Ii ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 3. 2616 · of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments B. Pollution Prevention Benefits C. Relationship of Developing LDR Treatment Standards to Levels

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Parts 148i 260, 261,268 and271

[EPA #530-7-03-011, FRL-4725-61

RIN 2050-AD37

Land Disposal Restrictions for NewlyIdentified and Listed HazardousWastes and Hazardous Soil

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing treatmentstandards for the newly identifiedorganic toxicity characteristic wastes(except those managed in Clean WaterAct (CWA) systems, CWA-equivalentsystems, or Class I Safe Drinking WaterAct (SDWA) injection wells), andtreatment standards for all newly listedcoke by-product and chlorotolueneproduction wastes that must be metbefore these wastes are land disposed.EPA is also proposing to requireignitable characteristic wastes with ahigh total organic carbon (TOC) contentand toxic characteristic pesticidewastes, that are being disposed in ClassI nonhazardous waste injection wells, toeither be injected into a well that issubject to a no-migration determination,or be treated to meet the LDR treatmentstandards prior to injection, Thesetreatment standards and the dilutionprohibitions for high TOC ignitables andpesticides are being proposed in orderto comply with a proposed consentdecree with the Environmental DefenseFund. This proposal also containsalternative standards for soilcontaminated with prohibitedhazardous wastes that will encourageuse of noncombustion treatmenttechnologies in treating hazardous soil.In addition, EPA is proposing severalrevisions to previously promulgatedtreatment standards and requirements inorder to simplify the implementation ofthe land disposal restriction rules,including setting "universal treatmentstandards". Finally, EPA is proposing tomodify the hazardous waste recyclingregulations which will allowstreamlined regulatory decisions to bemade regarding the regulation of certaintypes of recycling activities.DATES: Comments and data must besubmitted on or before November 15,1993.ADDRESSES: The public must send anoriginal and two copies of their writtencomments to EPA RCRA Docket (OS-305), U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC

20460. Place the Docket Number F-92-CS2P-FFFFF on your comments. TheRCRA Docket is located in room 2616 atthe above address, and is open from 9am to 4 pm Monday through Friday,except for Federal holidays. The publicmust make an appointment to reviewdocket materials by calling (202) 260-9327. The public may copy a maximumof 100 pages from any regulatorydocument at no cost. Additional copiescost $.15 per page.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OONTACT: Forgeneral information, contact the RCRAHotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll-free) or(703) 412-9810 locally. For technicalinformation on treatment standards,contact the Waste Treatment Branch,Office of Solid Waste (OS-322W), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW., Washington, DC. 20460,(703)308-8434. For technicalinformation on capacity analyses,contact the Capacity Branch, Office ofSolid Waste (OS-321W), (703)308-8440.For technical information on HazardousWaste Recycling, contact the RegulationDevelopment Branch, Office of SolidWaste (OS-332), (202)260-8551.L Background

A. Summary of the Statutory Requirementsof the 1984 Hazardous and Solid WasteAmendments

B. Pollution Prevention BenefitsC. Relationship of Developing LDR

Treatment Standards to Levels BeingConsidered in Hazardous WasteIdentification Rule

II. Summary of Proposed RuleA. Improvements to Existing LDR ProgramB. Treatment Standards for Toxic

•Characteristic WastesC. Prohibition of Dilution of High TO

Ignitable and of TC Pesticide WastesInjected into Class I Deep Wells

D. Treatment Standards for Newly ListedWastes

E. Soil Contaminated with HazardousWaste

F. Compliance Monitoring and NotificationG. Solicitation of Comment Regarding

Exclusion of Hazardous DebrisH. Modifications to Hazardous Waste

Recycling RegulationsIll. Improvements to the Existing Land

Disposal Restrictions ProgramA. Proposed Universal Treatment

Standards1. Universal Standards for Organic

Hazardous Constituentsa. Nonwastewatersb. Wastewatersc. Comments on the-Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemakingd. Other Revisions to Existing Treatment

Standards2. Universal Standards for Metal

Hazardous Constituentsa. Nonwastewatersb. Wastewatersc. Comments on the Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking

d. Request for Data3. Universal Standards for Cyanidea. Wastewatersb. Nonwastewaters4. Universal Standards for Petroleum

Refining Wastes5. Universal Standards Will Not Apply to

F024B. Incorporation of Newly Listed Wastes

into Lab Packs and Proposed Changes toAppendices

C. Proposed Changes in the LDR ProgramIn Response to the LDR Roundtable

1. Background2. Consolidated Treatment Table3. Simplified LDR Notification

Requirements4. Demonstrating Acceptable Knowledge of

One's Wastea. Backgroundb. What Constitutes Acceptable

Knowledge?c. When Might Acceptable Knowledge be

Used?d. Why Provide Evidence to Support

Acceptable Knowledge?e. How Can A TSDF Verify Data Supplied

by a Generator?5. Advance Notice of Possible Changes to

the LDR Program Resulting from the LDRRoundtable

a. Waste Code Carry Throughb. Use of Health-Based Levels Versus

Technology-Based Levels in EstablishingTreatment Standards

c. Inconsistency of Standardsd. Capacity-Related Issuese. Generator Knowledgef. Constituents

. Detection LimitsWaste Analysis Plans (WAPs)

I. Paperworkj. Complexity of the Regulations

IV. Treatment Standards for ToxicityCharacteristic Waste

A. The Third Third Court Decision, TheEmergency Interim Final Rule, and TheirApplicability to TC Wastes

1. Background2. Applicability of This Approach to TC

Wastes and Hazardous Soil Covered byThis Proposed Rule

3. Future Response to Issues Remanded bythe Court

4. Request for Comment on Petition fromChemical Manufacturer's AssociationRegarding Deep Well Injection ofIgnitable and Corrosive CharacteristicWastes

B. Background1. Legal and Policy Background2. Background on Toxicity CharacteristicC. Treatment Standards for New TC

Organic Constituents1. General Approach for Establishing

Concentration-based TreatmentStandards

a. Nonwastewatersb. Wastewaters2. Radioactive Mixed WasteD. Treatment Standards for TC Pesticide

