ..................................................................................... 101–14–4 0.50 30

Methylene chloride ............................................................................................................. 75–09–2 0.089 30

Methyl ethyl ketone ............................................................................................................ 78–93–3 0.28 36

Methyl isobutyl ketone ........................................................................................................ 108–10–1 0.14 33

Methyl methacrylate ........................................................................................................... 80–62–6 0.14 160

Methyl methansulfonate ..................................................................................................... 66–27–3 0.018 NA

Methyl parathion ................................................................................................................. 298–00–0 0.014 4.6

Metolcarb ............................................................................................................................ 1129–41–5 0.056 1.4

Mexacarbate ....................................................................................................................... 315–18–4 0.056 1.4

Molinate .............................................................................................................................. 2212–67–1 0.003 1.4

Naphthalene ....................................................................................................................... 91–20–3 0.059 5.6

2-Naphthylamine ................................................................................................................ 91–59–8 0.52 NA

o-Nitroaniline ...................................................................................................................... 88–74–4 0.27 14

p-Nitroaniline ...................................................................................................................... 100–01–6 0.028 28

Nitrobenzene ...................................................................................................................... 98–95–3 0.068 14

5-Nitro-o-toluidine ............................................................................................................... 99–55–8 0.32 28

o-Nitrophenol ...................................................................................................................... 88–75–5 0.028 13

p-Nitrophenol ...................................................................................................................... 100–02–7 0.12 29

N-Nitrosodiethylamine ........................................................................................................ 55–18–5 0.40 28

N-Nitrosodimethylamine ..................................................................................................... 62–75–9 0.40 2.3

N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine ................................................................................................... 924–16–3 0.40 17

N-Nitrosomethylethylamine ................................................................................................ 10595–95–6 0.40 2.3

N-Nitrosomorpholine ........................................................................................................... 59–89–2 0.40 2.3

N-Nitrosopiperidine ............................................................................................................. 100–75–4 0.013 35

N-Nitrosophyrrolidine .......................................................................................................... 930–55–2 0.013 35

Oxamyl ............................................................................................................................... 23135–22–0 0.056 0.28

Parathion ............................................................................................................................ 56–38–2 0.014 4.6

Total PCBs (sum of all PCB isomers, or all Aroclors) ....................................................... 1336–36–3 0.10 10

Pebulate ............................................................................................................................. 1114–71–2 0.003 1.4

Pentachlorobenzene ........................................................................................................... 608–93–5 0.055 10

PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins) ..................................................................... NA 0.000063 0.001

PeCDFs (All Pentachlorodibenyofurans) ........................................................................... NA 0.000035 0.001

Pentachloroethane ............................................................................................................. 76–01–7 0.055 6.0

Pentachloronitrobenzene .................................................................................................... 82–68–8 0.055 4.8

Pentachlorophenol .............................................................................................................. 87–86–5 0.089 7.4

Phenacetin .......................................................................................................................... 62–44–2 0.081 16

Phenanthrene ..................................................................................................................... 85–01–8 0.059 5.6

Phenol ................................................................................................................................ 108–95–2 0.039 6.2

o-Phenylenediamine ........................................................................................................... 95–54–5 0.056 5.6

Phorate ............................................................................................................................... 298–02–2 0.021 4.6

Phthalic acid ....................................................................................................................... 100–21–0 0.055 28

Phthalic anhydribe .............................................................................................................. 85–44–9 0.055 28

Physostigmine .................................................................................................................... 57–47–6 0.056 1.4

Physostigmine salicylate .................................................................................................... 57–64–7 0.056 1.4
11764 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

§ 268.48 TABLE UTS—UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS—Continued

Regulated constituent/common name CAS1 No.

Wastewater

standard

Nonwastewater

standard

Concentration in

mg/l 2

Concentration in

mg/kg 3 unless

noted as ‘‘mg/l

TCLP’’

Promecarb .......................................................................................................................... 2631–37–0 0.056 1.4

Pronamide .......................................................................................................................... 23950–58–5 0.093 1.5

Propham ............................................................................................................................. 122–42–9 0.056 1.4

Propoxur ............................................................................................................................. 114–26–1 0.056 1.4

Prosulfocarb ....................................................................................................................... 52888–80–9 0.003 1.4

Pyrene ................................................................................................................................ 129–00–0 0.067 8.2

Pyridine ............................................................................................................................... 110–86–1 0.014 16

Safrole ................................................................................................................................ 94–59–7 0.081 22

Silvex/2,4,5-TP ................................................................................................................... 93–72–1 0.72 7.9

1,2,4,-5-Tetrachlorobenzene .............................................................................................. 95–94–3 0.055 14

TCDDs (All Tetrachlorobidenzo-p-dioxins) ......................................................................... NA 0.000063 0.001

