21418 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

finding of failure to attain based on the 1994 and

1995 data, are relevant to today’s proposal in only

one respect. If EPA were to conclude that the

Phoenix area qualified for a one year extension of

the attainment date, the 1996 exceedances, if

validated as a NAAQS violation, would prevent the

area from obtaining a second one year extension. As

stated above, EPA does not believe the Phoenix area

can qualify for the first extension. Moreover, EPA

does not believe that the 1996 exceedances were

affected by exceptional events. See letter from

David P. Howekamp, EPA to Russell Rhoades,

ADEQ, April 12, 1996. Therefore, the 1996 data are

not addressed further in this notice.

B. SIP Requirements for Serious CO

Areas

CO nonattainment areas reclassified

as serious under section 186(b)(2) of the

CAA are required to submit, within 18

months of the area’s reclassification, SIP

revisions demonstrating attainment of

the CO NAAQS as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than December

31, 2000. The serious CO area planning

requirements are set forth in section

187(b) of the CAA. EPA has issued two

general guidance documents related to

the planning requirements for CO SIPs.

The first is the ‘‘General Preamble for

the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’

that sets forth EPA’s preliminary views

on how the Agency intends to act on

SIPs submitted under Title I of the Act.

See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16,

1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

The second general guidance document

for CO SIPs issued by EPA is the

‘‘Technical Support Document to Aid

the States with the Development of

Carbon Monoxide State Implementation

Plans,’’ July 1992.

If the Phoenix area is reclassified to

serious, the State would have to submit

a SIP revision to EPA that, in addition

to the attainment demonstration,

includes: (1) a forecast of vehicle miles

travelled (VMT) for each year before the

attainment year and provisions for

annual updates of these forecasts; (2)

adopted contingency measures; and (3)

adopted transportation control measures

and strategies to offset any growth in CO

emissions from growth in VMT or

number of vehicle trips. See CAA

sections 187(a)(7), 187(a)(2)(A),

187(a)(3), 187(b)(2), and 187(b)(1). Upon

reclassification, contingency measures

in the moderate area plan for the

Phoenix area must be implemented.

III. Executive Order (EO) 12866

Under E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735

(October 4, 1993), EPA is required to

determine whether regulatory actions

are significant and therefore should be

subject to OMB review, economic

analysis, and the requirements of the

Executive Order. The Executive Order

defines a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

as one that is likely to result in a rule

that may meet at least one of the four

criteria identified in section 3(f),

including, under paragraph (1), that the

rule may ‘‘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.’’

The Agency has determined that the

finding of failure to attain proposed

today would result in none of the effects

identified in section 3(f). Under section

186(b)(2) of the CAA, findings of failure

to attain and reclassification of

nonattainment areas are based upon air

quality considerations and must occur

by operation of law in light of certain air

quality conditions. They do not, in-andof-themselves, impose any new

requirements on any sectors of the

economy. In addition, because the

statutory requirements are clearly

defined with respect to the differently

classified areas, and because those

requirements are automatically triggered

by classifications that, in turn, are

triggered by air quality values, findings

of failure to attain and reclassification

cannot be said to impose a materially

adverse impact on State, local, or tribal

governments or communities.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

As discussed in section III of this

notice, findings of failure to attain and

reclassification of nonattainment areas

under section 186(b)(2) of the CAA do

not in-and-of-themselves create any new

requirements. Therefore, I certify that

today’s proposed action does not have a

significant impact on small entities.

Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203 and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

assess whether various actions

undertaken in association with

proposed or final regulations include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to the private sector, or to State, local or

tribal governments in the aggregate.

Clean Air Act Reclassification;

Arizona-Phoenix; Carbon Monoxide 14

EPA believes, as discussed above, that

the proposed finding of failure to attain

and reclassification of the Phoenix

nonattainment area are factual

determinations based upon air quality

considerations and must occur by

operation of law and, hence, do not

impose any Federal intergovernmental

mandate, as defined in section 101 of

the Unfunded Mandates Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Carbon monoxide.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. sections 7401–7671q.

Dated: April 29, 1996.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11739 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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–
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 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
21420 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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 pentaPCDF, 50 ppb for hexa-PCDF, and tetraPCDD 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, tetraPCDF, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 21421

standard for D/F in F032 may be

technically feasible. One reason is that

incineration is BDAT for dioxincontaining 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 crossmedia 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% O2) for

combustion units burning RCRA

hazardous wastes. (See Proposed Rule

(signed March 20, 1996)—Revised

Technical Standards Waste Combustion

Facilities (http://www.epa.gov/

epaoswer/combust.html.) 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 http://www.epa.gov/

epaoswer/combust.html); (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
21422 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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 industrywide 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 TCcontaminated 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 metalcontaminated 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 metalcontaminated 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 twoyear 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 metalcontaminated 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

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5502–2]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the

Marathon Battery Company site from

the National Priorities List: Request for

Comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region II announces its

intent to delete the Marathon Battery

Company site from the National

Priorities List (NPL) and requests public

comment on this action. The NPL is

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which

is the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to Section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA), as amended. EPA and

the State of New York have determined

that no further cleanup by responsible

parties is appropriate under CERCLA.

Moreover, EPA and the State have

determined that CERCLA activities

conducted at the Marathon Battery

Company site to date have been

protective of public health, welfare, and

the environment.

DATES: Comments concerning the

deletion of the Marathon Battery

Company site from the NPL may be

submitted on or before June 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments concerning the

deletion of the Marathon Battery

Company site from the NPL may be

submitted to: Pamela Tames, P.E.,

Remedial Project Manager, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II, 290 Broadway, 20th floor,

New York, NY 10007–1866.

Comprehensive information on the

Marathon Battery Company site is

contained in the EPA Region II public

docket, which is located at EPA’s

Region II office (the 18th floor), and is

available for viewing, by appointment

only, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding