[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21418-21422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11740]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 148, 261, 268, 271

[FRL-5503-4]
RIN 2050-AE05


Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV Proposed Rule--Issues 
Associated With Clean Water Act Treatment Equivalency, and Treatment 
Standards for Wood Preserving Wastes and Toxicity Characteristic Metal 
Wastes; Notice of Data Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Since publication of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) 
Phase IV proposal (60 FR 43654, August 22, 1995), EPA has received 
additional information which will be considered in developing its final 
rule. The public has 30 days from publication of this notice to comment 
on that additional information. Readers should note that only comments 
about the new information discussed in this notice will be considered 
during the comment period; issues proposed in the August 22, 1995 Phase 
IV rule, and in the Phase IV Supplemental Proposal on mineral 
processing wastes (61 FR 2338, January 25, 1996), that are not 
discussed in this Notice of Data Availability, are not open for further 
comment.

DATES: Comments are due by June 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES: To submit comments, the public must send an original and two 
copies to Docket Number F-96-P42A-

[[Page 21419]]

FFFFF, located at the RCRA Docket. The mailing address is: RCRA 
Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (5305W), 401 
M. Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. RCRA Information Center is 
located at 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, 
Virginia. The RCRA Information Center is open for public inspection and 
copying of supporting information for RCRA rules from 9:00 am to 4:00 
pm Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. The public must 
make an appointment to review docket materials by calling (703) 603-
9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory 
document at no cost. Additional copies cost $0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information or to order 
paper copies of this Federal Register document, call the RCRA Hotline. 
Callers within the Washington, Metropolitan Area must dial 703-412-9810 
or TDD 703-412-3323 (hearing impaired). Long-distance callers may call 
1-800-424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672. The RCRA Hotline is open Monday-
Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. For other 
information on this notice, contact Sue Slotnick (5302W), Office of 
Solid Waste, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, phone (703) 308-
8462.

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. This expedited procedure is in conjunction with the 
Agency ``Paperless Office'' campaign. For further information on the 
submission of diskettes, contact Sue Slotnick of the Waste Treatment 
Branch at (703) 308-8462.
    This Federal Register notice is available on the Internet System 
through EPA Public Access Server at gopher.epa.gov.or through 
WWW.epa.gov. For the text of the notice, choose: Rules, Regulations, 
and Legislation; the FR-Waste; finally, Year/Month/Day.

Notice of Data Availability

    On August 22, 1995, EPA proposed the LDR Phase IV rule (60 FR 
43654), containing proposed treatment standards for newly listed and 
characteristic wastes, among other issues. In a supplemental proposal 
(61 FR 2338, January 25, 1996), EPA proposed treatment standards and 
changes to the definition of solid waste for mineral processing wastes. 
The two proposals will form the basis for a single rule due to be 
promulgated later this year, referred to as the Phase IV final rule. 
Today's Notice of Data Availability pertains primarily to the original 
Phase IV proposal of August 22, 1995. Also, some possible changes 
discussed in this notice could affect the Universal Treatment Standards 
for metals in general, and could affect the current treatment standard 
for F024. Finally, additional comments on capacity for treating mineral 
processing wastes are solicited.
    Since publication of the Phase IV proposal, EPA has received 
comments and data, available in RCRA docket number F-95-PH4P-FFFFF, on 
many issues, including the following:
    (1) Treatment standards for toxicity characteristic (TC) metal 
wastes;
    (2) Treatment standards for wood preserving wastes;
    (3) Solid waste exclusion for recycled wood preserving wastewaters; 
and,
    (4) Capacity issues.
    These issues, and a discussion of the data the Agency has received 
on each issue, are presented below.