Wastes (D012-D017)1. Newly Identified Pesticide

Nonwastewaters2. Pesticide WastewatersE. Proposed Exemptions for De Minimis

Losses of TC Wastes and for TC

HeinOnline -- 58 Fed. Reg. 48092 1993

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

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

Laboratory Wastes Discharged to CWAWastewater Treatment

V. Deep Well Injection IssuesA. Prohibition of Dilution of High TOC

Ignitable and of TC Pesticide WastesInjected into Class I Deep Wells

B. Request for Comment on Petition fromChemical Manufacturer's AssociationRegarding Deep Well Injection ofIgnitable and Corrosive CharacteristicWastes

VI. Treatment Standards for Newly ListedWastes

A. Treatment Standards for Coke By--Product Production Wastes

1. Proposed Treatment Standards2. Potential Future Revisions to Treatment

Standards for Existing Coking WastesK087, K060, and K035

B. Treatment Standards for ChlorotoluenesVII. Treatment Standards for Hazardous Soils

A. IntroductionB. Applicability, Regulatory Status of

Treated Soils, and Definitions1. Applicability2. Regulatory Status of Treated Soils3. "Contained-in" Determinations4. Definitionsa. Hazardous Soilb. Constituents Subject to Treatmentc. Illegal Contamination of Soild. Nonanalyzable ConstituentsC. Proposed Approaches for Establishing

Treatment Standards for Hazardous Soils1. Technology-Based Treatment Standards

for Hazardous Soilsa. Range of Standards With A "Ceiling"

One Order of Magnitude Above theUniversal Standard, Provided 90%Treatment Occurs

b. Range of Standards With A "Ceiling"One Order of Magnitude Above theUniversal Standard

c. Achieving 90% Treatment With No"Ceiling"

2. Explanation of Numeric TreatmentStandards for Hazardous Soils

3. Treatment Standards for Residues fromSoil Treatment

4. Treatability VariancesD. Contained-in DeterminationsE. Soil Treatment Database1. Treatment Technologies2. Development of the Database3. Analysis of the Databasea. Consideration of Innovative

Technologiesb. Rationale for Not Using the

"Traditional" BDAT Approach toDevelop Hazardous Soil TreatmentStandards

c. Graphical Analysis of Datad. Transfer of Proposed Universal

Standards to Constituents without Data4. Request for Additional Data and

CommentF. Sampling and Analysis Protocols-Grab

vs. Composite SamplesG. Relationship to Other Regulations and

Programs1. RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions

Programa. Existing LDR Treatment Standardsb. Soil Contaminated With Newly Listed

Wastes Which Have Final TreatmentStandards

c. Soil Contaminated With Newly Listedand Identified Wastes Which HaveProposed Treatment Standards

2. RCRA Corrective Action3. Voluntary RCRA Cleanups4. Phase I LDR Rule: Hazardous Debris'5. CERCLA as amended by SARA6. Soil Contaminated by Underground

Storage Tanks7. Other Petroleum Contaminated Soil8. Radioactive Mixed Wastesa. Definition of Mixed Wastesb. RCRA Requirements9. Special Provisions for Soil Containing

AsbestosH. Related EPA Activities on Contaminated

Media1. Contaminated Media Cluster2. Weathered Sludges3. EPA Lead Strategy4. Bioremediation

VIII. Compliance Monitoring and NotificationA. Compliance MonitoringB. LDR Notification1. Constituents To Be Included on the LDR

Notification2. Management in Subtitle C-Regulated

Facilities3. Potential Management of

Decharacterized Wastes at a Subtitle DWaste Management Facility

IX. Further Solicitation of CommentRegarding Exclusion of Hazardous Debristhat has been Treated by ImmobilizationTechnologies

A. BackgroundB. Roundtable DiscussionC. EPA InvestigationsD. Conclusions

X. Modifications to Hazardous WasteRecycling Regulations

A. IntroductionB. Modification of the Existing "Closed-

Loop" Recycling Exclusion and RelatedCase-Specific Variance

1. Existing "Closed-Loop" RecyclingExclusion and Related Variance

2. K069 Wastes Recycled Back into theSecondary Process

3. Storage Prior to RecyclingXI. Implementation IssuesXII. Capacity Determinations

A. Capacity Analysis Results SummaryB. Analysis of Available CapacityC. Surface Disposed Newly Identified and

Listed Wastes1. Required Capacity for Newly Identified

TC Organics (DO18-D043)2. Required Capacity for Other Newly

Listed Organic Wastesa. Surface Disposed Coke By-Product

Wastesb. Surface Disposed Chlorinated Toluene

Wastes3. Newly Identified TC Wastes That Were

Not Previously Hazardous by the Old EPLeaching Procedure

D. Required and Available Capacity forNewly Identified Wastes Mixed withRadioactive Components

E. Required and Available Capacity forHigh TOC Ignitable, TC Pesticide, andNewly Listed Wastes Injected into ClassI Deep Wells

F. Required and Available Capacity frHazardous Soil and Debris Contalinatedwith Newly Listed and Identified Wastes

1. Waste generationa. Hazardous soilb. Hazardous debris2. Current management practices3. Available capacity and capacity

implicationsa. Hazardous soilb. Hazardous debris

XIII. State AuthorityA. Applicability of Rules in Authorized

StatesB. Effect on State Authorization

XIV. Regulatory RequirementsA. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to

Executive Order 122911. Methodology Sectiona. Cost Methodologyb. Economic Impact Methodologyc. Benefits Methodology2. Results Sectiona. Cost Resultsb. Economic Impact Resultsc. Benefit Estimate3. Regulatory Impact Analysis-

Underground Injection WastesB. Regulatory Flexibility AnalysisC. Paperwork Reduction Act

Appendix A to the Preamble: Description ofHazardous Soil Treatment Technologiesand Performance Standards