TCDFs (All Tetrachlorodibenzofurans) ............................................................................... NA 0.000063 0.001

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane .................................................................................................. 630–20–6 0.057 6.0

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane .................................................................................................. 79–34–6 0.057 6.0

Tetrachloroethylene ............................................................................................................ 127–18–4 0.056 6.0

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol .................................................................................................. 58–90–2 0.030 7.4

Thiodicarb ........................................................................................................................... 59669–26–0 0.019 1.4

Thiophanate-methyl ............................................................................................................ 23564–05–8 0.056 1.4

Tirpate ................................................................................................................................ 26419–73–8 0.056 0.28

Toluene ............................................................................................................................... 108–88–3 0.080 10

Toxaphene .......................................................................................................................... 8001–35–2 0.0095 2.6

Triallate ............................................................................................................................... 2303–17–5 0.003 1.4

Tribromomethane/Bromoform ............................................................................................ 75–25–2 0.63 15

2,4,6-Tribromophenol ......................................................................................................... 118–79–6 0.035 7.4

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ....................................................................................................... 120–82–1 0.055 19

1,1,1-Trichloroethane ......................................................................................................... 71–55–6 0.054 6.0

1,1,2-Trichloroethane ......................................................................................................... 79–00–5 0.054 6.0

Trichloroethylene ................................................................................................................ 79–01–6 0.054 6.0

Trichloromonofluoromethane .............................................................................................. 75–69–4 0.020 30

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol .......................................................................................................... 95–95–4 0.18 7.4

2,4,6-Tricholorphenol .......................................................................................................... 88–06–2 0.035 7.4

2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid/2,4,5-T ......................................................................... 93–76–5 0.72 7.9

1,2,3-Trichloropropane ....................................................................................................... 96–18–4 0.85 30

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane ................................................................................... 76–13–1 0.057 30

Triethylamine ...................................................................................................................... 101–44–8 0.081 1.5

tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl) phosphate .................................................................................... 126–72–7 0.11 0.10

Vemolate ............................................................................................................................ 1929–77–7 0.003 1.4

Vinyl chloride ...................................................................................................................... 75–01–4 0.27 6.0

Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-, m-, and p-xylene concentrations) ............................. 1330–20–7 0.32 30

Antimony ............................................................................................................................. 7440–36–0 1.9 2.1 mg/l TCLP

Arsenic ................................................................................................................................ 7440–38–2 1.4 5.0 mg/l TCLP

Barium ................................................................................................................................ 7440–39–3 1.2 7.6 mg/l TCLP

Beryllium ............................................................................................................................. 7440–41–7 0.82 0.014 mg/l TCLP

Cadmium ............................................................................................................................ 7440–43–9 0.69 0.19 mg/l TCLP

Chromium (Total) ............................................................................................................... 7440–47–3 2.77 0.86 mg/l TCLP

Cyanides (Total) 4 ............................................................................................................... 57–12–5 1.2 590

Cyanides (Amenable) 4 ....................................................................................................... 57–12–5 0.86 30

Fluoride 5 ............................................................................................................................. 16964–48–8 35 NA

Lead .................................................................................................................................... 7439–92–1 0.69 0.37 mg/l TCLP

Mercury-Nonwastewater from Retort ................................................................................. 7439–97–6 NA 0.20 mg/l TCLP

Mercury-All Others ............................................................................................................. 7439–97–6 0.15 0.025 mg/l TCLP

Nickel .................................................................................................................................. 7440–02–0 3.98 5.0 mg/l TCLP

Selenium ............................................................................................................................. 7782–49–2 0.82 0.16 mg/l TCLP

Silver ................................................................................................................................... 7440–22–4 0.43 0.30 mg/l TCLP

Sulfide ................................................................................................................................. 8496–25–8 14 NA

Thallium .............................................................................................................................. 7440–28–0 1.4 0.078 mg/l TCLP

Vanadium 5 ......................................................................................................................... 7440–62–2 4.3 0.23 mg/l TCLP

Zinc 5 ................................................................................................................................... 7440–66–6 2.61 5.3 mg/l TCLP

1 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical

with it’s salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only. 2 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/l are based on analysis of composite samples.

3Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration

were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O

or 40 CFR part 265, subpart O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements. A facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All concentration standards for

nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11765

4Both Cyanides (Total) and Cyanides (Amenable) for nonwastewaters are to be analyzed using Method 9010 or 9012, found in ‘‘Test Methods

for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods’’, EPA Publication SW–846, as incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, with a sample size of 10 grams and a distillation time of one hour and 15 minutes. 5These constituents are not ‘‘underlying hazardous constituents’’ in characteristic wastes, according to the definition at § 268.2(i).