(1) Treatment Standards for Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Metal Wastes

a. Lead-Bearing Smelter Wastes
    Comments were received from several trade organizations (see 
comments from Swidler & Berlin for the Association of Battery 
Recyclers, PH4P-00038; Battery Council International, PH4P-00045; 
Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, PH4P-00077; and, Resource Consultants, 
PH4P-00078.A), expressing concern about the proposed application of 
Universal Treatment Standard to metal TC wastes generated from the 
recycling of lead-acid batteries (lead slags and sludges containing 
lead).
    The Resource Consultants comment contained limited data which 
included concentrations of lead, selenium, and barium in untreated and 
treated (stabilized) secondary lead smelter slag and soils. These data 
may indicate that their stabilized lead smelter slag cannot achieve the 
Universal Treatment Standard limits. In addition, limited data were 
submitted to show how these lead wastes differ in composition from 
K061. These data will be further assessed by the Agency to determine 
whether they may be used to revise the treatment standards for these 
constituents, or to identify particular treatability groups for which 
revised treatment standards may be promulgated. The Agency is also 
reviewing data submitted by the Exide Corporation on HTMR for the 
treatment of lead slags.
    In addition, the Agency is reviewing information from East Penn 
Manufacturing Company, Inc., that seems to indicate that slag can be 
returned to the furnace until the metals are no longer present at 
hazardous concentrations. (If slag is reclaimed, it is not a solid 
waste during the reclamation process because it is a ``byproduct'' 
under 40 CFR 261.2(c). If the resulting discarded slag is below the 
toxicity characteristic levels, the slag is not a hazardous waste and 
so would not be subject to the LDRs.)
    EPA also at this time wishes to clarify an issue raised with 
respect to the applicability of the Land Disposal Restriction Standards 
to slags resulting from smelting of lead acid batteries. The LDR 
standard for lead acid batteries is specified as RLEAD, or recovery of 
lead. (See 40 CFR Section 268.42.) Once the batteries are smelted, the 
LDR requirements have been satisfied, and therefore the slag resulting 
from this smelting need not be treated further. The standards proposed 
under Phase IV (i.e., compliance with UTS) would not apply to this 
slag, even if the slag exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste. 
(However, if the slag exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste, it 
must of course be managed under all other applicable, i.e., non-LDR, 
hazardous waste requirements.) EPA notes also that if a secondary 
smelter accepts materials other than lead acid batteries, then LDR 
requirements could apply to the slag, as with any other waste. The 
Agency understands, however, that secondary lead smelters routinely 
accept some materials closely related to lead acid batteries. EPA does 
not think that LDR status of the slags should be affected by these 
additional, but closely related lead-bearing items, i.e., the slag 
would remain exempt from LDR requirements. The Agency requests comment 
on this issue. EPA dealt with a very similar issue in the Boiler and 
Industrial Furnace (BIF) regulations (see 56 FR 42517, August 27, 
1991). In that rule, the Agency published a list of

[[Page 21420]]

materials that secondary lead smelters may process and still remain 
exempt from the BIF regulations, codified at 40 CFR Part 266, Appendix 
XI. The Agency requests comment on using this same list for purposes of 
defining those materials secondary smelters may accept without changing 
the LDR status of their resulting slags.
b. Lead-Bearing Foundry Wastes
    The metal foundry industry generates emission control dust and 
foundry sand containing cadmium, chronium, lead and selenium. The 
American Foundryman's Society submitted comments to the Phase IV Rule 
stating that foundry sand is different from K061 and that HTMR is not 
demonstrated or available, and stabilization has not been demonstrated 
as meeting Universal Treatment Standards for foundry sands. The 
comments referred the Agency to data which the Agency is now reviewing.
c. Treatment Standard for D011 Silver TC Wastes
    EPA is considering alternative options for the treatment standard 
for D011. In comments to the Phase IV rule, the Silver Coalition and 
the Eastman Kodak Company each stated that silver should be removed 
from the Toxicity Characteristic list of constituents, based on low 
risk, or at least EPA should not promulgate a treatment standard for 
silver below the TC level of 5.0 mg/l. The regulation of silver as a TC 
metal is indeed a subject of concern for EPA. While human health 
effects are not major, concern about aquatic toxicity remains. The 
Agency is not yet prepared to make a decision on the removal of silver 
from the TC list (at 40 CFR 261.24). However, given the low risk to 
human health, EPA is considering two possibilities for the treatment 
standard, in addition to the proposed treatment standards of 0.43 mg/l 
for wastewaters and 0.30 mg/l TCLP for nonwastewaters. One new option 
is to revise the Universal Treatment Standard for silver at a higher 
value, e.g. the TC regulatory level of 5.0 mg/l. This change would 
affect all wastes subject to UTS. The second option is to set the 
standard for D011 at the higher level, maintaining the current 
Universal Treatment Standard levels for all other wastes containing 
silver as a regulated constituent. Comments are requested on these two 
new options.