I. Background

A. Summary of the StatutoryRequirements of the 1984 Hazardousand Solid Waste Amendments

The Hazardous and Solid WasteAmendments (HSWA) to the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),enacted on November 8, 1984, largelyprohibit the land disposal of untreatedhazardous wastes. Once a hazardouswaste is prohibited from land disposal,the statute provides only two options:Meet the treatment standard for thewaste prior to land disposal, or disposeof the waste in a land disposal unit thathas been found to satisfy the statutoryno migration test. The treatmentstandards EPA establishes may beexpressed as either levels or methods,and must substantially diminish thetoxicity of the waste or substantiallyreduce the likelihood of migration ofhazardous constituents from the wasteso that short-term and long-term threatsto human health and the environmentare minimized. RCRA section3004(m)(1). A no migration unit is onefrom which there will be no migrationof hazardous constituents for as long asthe waste remains hazardous. RCRAsections 3004(d), (e), (g)(5). Forpurposes of the restrictions, landdisposal includes any placement ofhazardous waste in a landfill, surfaceimpoundment, waste pile, injectionwell, land treatment facility, salt domeformation, salt bed formation, orunderground mine or cave. RCRAsection 3004(k).

48093



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

The land disposal restrictions areeffective upon promulgation. RCRAsection 3004(h)(1). However, theAdministrator may grant a nationalcapacity variance from the immediateeffective date and establish a latereffective date (not to exceed two years)based on the earliest date on whichadequate alternative treatment,recovery, or disposal capacity whichprotects human health and theenvironment will be available. RCRAsection 3004(h2). The Administratormay also grant a case-by-case extensionof the effective date for up to one year,renewable once for up to one additionalyear, when an applicant successfullymakes certain demonstrations. RCRAsection 30C4(h)(3). See 55 FR 22526(June 1, 1990) for a more detaileddiscussion on national capacityvariances and case-by-case extensions.

In addition, Congress prohibitedstorage of any waste which is prohibitedfrom land disposal unless such storageis solely for the purpose of theaccumulation of such quantities ofhazardous waste as are necessary tofacilitate proper recovery, treatment ordisposal. RCRA section 3004(j). Forstorage up to one year, EPA bears theburden of proving that such storage wasnot solely for the purpose ofaccumulation of quantities necessary tofacilitate proper recovery, treatment ordisposal. 40 CFR 268.50(b). For storagebeyond one year, the burden of proofshifts to the generator or owner/operatorof a treatment, storage or disposalfacility to demonstrate that such storagewas solely for the purpose.ofaccumulatikn of quantities necessary tofacilitate proper recovery, treatment ordisposal. 40 CFR 268.50(c). Theprovision applies, of course, only tostorage which is not also defined insection 3004(k) as land disposal.

EPA was required to promulgate landdisposal prohibitions and treatmentstandards by May 8, 1990 for all wastesthat were either listed or identified ashazardous at the time of the 1984amendments, a task EPA completedwithin the statutory timeframes. RCRAsections 3004(d), (e), and (g). EPA is alsorequired to promulgate prohibitions andtreatment standards for wastesidentified or listed as hazardous afterthe date of the 1984 amendments withinsix months after the listing oridentification takes effect. RCRA section3004(g)(4). The Agency did not meetthis latter statutory deadline. As aresult, a suit was filed by theEnvironmental Defense Fund (EDF) tocompel agency action. In response to thesuit, EPA filed with the District Court aproposed consent decree (not yetratified by the Court) that would

establish a schedule for adoptingprohibitions and treatment standards fornewly identified and listed wastes. (EDFv. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-0598, D.D.C.)Treatment standards proposed for theTC wastes (including TC soils) managedin non-CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non-Class I SDWA well systems, and newlylisted coke by-product andchlorotoluene production wastes arecovered by this consent decree. Thefinal treatment standards must bepromulgated by July 1994.

None of the modifications to theexisting land disposal restrictions rulesproposed today are required by the EDFsettlement. However, the Agencybelieves it important to review itsregulations on a periodic basis andmake changes, as appropriate, wheresuch will improve or update ourtechnical knowledge or improve orsimplify the implementation of theprogram. In today's notice, EPA isproposing to modify the existingtreatment standards for soilcontaminated with prohibitedhazardous waste(s), is proposing todevelop a set of treatment standards(called universal standards) that wouldapply to most hazardous wastes, isproposing changes to the requirementsfor land disposal of lab packs containingprohibited hazardous wastes, and isproposing to modify the paperworkrequirements so as to simplify theimplementation of the regulations.

B. Pollution Prevention BenefitsEPA's progress over the years in

improving environmental qualitythrough its media-specific pollutioncontrol programs has been substantial.Over the past two decades, standardindustrial practice for pollution controlconcentrated to a large extent on "endof pipe" treatment or land disposal ofhazardous and non-hazardous wastes.However, EPA realizes that there arelimits to how much environmentalimprovement can be achieved underthese programs which emphasizemanagement after pollutants have beengenerated. EPA believes that eliminatingor reducing discharges and/or emissionsto the environment through theimplementation of cost-effective sourcereduction and environmentally soundrecycling practices can provideadditional environmentalimprovements. Examples of treatmentstandards proposed today that are basedon the performance of a recoverytechnology are the universal standardsfor metals, which are based on theperformance of high temperature metalrecovery (HTMR). The Agency isrequasting comment on whether otherrecovery technologies or source

reduction activities are appropriate asthe Best Demonstrated AvailableTechnology (BDAT) for the wastesincluded in today's proposed rule.