NOTE: NA means not applicable.

21. Appendix XI is added to part 268 to read as follows:

APPENDIX XI TO PART 268.—METAL BEARING WASTES PROHIBITED FROM DILUTION IN A COMBUSTION UNIT ACCORDING

TO 40 CFR 268.3(b) 1

Waste code Waste description

D004 ............. Toxicity Characteristic for Arsenic.

D005 ............. Toxicity Characteristic for Barium.

D006 ............. Toxicity Characteristic for Cadmium.

D007 ............. Toxicity Characteristic for Chromium.

D008 ............. Toxicity Characteristic for Lead.

D009 ............. Toxicity Characteristic for Mercury.

D010 ............. Toxicity Characteristic for Selenium

D011 ............. Toxicity Characteristic for Silver.

F006 ............. Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations except from the following processes: (1) sulfuric acid anodizing of

aluminum; (2) tin plating carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-plating on carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and

milling of aluminum.

F007 ............. Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from electroplating operations.

F008 ............. Plating bath residues from the bottom of plating baths from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the process.

F009 ............. Spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the process.

F010 ............. Quenching bath residues from oil baths from metal treating operations where cyanides are used in the process.

F011 ............. Spent cyanide solutions from salt bath pot cleaning from metal heat treating operations.

F012 ............. Quenching waste water treatment sludges from metal heat treating operations where cyanides are used in the process.

F019 ............. Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum except from zirconium phosphating in aluminum car washing when such phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating process.

K002 ............. Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of chrome yellow and orange pigments.

K003 ............. Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of molybdate orange pigments.

K004 ............. Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of zinc yellow pigments.

K005 ............. Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of chrome green pigments.

K006 ............. Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of chrome oxide green pigments (anhydrous and hydrated).

K007 ............. Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of iron blue pigments.

K008 ............. Oven residue from the production of chrome oxide green pigments.

K061 ............. Emission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in electric furnaces.

K069 ............. Emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting.

K071 ............. Brine purification muds from the mercury cell processes in chlorine production, where separately prepurified brine is not used.

K100 ............. Waste leaching solution from acid leaching of emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting.

K106 ............. Sludges from the mercury cell processes for making chlorine.

P010 ............. Arsenic acid H3AsO4.

P011 ............. Arsenic oxide As2O5.

P012 ............. Arsenic trioxide.

P013 ............. Barium cyanide.

P015 ............. Beryllium.

P029 ............. Copper cyanide Cu(CN).

P074 ............. Nickel cyanide Ni(CN)2.

P087 ............. Osmium tetroxide.

P099 ............. Potassium silver cyanide.

P104 ............. Silver cyanide.

P113 ............. Thallic oxide.

P114 ............. Thallium (l) selenite.

P115 ............. Thallium (l) sulfate.

P119 ............. Ammonium vanadate.

P120 ............. Vanadium oxide V2O5.

P121 ............. Zinc cyanide.

U032 ............. Calcium chromate.

U145 ............. Lead phosphate.

U151 ............. Mercury.

U204 ............. Selenious acid.

U205 ............. Selenium disulfide.

U216 ............. Thallium (I) chloride.

U217 ............. Thallium (I) nitrate.

1A combustion unit is defined as any thermal technology subject to 40 CFR part 264, subpart O; part 265, subpart O; and/or part 266, subpart
11766 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules

PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR

AUTHORIZATION OF STATE

HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS

22. The authority citation for part 271

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602; 33 U.S.C. 1321

and 1361.

23. Section 271.1(j) is amended by

adding the following entries to Table 1

in chronological order by date of

publication in the Federal Register, and

by adding the following entries to Table

2 in chronological order by effective

date in the Federal Register:

§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

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

Promulgation date Title of regulation FEDERAL REGISTER reference Effective date

* * * * * * *

[Insert date of publication of

final rule in the Federal

Register (FR)].

Land Disposal Restrictions Phase III—Decharacterized

Waste- waters, Carbamate and Organobromine

Wastes, and Spent Aluminum Potliners in § 268.39.

[Insert FR page numbers

of final rule].

[Insert date of 90 days

from date of publication

of final rule].

* * * * *

TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Effective date Self-implementing provision RCRA citation FEDERAL REGISTER reference

* * * * * * *

[Insert date 90 days from

date of publication of final

rule].

Prohibition on land disposal of newly listed and identified wastes..3004(g)(4) (C) and

3004(m).

[Insert date of publication

of final rule] FR [Insert

FR page numbers].

[Insert date 2 years from

date of publication of final

rule].

Prohibition on land disposal of radioactive waste

mixed with the newly listed or identified wastes, including soil and debris.

Ditto.

3004(g)(4) (C) and 3004

(m).

Ditto.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–4746 Filed 3–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P