(2) Treatment Standards for Wood Preserving Waste F032, and 
Potentially, F024

    EPA proposed in the Phase IV proposal to require wood preserving 
waste F032 to meet the Universal Treatment Standard for a specific list 
of hazardous constituents (see 60 FR 43680; August 22, 1995, and its 
Correction Notice, 60 FR 546451, October 25, 1995). The F032 
constituents include dioxin and furan (D/F) constituents (Id. at 
43681). Most comments on the proposed treatment standards for F032 
centered on the need to establish numeric limits for D/F as a means to 
ensure proper treatment. As described below, EPA also received new 
data. The Agency requests comment on the new data, and on options 
presented below. Also, commenters should note that a change in the 
proposed treatment standard for F032 may dictate changes in the F024 (a 
group of chlorinated aliphatic wastes) treatment standard (see 55 FR 
22580-22581, June 1, 1990), as discussed below.
    The Penta Task Force's comment (which also included a 
characterization study from Vulcan Chemicals) and the comment from the 
American Wood Preserving Institute (AWPI) expressed concerns that 
promulgation of concentration limits for D/F hazardous constituents in 
F032 may discourage commercial incineration facilities from treating 
this waste. As a result of this concern, commenters have asked EPA to 
consider alternatives to setting D/F concentration limits in its final 
rule. The Agency is considering options that would provide F032 
generators flexibility, provided that adequate treatment of the waste 
is still ensured. Comments are requested on the options and information 
discussed below. Under all the options discussed below, the treater 
would still have to measure compliance with the proposed Universal 
Treatment Standard levels for the non-D/F constituents in the waste.

New Option: Alternative Treatment Standard

    This option calls for EPA to establish an alternative treatment 
standard that sets incineration as a treatment method for D/F 
constituents, in lieu of actually measuring the D/F concentrations in 
the treated residues. F032 wastes treated via incineration would have 
met the treatment standard for D/F, and disposal would be allowed so 
long as the Universal Treatment Standard limits promulgated for other 
organic constituents were also met. Under this option, Treatment 
Standard levels for each D/F constituent would still be codified so 
that compliance with these levels can be monitored in cases when F032 
is treated by nonincineration technologies.
    This option, suggested by the Penta Task Force and AWPI, is 
patterned after a treatment standard promulgated for F024. The 
commenters believe that the concentrations of D/F in untreated F032 are 
similar to those found in untreated F024, therefore, these two wastes 
can be adequately regulated in a similar manner.
a. Preliminary Review of Vulcan's Characterization Study.
    Vulcan Chemical submitted a characterization study in an attachment 
to the Penta Task Force's comment. This commenter pointed out that the 
commercial grade tolerances of pentachlorophenol (PCP) allowed 
domestically have D/F levels well below than those EPA reported in the 
Listing Background Document for F032, F034, and F035. The commenters 
also submitted data on D/F measured in several F032 waste streams from 
six wood preserving plants (see comment number PH4P-00032.J). EPA is 
currently reviewing these characterization data, however, they appear 
to support Vulcan and AWPI's claim that D/F concentrations in F032 have 
been reduced in commercial oils and subsequently, in F032 wastes.
    The new F032 characterization data do not appear to support a 
determination that F032 and F024 are exactly alike. F024 has the 
following D/F maximum concentrations: up to 2 ppb for penta-PCDD, 10 
ppb for hexa-PCDD, 10 ppb of tetra-PCDF, 30 ppb for penta-PCDF, 50 ppb 
for hexa-PCDF, and tetra-PCDD was not detected above 1 ppb. It appears 
that F032 may have concentrations of D/F of up to 4.3 ppb for tetra-
PCDD, 590 ppb for hexa-PCDD, 78 ppb for penta-PCDF(estimated), 1,500 
ppb for hexa-PCDF, and penta-CDD was not detected. Based on these data, 
it appears that the maximum concentrations of penta-PCDD, tetra-PCDF, 
and penta-PCDF in F032 are within the same or lower order of magnitude 
as those in F024. In contrast, tetra-PCDD and hexa-PCDF maximum 
concentrations in F032 diverge by two orders of magnitude with those in 
F024. Also, hexa-PCDD maximum concentrations in F032 may exceed by one 
order of magnitude those found in F024. However, neither of these 
wastes were identified as `acutely toxic' in 40 CFR 261, Subpart D, so 
in this sense they are in a similar class.
b. Feasibility of setting ``INCIN'' or ``CMBST'' as an Alternative 
Treatment Standard
    In spite of some differences between these two wastes, EPA believes 
that a treatment standard allowing incineration (or `combustion,' see 
discussion below) as an alternative