The Agency has previously outlinedthe legal basis for waste minimizationand source reduction as a potential typeof LDR treatment standard, to beavailable as an optional choice forpersons managing prohibited wastes.(See 56 FR 55162 (Oct. 24, 1991) andSupplemental Information Report pp.30-31 prepared for the Notice of DataAvailability (January 19, 1993).) Briefly,RCRA section 3004(m) requires theAgency to establish treatment standardsso that short-term and long-term threatsto human health and the environmentare minimized. Waste minimization andsource reduction potentially meet thesecriteria. They are a type of treatment,namely "a method, technique, orprocess * * * designed to change thephysical, chemical, or biologicalcharacter or composition of anyhazardous waste so as to neutralize suchwaste or so as to render such wastenonhazardous, safer for transport,amenable for recovery, amenable forstorage, or reduced in volume." RCRAsection 1004(34). Put another way,wastes ultimately generated will be lesshazardous or reduced in volume by aprocess designed to change thecomposition of the hazardous wastebeing generated. Arguably, these processchanges could apply to activities priorto the generation of the hazardouswaste. Waste minimization and sourcereduction techniques also potentiallyfurther the ultimate statutory criteria ofminimizing threats to human health andthe environment. The endorsement ofwaste minimization and sourcereduction in the statute (see RCRAsection 1003(6)) is a direct indicationthat these techniques further thestatute's protectiveness objectives. SeeS. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. 17setting out the concept of a preferredwaste management hierarchy indescribing LDR requirements. It shouldalso be noted that the D.C. Circuit hasrecently stated that one of the objectivesof the section 3004 (in) treatmentstandards is to reduce the mass loadingof hazardous constituents, ChemicalWaste Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d at23-6, and this goal is perhaps bestserved by waste minimization andsource reduction techniques.

This is not to say that there are nodrawbacks to including thesetechniques as a type of section 3004(m)standard. The Agency would need toassess such factors as how thesetechniques affect: Pioduction decisions;waste management costs and othermarket efficiencies; development of new



Federal Regi" I VoL 58. No. 176 1 Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

technologies concentrations ofhazardous constituents in the remainingresidues; and, implementationdiffiulties noted in the SupplementalInformation Report in making a decisionto specfy source reduction and wasteminimization as a treatment standard. Inaddition, the Agency may also need toconsider the applicability of thetechniques to facilities which differ inprocesses used, size, age, and otherfactors.

To better understand these tradeoffs.the Agency salicited comments in theSupplemental Information Report (pp.30-31) on allowing source reductiontwaste minimization as an optional site-specific means of satisfying the LDRtreatment standard. EPA is continuingto evaluate those comments, andrequests further comment on this issue.

n May 18.1993, the EPAAdministrator announced new steps toprotect public health and theenvironment by encouraging reductionin the amount of hazardous wastesgenerated in this country andstrengthening federal controls governinghazardous waste incinerators and othercombustion devices. One of those stepsinvolved calling for a national review ofthe relative roles of waste combustionand waste reduction in hazardous wastemanagement. The Agency is usingtoday's proposed rule to solicitcomment on the role of combustion andwaste reduction in establishing BDAT.In particular, today's proposed rulespecifies a series of new treatmentstandards that must be met beforehazardous wastes'are land disposed.These standards, which in many casesare based on combustion performance,specify numerical limits which allowthe use of any treatment technology, andthereby recognizes the appropriatenessof alternatives to combustion. TheAgency specifically solicits commentand data on whether other treatmenttechnologies, especially recyclingtechnologies, can achieve these limits. Ifnot, the Agency seeks comment anddata on whether the levels should bemodified so as to allow and encouragethe use of non-combustion treatmenttechnologies. As an example, theproposed standards for hazardous soilsidentify options which allow slightlyhigher levels of contaminants to remainin the treated soil so that innovative,non-combustion technologies may beused. In keeping with the call for anational review of the relative role ofcombustion, the Agency is solicitfincomment on whether there are otheractions that should be taken to achievea reduction in waste generAien, anincrease in recycle/reuse, or greater useof non-combustion technooges. For

example, land disposal restrictions havepreviously identified highlyconcentrated wastes that must be treatedby recovery technologies. Are therecontaminant levels for TC organicsabove which recovery should berequired? With regard to non-combustion technologies, the Agencywill attempt to encourage their use inthe LDR program, to the extent thatperformance of such technologies satisfythe requirements of section 3004(ml.

C. Relationship of Developing tDRTreatment Standards to Levels BeingCorrsfdered in Hazardous WasteIdentification Rule

A recurring debate throughot EPA'sdevelopment of the land disposalrestrictions has been whether the RCRAsection 3004(m) treatment standardsshould be technology-based (i.e. basedon performance of a treatmenttechnology) or risk-based (i.e. basqd onassessment of risks to human health andthe environment posed by the waste).By law, the treatment standards are toresult in destruction, removal, orimmobilization of hazardousconstituents in the waste "so that short-term and long-term threats to humanhealth and the environment areminimized." Section 3004(m). Inmaking this determination, the Agencyis directed to take into account the"long-term uncertainties associated withland disposal." Sections 3004 (d)1l(A),(e)(1)(A) and (g)(5)(A). Technology-based standards achieve the objective ofminimizing threats by eliminating asmuch of the uncertainty associated withdisposal of hazardous waste as possible,and were upheld as legally permissiblefor this reason. Hazardous- WasteTreatment Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d355.361-64 (D.C. Cir. 989, cert.denied 111 S. Ct. 139 (1990k see also 55FR at 6642 (February 26, 1990).However, the court also held thattreatment standards cannot beestablished "beyond the point at whichthere is no'threat' to man or nature," id.at 362.

EPA has indicated that its ultimatepolicy prefiec is to establish risk-based levels that represent minimizethreat levels and so cap the extent ofhazardous waste tetment. 55 FR at6641. The difficulties involved in this

. task, however, are formidable and verycontroversial. The technical issuesinclude assessing exposure pathwaysother than migration to ground water,taking environmental risk into account,aM developing adequate toxiclogicWinformawim for the hazardousconstituents controlled by thehazardous waste program- 55 FRat6642.

EPA is currently working on arulemaking that will define harzardoesconstituent concentration leve~s belowwhich a waste is no longer considered"hazardous." Discussions concerningthese levels are taking place in thecontext of the recently chartered FederalAdvisory Committee, on the HazardousWaste Identification Rule (HWIR). TheCommittee chose to initially discusshow to provide greater flexibility for theremediation of contamination athazardous waste sites. It has also begundiscussions by focusing onconcentrations below which wastemixtures and treatment residuals wouldno longer be subject to, the hazardouswaste regulations ("exit" criteria), whilealso discussing whether there is aregulatory approach to relativelyquickly bring under regulation clearlyhazardous waste not now controlled bythe hazardous waste regulations (an"entry" ralel. To help address theuncertainties of assessing multipleexposure pathways, the Agency also hasinitiated research to examine exposureof humans and the environment tohazardous constituents through a largenumber and variety of pathways.