[[Page 21421]]

standard for D/F in F032 may be technically feasible. One reason is 
that incineration is BDAT for dioxin-containing wastes. EPA also 
believes that incineration, and in fact, combustion technologies 
generally, are among the least matrix-dependant technologies capable of 
treating the diverse range of residues that comprise F032. Various 
types of incineration have been demonstrated to treat high and low 
level D/F constituents below detection limits in incineration residues.
    Suboptions under consideration. EPA has identified, however, three 
regulatory suboptions for the implementation of Vulcan's proposed 
alternative treatment method. Each suboption is discussed below. The 
Agency notes that suboptions 2 and 3 would also change the F024 
treatment standard. Also, suboptions 2 and 3 are not mutually 
exclusive, and both could be selected by the Agency.
    Suboption 1: Apply existing F024 alternative combustion treatment 
standard to F032.
    The treatment standard for F024 was originally limited to 
incineration units. In the Phase III final rule (April 8, 1996), EPA 
amended the incineration treatment standard (see 40 CFR 268.42, Table 
1, `INCIN') to include additional combustion devices (see `CMBST' in 
the Phase III final rule). EPA believes that well-operated and well-
designed combustion units can meet the treatment standard for F024 and 
F032. Setting CMBST as the treatment standard for D/F in F032 would 
allow wider access to a variety of combustion practices.
    Suboption 2: Establish F032's and revise F024's CMBST alternative 
standard to require the combustion unit to achieve a dioxin emission 
standard. One concern with the CMBST treatment standard is that D/F can 
be reformed in the post-combustion zone if favorable conditions exist. 
Thus, controls may be needed to minimize the potential for forming and 
emitting D/F emissions into the atmosphere, and to minimize the 
potential for such products of incomplete combustion to be adsorbed 
onto wastes. The Agency is concerned that until combustion units are 
regulated under the proposed MACT standards discussed below, a simple 
CMBST standard for either F024 or F032 could actually lead to increased 
air emissions of D/F, or increased concentrations adsorbed onto 
combustion wastes, if these F024 and F032 wastes were combusted in 
units that foster the formation of D/F. (It also must be remembered 
that treatment standards that result in unsafe cross-media transfers of 
pollutants do not satisfy the requirements of RCRA section 3004(m)). 
See Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2, 17 (D.C. Cir. 
1992).) Studies (see discussion below) show that effective controls to 
inhibit D/F formation may include one or more of the following: (1) 
rapid quench of combustion gases; (2) air pollution control device's 
inlet temperatures of less than 400 F for the flue gas; (3) good 
combustion practices (e.g. like higher temperatures, proper mixing in 
the combustion zone, and appropriate chemical residence time); and, 
finally, (4) activated carbon injection scrubbing, if dioxin emissions 
remain high.
    Based on studies conducted at various domestic incineration units 
such as light weight aggregate kilns and cement kilns, EPA has proposed 
regulations that set a maximum toxicity equivalent (TEQ) D/F emission 
standard of 0.20 ng/DSCF (corrected to 7% O<INF>2) for combustion units 
burning RCRA hazardous wastes. (See Proposed Rule (signed March 20, 
1996)--Revised Technical Standards Waste Combustion Facilities (<a href="http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/combust.html">http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/combust.html</a>.) EPA's studies show that at least 
50% of the facilities tested for the proposed combustion rule meet this 
MACT limit. EPA is requesting comments on whether this D/F emission 
standard should also be codified as a requirement of a CMBST 
alternative treatment standard. [For background information regarding 
the development and implementation of such an air emission standard, 
see the following documents: (1) Proposed Rule (signed March 20, 
1996)--Revised Technical Standards Waste Combustion Facilities <a href="http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/combust.html">http://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/combust.html</a>); (2) Draft Technical Support 
Document for HWC MACT Standards, Volume III: Selection of MACT 
Standards and Technologies,(see pages 5-1 through 5-6); (3) Combustion 
Emission Technical Resource Document (CETRED) (see pages A-54 through 
A-56) (OSW: EPA 530-R-94-014, May 1994); and, (4) Performance of 
activated carbon injection on dioxin/furan and mercury emissions, 
February 23, 1996, memorandum from Shiva Garg of EPA's OSW to DOCKET # 
F-96-RCSP-FFFFF.] Compliance would have to be documented at least every 
18 months.
    Under this suboption, any RCRA permitted or interim status 
combustion device capable of demonstrating achievability in meeting the 
dioxin (TEQ) air emission discharge limit would be allowed to combust 
F032 and F024. Should EPA ultimately select a standard other than 0.2 
ng/DSCF, the Agency would of course revisit the LDR standard for F024 
and F032.
    Suboption 3: Revise F024's CMBST alternative standard (and set 
F032's standard) to limit the combustion of F024 and F032 to combustion 
devices that have been permitted. A final option would be to limit 
combustion of F024 and F032 to combustion devices (i.e., incinerators, 
boilers, and industrial furnaces) that have been evaluated as part of 
the RCRA permitting process, including potential evaluation under the 
omnibus permitting authority set out in RCRA section 3005(c)(3). This 
could involve a site-specific evaluation of whether permit conditions 
more stringent than those required by the regulations are necessary to 
assure that the facility's combustion practices are sufficiently 
controlled to be protective of human health and the environment. Since 
only permitted facilities are subject to omnibus evaluation, this 
option would necessarily limit the eligible combustion devices to those 
that have received permits.
    A complete list of related references is available in the RCRA 
docket for this notice. It is called `Reference List for F032.'

(3) Solid Waste Exclusion of Recycled Wood Preserving Wastewaters

    In the Phase IV proposal, EPA announced that it would consider 
granting a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for 
recycled process wastewaters used in the wood preserving industry, 
provided that the Agency received adequate information to grant such an 
exclusion. The proposal solicited this information, and specified that 
it would have to be sufficient to make an industry-wide determination 
that the reclamation operation was an essential part of production, and 
that the secondary materials being reclaimed were not likely to be a 
part of the waste disposal problem.
    In response to this solicitation for information, comments were 
submitted from the American Wood Preservers Institute (AWPI), the State 
of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Universal Forest 
Products, Inc., Remediation Technologies, Inc., J.H. Baxter & Company, 
the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Beazer East, Inc., and Covington 
& Burling, pertaining to a possible solid waste exclusion for recycled 
wood preserving wastewaters. EPA will review this information to 
determine whether this information is adequate.
    Specifically, EPA will be reviewing these comments to evaluate the 
extent to which they establish that the reclamation of production 
wastewaters