Because current technology-basedstandards (like those in today'sproposal) impose substaniial costs, EPAhas asked the Committee to considerways to, reduce the costs of managingwastes and reniediating sites underRCRA. In addition, EPA will specificallyask the Committee to consider by theend of December, whether risk-basedexit criteria could also serve asminimize threat levels to potentially captreatment standards for the landdisposal restrictions. If the Committeerecommends that the risk-based exitcriteria approach being developed couldserve as caps on BDAT treatmentstandards, EPA will prepare asupplemental notice to the currentproposal or otherwise expeditiouslypropose such an approach as acomplement to the current technology-based standards.

II. Summary of Proposed RuleOn October 24, 1991, EPA published

an advance notice of proposedrulemaking (ANPRM) to solicitcomment on many aspects of what isincluded in today's proposed rule.Comments and data received inresponse to the ANPRM have beenincorporated into this package.

A. improvements to Fxisting LDRProgram

The land disposal restrictions (LDR)program has been in place for overseven years. Because the Agency wasinvolved with promulgating treatment

48095




standards in time to meet statutorydeadlines, the program was notdeveloped under optimum conditions.As a result, implementation of the LDRprogram may be quite complex. TheAgency is considering a number ofchanges that could be made to the LDRprogram to simplify its implementation,without sacrificing protection of humanhealth and the environment. Inparticular, the Agency is proposing inthis notice to replace the existingconstituent-specific/waste-specificstandards for many hazardous wasteswith a common set of treatmentstandards, referred to throughout thisproposal as universal standards. Today'snotice also proposes to simplify therequirements for lab packs containinghazardous wastes, and to eliminatesome of the data items required on LDRnotifications. Additionally, a clarifyingchart of paperwork requirements and adiscussion of what constitutes"acceptable knowledge of the waste" areincluded.

B. Treatment Standards for ToxicCharacteristic Wastes

On March 29, 1990, EPA promulgatedadditional organic constituents andlevels at which a waste is consideredhazardous based on the characteristic oftoxicity (55 FR 11798). Because thesewastes were identified as hazardousafter the enactment date of HSWA in1984, they are referred to under the LDRprogram as "newly identified wastes".Included are wastes identified with thecodes D018 through D043 based on thetoxicity characteristic leachingprocedure (TCLP), i.e., TC wastes. EPAis proposing treatment standards foreach of these constituents as part oftoday's rule. In addition, because wastesexhibiting the toxicity characteristic canalso contain treatable levels of otherhazardous constituents, EPA is alsoproposing treatment standards for suchconstituents, as well as rules on testingand monitoring such constituents.These treatment standards and rules arenecessary to implement the court'sopinion in Chemical WasteManagement v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2, 17-8 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert denied U.S.(April 26, 1993).C. Prohibition of Dilution of High TOCIgnitable and of TC Pesticide WastesInjected into Class I Deep Wells

In its September 25, 1992 ruling onthe Third Third LDR Rule, the D.C.Circuit Court remanded the Agency'sdetermination in that rule that alloweddilution to remove characteristics ofhazardous waste that are injected intoClass I nonhazardous deep injectionwells regulated by the Safe Drinking

Water Act. The Agency is continuing todevelop a response to the court ruling.As part of that response, EPA is todayproposing to prohibit dilution of twotypes of characteristic wastes disposedin Class I wells: High TOC ignitableliquids (DO01) and halogenatedpesticide wastes that exhibit the toxicitycharacteristic (D012-D017). The Agencyis proposing this prohibition because ineach of the two cases, treatment is thepreferred management option; theorganics in D001 high TOC liquids canbe reused, and D012-D017 pesticidewastes contain particularly toxicconstituents. The Agency is thereforeproposing to require that these wastesbe treated before injection in a Class Iwell, or that they be injected into a no-migration well.

D. Treatment Standards for NewlyListed Wastes

EPA has promulgated a number ofhazardous waste listings since theenactment of HSWA in 1984, referred toas "newly listed wastes" under the LDRprogram. This proposed rule describesthe treatment and/or recyclingtechnologies identified as BDAT forseveral of these newly listed wastes, andproposes treatment standards based onthese BDATs. Newly listed wastesincluded in today's proposal are K141-K145, K147-K148, and K149-K151(coke by-product production wastes andchlorotoluene wastes) (see 40 CFR261.32.)

E. Soil Contaminated with HazardousWaste

This notice also proposes newalternative treatment standards forhazardous constituents when they arecontaminating soil (i.e., hazardous soil).The Agency is proposing thesealternatives in order to consider a fullrange of innovative technologies that areavailable to treat such hazardous soil. Inparticular, under the current regulationsand the "contained-in" policy, soilcontaminated with hazardous waste isregulated to the same degree as thecontaminating hazardous waste itself,until such contamination can beseparated from the soil matrix so that itno longer "contains" hazardousconstituents. The numerical treatmentstandards for many of these hazardouswastes when they are not found in thesoil matrix is based on the performance'of incineration, a technology notuniformly appropriate for hazardoussoil, because of the low concentrationsof hazardous constituents often found insoil. Rather, other technologies may bemore appropriate for the treatment oflightly contaminated hazardous soils.The Agency, therefore, is proposing

these alternative treatment standards forhazardous soil based on performance oftechnologies more appropriate for soiltreatment. In order to comply with theLDR's, hazardous soil would have to betreated either to meet the standards forthe hazardous waste contaminating thesoil, or the alternative treatmentstandards proposed in this notice.

The Agency is proposing threedifferent approaches to developalternative technology-based treatmentstandards for soils. Under theseapproaches, the universal treatmentstandards (discussed in section III.A ofthis preamble) are proposed for soil as"base" standards. Each approach allowsfor treatment to levels above theuniversal standards and differ primarilyin the extent of treatment required.

Under the first approach, the Agencyis proposing a range of standards witha "ceiling" one order of magnitudeabove the universal standard, provided90% treatment of each constituentsubject to treatment is achieved. Thesecond approach is a variation of thefirst, in that the Agency is proposing arange of standards with a "ceiling" oneorder of magnitude above the universalstandard; however, there is norequirement that 90% reduction occur.The third approach proposes anunlimited range of values above theuniversal standard provided 90%treatment is attained (i.e., there wouldbe no "ceiling" value) unless 90%treatment would treat the waste to alevel below the universal treatmentstandards. If such a level would beachieved through 90% treatment, theuniversal treatment standards would bemet.

The Agency is proposing that theseapproaches would apply to allhazardous soils regardless of the type ofcontaminating hazardous waste. That Isto say, the proposed approaches wouldapply to soils contaminated with listedhazardous wastes, soils displaying thetoxicity characteristic, and soilsdisplaying the characteristic ofignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity.

F. Compliance Monitoring andNotification

In the May 24, 1993 interim final rule(58 FR 29872), the Agency adopted anapproach that allowed facilitieshandling ignitable or corrosive waste tomonitor for additional hazardousconstituents "reasonably expected to bepresent". The determination of"reasonably expected to be present"could be based on knowledge of the rawmaterials, process, and potentialreaction products, or the results of aone-time analysis for the entire list ofconstituents subject to treatment. The




Agency noted that this approach wouldnot necessarly be taken in the futurewhen the remanded rules wereaddressed. The Agency is thereforetaking comments in today's proposedrule on options for modifing thisapproach.

EPA is also soliciting comment onhow to limit monitoring for theseconstituents subject to treatment in TCwastes and hazardous soil in subtitle C-regulated facilities, in subtitle Dfacilities, and at CERCLI or RCRAremediation sites.

G. Soliitation of Comments RegardingExclusion of Hazardous Debris

In this proposal, the Agency issoliciting data to demonstrate whetherimmobilized hazardous debris (if treatedproperly) should be excluded fromsubtitle C control. This proposaldescribes a number of activities relatedto this issue which the Agencyundertook after the promulgation of theland disposal restrictions for hazardousdebris on August 18, 1992.H. Modifications to HazaMdous WasteRecycling Regulations

The Agency is. also proposingmodifications to the curre regplatoryframework to the definition of solidwaste that, if pomulgated, wouldmodify the regulation of hazardouswaste recycling by providingstreamlined mechanisms that wouldencourage environmentally protectiverecycling of specific wastestreams. TheAgency is Loking at the definition ofsolid waste in. a broader sense, ardplans toconsider broader changes atalater date- Today's modifications will,however, allow environmentallybeneficial recycling operations tocontinue without the regulatoryimpediments imposed by full RCRAsubtitle C requirements, In tum thiswill alow EPA mid the states tostreamline their efforts and better facuson operations that are part of tl enation's waste disposal problem, ratherthan on those that are not, while theAgency continues to leek at the overalldefinition.

These modifications will broaden the§ Zt.2(e)(1)ii) "ciosed-loop" recyclingexclusion om the. definition ol solidwaste such that the residues of asecondary process (in addition toresidues of a primary process, ascurrently allowed) are enluded frombeing a solid waste if they am reinsertedinto the process withmt priorreclamation (and also similarly broadenthe rebated .5 2.30fb) variance frmaterials that are reclaimed p ior toreinsertion).

The proposed modifications arebased, in part, on two relatively recentCourt opinions (American PetroleumInstitute v. EPA, 906 F. 2d 726 (D.C. Cin1990) (API) and American MiningCongressv. EPA, 97 F. 2d 1179 (D.C.Cir. 1990) (AMC II)) which indicate thattheAgency has some discretion toconsider the manner in which asecondary material is managed indetermining RCRA jurisdiction i.e.,RCRA jurisdiction may be determained,at least in part, by consideration ofwhether the material is part of the wastemanagement problem, as indicated bythe potential for the material to pose ahazard to human health and theenvironment when recycled).

Ilm. Improvements to the Existing LandDisposal Restrictions Program

A. Proposed nivmersal TreatmentStandards

Facilities that treat and land disposehazardous wastes typically must complywith the LDR treatment standards thathave been established for many differentlisted and characteristic hazardouswaste codes. In some cases,. aconstituent regulated under thetreatment standard for one waste mayalso be a constituent regulated under thetreatment standard for another waste.These two treatment standards may bedifferent concentration levels. Suchdifferences in concentration limits forthe same constituent may causeconfusion to the regulated communityand to enforcement personnel.

Inan effort to simplify and stramlinethe LDR.program, the Agencyinvestigated the possihility ofestablishing a concentration limit foreach constituent that would be itstreatment standard, regardless, of thehazardous waste in which it waspresen This concept of establishingconsistent concentration limits on aconstituent-by-constituent basis is beingreferred to as establishing "riversal-treatment standards.

Universal treatment stan ds armbeing proposed in this notice for organicand metal constituets,--one, set forWastewaters and a different set fornonwastewaters-4hat would replacemost existing limits in previouslypromulgated treatment standards forlisted hazardous wastes. Theseproposed universa standards would notapply, however, to wastes for which theAgency has previously promulgatedtreatment standards expressed as &required method of treatment (see 40CFR 268.42).

EPA is also proposing that theuniversal treafmnt standards wold notapply to FG24, for reasons that are

discussed later in this section of thepreamble. EPA requests comment onwhether the universal treatmentstandards should also apply to F024.EPA also requests comment on whetherthere are other wastes or grovps of wastefor which the universal treatmentstandards should not apply.

The primary goal of establishinguniversal standards is to providetechnically consistent and equitablestandards that simplif owner/operatorcompliance, as well as enforcement andcompliance monitoring efforts. Anotherpotential advantage is that the universalstandards would provider the regulatedcommunity with consistent constituent-by-constituent concentration goals forwhich the facility can direct wasteminimization investigatims.Furthermore, universal standards couldserve as a performane benchmark fordevelopingakernaive treatmenttechnologies.