[[Page 21422]]

from the wood preserving industry meet the variance criteria found in 
40 CFR 260.31(b). As was stated in the Phase IV proposal, if these 
criteria can be demonstrated on an industry-wide basis, the Agency may 
grant a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for 
reclaimed production wastewaters from the wood preserving industry. The 
comments from AWPI address each of the 40 CFR 261.31(b) criteria in 
some detail. EPA will also review other comments, such as those 
submitted by EDF, that question the basis and desirability of granting 
the variance on an industry-wide basis. EPA solicits replies to these 
particular comments.
    EPA has also added to the docket a bill being considered by 
Congress that would exempt from regulation wastewaters provided the 
materials are ``contained, collected, and reused in an on-site 
production process that prevents releases to the environment.'' In 
discussions of this issue, representatives of the American Wood 
Preservers Association stated that they were not seeking to eliminate 
the existing Subpart W standards for drip pads used to collect and 
manage drippage from wood preserving. EPA solicits comments on whether 
the record supports a national exclusion from the definition of solid 
waste for recycled process wastewaters from wood preserving operations 
that are returned to the process from which they originated, with the 
condition that drippage from the wood is collected and managed on drip 
pads that are in compliance with Subpart W drip pad standards and that 
there is no release of the wastewaters to the environment.

(4) Capacity Issues

a. Request for More Information on Amounts of TC Metal Wastes and TC-
contaminated Soil
    EPA has received comments on the Phase IV proposed rule stating 
that application of Universal Treatment Standards to TC metal wastes 
will significantly increase the demand for, and costs of, treatment. As 
stated in the Supplemental Proposal on mineral processing wastes, EPA 
has limited information on quantities of TC metal wastes with which to 
analyze available treatment capacity. Comments also indicated that 
there may be TC metal-contaminated soil that would require treatment to 
meet LDR treatment standards. These commenters argue that there will be 
a need for a capacity variance for TC metal-contaminated soils. 
Commenters submitted very little data, however, to support their 
arguments. EPA requests data to potentially support capacity variances 
for TC metal wastes and TC metal-contaminated soils.
    Furthermore, as stated in the Supplemental proposal, EPA solicits 
information on quantities of characteristic mineral processing wastes, 
in order to determine whether adequate capacity exists to treat these 
wastes (61 FR 2360). Because data do not exist to support a capacity 
variance at this time, EPA is once again urging commenters to provide 
information on the quantities, characteristics, and management of the 
newly identified mineral processing wastes.
b. Potential Capacity Variance for FMC Corporation
    Representatives of FMC Corporation met with EPA to present their 
argument that they need a two-year national capacity variance for three 
large volume TC metal wastewater streams (Medusa Scrubber Blowdown, 
Anderson Filter Media Rinsate, and Furnace Building Washdown) that are 
generated at its Pocatello, Idaho facility. (A memorandum summarizing 
this meeting is part of the record for this rulemaking.) FMC believes 
that these three wastewaters pose unique treatability problems because 
of elemental phosphorous contamination and naturally occurring 
radioactive material. They argue that the logistics and costs to ship 
these wastestreams off-site for treatment are impractical and 
prohibitive. FMC also stated that a survey of off-site treatment 
facilities shows that no permitted TSDF can currently handle these 
wastestreams. As such, FMC believes it will need a two-year national 
capacity variance to develop and construct treatment capacity for these 
wastewater streams and thus comply with Phase IV. FMC intends to submit 
detailed documentation supporting its claim for a two-year national 
capacity variance. If it is submitted in a timely fashion, EPA will 
make it available to the public during the comment period for this 
notice, and will potentially use this information in determining 
whether a capacity variance is needed.

Summary

    In conclusion, the Agency is making available to the public new 
data it has received since the Phase IV proposal (or alerting the 
public to data it expects to receive immediately). Comments are 
requested on the data and their possible use, as discussed in this 
notice. In addition, the Agency is requesting data on TC metal wastes, 
TC metal-contaminated soil, and mineral processing wastes and 
contaminated soils, that could be used to determine the need for 
capacity variances, since the Agency currently lacks such data.

    Dated: May 3, 1996.
Michael Shapiro,
Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 96-11740 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P