The univessal standards will beparticularly helpful in treating andmeasuring compliance when severallisted wastes have been mixed togetherthat contain the same constituent ofconcern, but under the prosent systemhave different concentration limits.Wastes that are amenable to treatmentby the same technologies are oftenappropdiately commingled prior totreatment and recovery. Since underuniversal standards the constituent ofconcern would have the sameconcentration limit no matter whatlisted waste code it is in, the need todetermine and achieve differentconcentration limits would beeliminated. The development ofuniversal standards is not intended,however, to modify current restrictionson the commingling of incompatiblewastes, impermissible switching oftreatability groups, or impermissibledilution. The Agency is not reopeningthese issues for comment.

Universal treatment standards wouldals provide EPA with a michanism tostreamline the development of treatmentstandards for future hazardous wastelistings. In most cases, it could beassumed that the constituents in newly'listed wastes would be subject to the,universal standards. Facilities couldthen challenge these' assmnrptions (ifwarranted) during the rulemhking forthe waste listing. EPA solicits commenton the advantages and disadvantages ofdeveloping universal treatmentstandar, s

EPA is proposing universat standardsfor over 200 constituents. This accountsfor all of the orgnics and metals thatcan be analyzed consistently intreatment residuals and that have beenregulated in previously-promulgated

4807




treatment standards. The Agency isproposing that the generator or owner[operator would not have to analyze forall constituents in the BDAT list (Seethe BDAT list at "Guidebook for QualityAssurance/Quality Control Proceduresfor Submission of Data for the LandDisposal Restrictions Program," July 3,1991, p. 8-15 in the docket for thisrule.) Rather, it would only be necessaryto analyze for those regulatedconstituents in the listed wastes that arebeing treated.

1. Universal Standards for OrganicHazardous Constituents

a. Nonwastewaters. The majority ofthe existing nonwastewater treatmentstandards for organics have beenestablished based on data from someform of thermal destruction, typicallyincineration. This is due to the Agency'sdecision to establish methods oftreatment instead of risk-based levelsand the ability of thermal devices todestroy organics to levels at or near thedetection limit (as measured in the ash).In fact, incineration has beendetermined to be BDAT for most of-thewastes containing organics (i.e., most ofthe treatment standards for organichazardous constituents are based on theperformance of incineration.)Nevertheless, the Agency believes thatother treatment technologies, includinglower cost innovative technologies, canalso meet these standards. In fact, theAgency has data on the treatment ofthese constituents by innovativetechnologies (technologies other thanincineration, such as solvent extraction,thermal desorption) that support thelevels being proposed today. However,the Agency specifically solicitscomment as to what extent innovativetechnologies can meet the standardsproposed today.

In establishing treatment standards inthe First, Second and Third Thirdrulemakings, the Agency had varyingamounts of treatment data; many of theexisting nonwastewater treatmentstandards were established based on thetransfer of thermal treatment data fromsimilar waste. Because the number oforganic constituents in existingtreatment standards is so large, EPAarranged them into thirteen treatabilitygroups based on similarities inchemistry, structure, usage, ease oftreatability, detection limits, and wastegeneration patterns (many of thesegroups are based on treatability groupsused to establish treatment standards inprevious rulemakings.) Thesetreatability groups are ChlorinatedVolatiles, Organo-Bromines,Chlorobenzenes, PCBs and Dioxins;Chlorinated Pesticides, Chlorinated

Phenolics and Derivatives,Nonchlorinated Phenolics, Phthalates,Oxygenated Hydrocarbons, PolynuclearAromatic Hydrocarbons, AromaticHydrocarbons, Organo-SulfurPesticides, and Organo-NitrogenCompounds.

The Agency examined all treatmentdata available for each treatabilitygroup. Because the constituents withineach treatability group are generallytreated by the same technology, patternsof similar treatment levels exist withineach group. In some cases, however,there are constituents in the group thatare either hard to treat or hard to detect.These are the constituents that tend tohave higher treatment standards. Thedata used to establish the treatmentlevels were reviewed and the processrefined, to ensure that the data that wasused was the most appropriate for eachconstituent. Treatment performancedata for wastes for which universalstandards will not apply were removedfrom consideration. (See later section onwaste codes for which universalstandards will not apply.)

The treatment performance data werefurther examined to determine trendswithin each treatability group. Thesetrends might have included transfers ofdata from specific constituents, similartreatment standards, and use ofperformance data from the sametreatment test. In general, the treatmentstandards for the constituents within atreatability group were comparable inmagnitude. Numbers higher than themajority of treatment standardsnormally indicated a waste harder totreat or analyze.

Universal standards were chosen on aconstituent-by-constituent basis and areincluded in a table later in this section.The derivation of these standards isbased on a number of factors. TheAgency first considered performancedata (i.e., the matrix spike recovery dataand detection limit) transferred from thesame constituent. If this was notpossible, the Agency consideredperformance data (i.e., the matrix spikerecovery data) from a constituent in thesame treatability group. The Agencyalso preferred to use a matrix spikerecovery value based on actual recoveryrather than an average value. Inaddition, the detection limit data for theconstituent were reviewed to see if thedetection limit was reasonable and if itcould be reasonably expected to beachieved-that is, after the universalstandard was determined for aconstituent, the value was compared tothe detection limits used in thedevelopment of the existing treatmentstandards to see if other waste codescould be treated to meet the universal

standard. (See the backgrounddocument for universal standards formore information on the development ofthese standards.)

In the Third Third rulemaking, theAgency received comment that some ofthe treatment standards beingpromulgated at that time were too lowto detect. In response, after reviewingthe submitted data, the Agency decidedas an interim measure that ifincineration (the technology on whichthe standards in question were based)was used to achieve a "non-detect"level, and if that "non-detect" level waswithin an order of magnitude of thepromulgated standard, it wasconsidered to be in compliance with thetreatment standard (see 40 CFR268.43(c).) Because EPA is proposingthat those treatment standardspromulgated in the Third Third rule berevised based on the universalstandards, the Agency is solicitingcomment on the continued-need forsuch a policy. An alternative would beif the facility measures compliance withthe universal standards and detects atleast one constituent at or below theuniversal standard within eachtreatability group, then any non-detectsabove the universal standards withinthat treatability group would beconsidered to be in compliance. In suchcases, waste analysis plans could bemodified to reflect monitoring forcertain constituents within eachtreatability group that do not havedetection level problems.

b. Wastewaters. The proposeduniversal standards for wastewaters aretaken primarily from the treatmentstandards promulgated for F039--multi-source leachate, and are included in atable later in this section. These existingtreatment standards for organicconstituents in wastewaters were basedon a variety of conventional wastewatertreatment technologies. Informationabout these treatment standards can befound in the background document inthe RCRA docket.

c. Comments on the Advance Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking. Mostcommenters to the Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking supported theestablishment of universal standards fororganic wastes. However, severaldisagreed with the approach. Inparticular, several commenters wereconcerned that they would have toanalyze the entire BDAT list for eachwaste to measure compliance with theuniversal standards. As indicated earlierin this section, a treater would onlyhave to analyze for those constituentsregulated in the listed wastes beingtreated.




Several commenters supported theidea of universal treatment standards forsimplicity, but thought that thesenumbers should be health-based and notbelow the TC levels. EPA's historicposition, echoed by the D.C. Circuit inHWTCv. EPA, 886 F.2d 355, 362 (D.C.Cir. 1989) cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 139(1990), is that characteristic levels fortoxic wastes do not minimize the threatsthese wastes may pose. EPA isconsidering whether to establish risk-based levels as part of the HazardousWaste Identification Rule (HWIR)currently being developed. Dependingon how this effort evolves and based onavailable data, these levels may beequal, lower, or higher than LDRtreatment levels.

A few commenters argued that theydid not like the idea of universal 'treatment standards for organics. Onecommenter stated that in order for EPAto establish universal standards, theAgency would have to adopt the highesttreatment standard for any constituentto ensure that all wastes can be treatedto conform with the standard. Thecommenter argued that there is a rangeof variation among specific standardsfor identical organic constituents indifferent wastes. The commenterindicated that the main reasons for thesedifferences are the wide variety ofmatrices treated.

The Agency does not believe that thevariety in organic treatment standards isthe result of treating different matrices.The variety results chiefly from differentdetection limits used in developing thestandards. For example, analyticallaboratories have different levels ofaccuracy for reporting detection limits,and most of the organic treatmentstandards are based on detection limits.Furthermore, when developinguniversal standards, the Agencyreviewed all treatment data to assurethat the standard could be met by well-operated, well-designed treatment unitsappropriate for these types of wastes.

Several commenters stated thatuniversal treatment standards were notsupported by available treatment datafor organics. The Agency disagrees withthis comment. In fact, the organicuniversal standards were developedusing only available treatment data.

In summary, EPA believes it isappropriate to develop universaltreatment standards and that fornonwastewaters to base the standardson incineration because it is a matrix-independent technology that reducesthe amount of material ultimately sentto land disposal and it destroys theorganic hazardous constituents.However, the proposed levels would notbe technology forcing since available

data indicate that, depending on theconcentration of the constituent, othertechnologies, including innovativetechnologies (i.e., solvent extraction,thermal desorption) can achieve theproposed universal treatment standardsin the wide variety of nonwastewatermatrices. The Agency specificallysolicits comment on this point.

d. Other Revisions to ExistingTreatment Standards. The Agency istoday soliciting comment on whetherwe should regulate individual aroclors,or total PCBs. EPA is proposing asalternatives two different sets ofstandards for both wastewater andnonwastewater forms of PCBs. In oneset, the treatment standard is a singlenumber representing the sum of allindividual aroclor concentrations. In theother set, each aroclor has its individualtreatment standard. Total PCBs, whichinclude seven aroclors, representhundreds of isomers of polychlorinatedbiphenyls. This approach would beconsistent with the regulations of otherEPA offices, such as those promulgatedpursuant to the Toxic Substance ControlAct (TSCA). This approach would alsoeliminate any analytical difficulties inquantifying each of the individualaroclors. The current regulationsaddressing individual aroclors require apattern recognition of the gaschromatograph, which is often difficultto differentiate. Furthermore, regulationof individual aroclors may be difficultfor wastes subject to degradation ortreatment. EPA would recommend SW-846 methods 8080 or 8081 (which usea gas chromatograph/electron capturedetector) for measurement of total PCBs.

The Agency is proposing to regulatethe sum of several constituents forxylenes in both wastewaters andnonwastewaters. The three xylenesincluded on the BDAT list of hazardousconstituents are ortho-, meta-, and para-xylene. These constituents are proposedto be regulated as a sum in the universalstandards because meta- and para-isomers co-elute in gas chromatographanalysis. Two methods exist in SW-846for the measurement of total xylenes:8020 and 8240. Method 8020 detectsxylenes using a photoionization detectorand 8240 uses a mass spectrometer.Total xylenes concentration isdetermined from the addition of theortho-xylene concentration and themeta-para-xylene concentration.

Additionally, EPA is proposing toregulate two pairs of analyticallyproblematic constituents,benzo(b) fluoranthene/benzo(k)fluoranthene anddiphenylamine/diphenylnitrosaminewith a single wastewater andnonwastewater number for each pair

PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENTSTANDARDS FOR ORGANICS

[Nonwastewaters]

Maximum forany grabsample

Regulated constituenttotal com-

position (mg/kg).

Acetone ..................................Acetophenone ........................Acenaphthalene ......................Acenapthene ..........................2-Acetylaminofluorene ............Aldrin ................Aniline ....... .........Anthracene .............Aroclor 1016 ...........................Aroclor 1221 ...........................Aroclor 1232 ...........................Aroclor 1242 ...........................Aroclor 1248 ...........................Aroclor 1254 ...........................Aroclor 1260 ...........................Acrylonitrile .............................alpha-BHC ..............................beta-BHC ................................delta-BHC ...............................gamma-BHC ...........................Benzal chloride .......................Benzene .................................Benz(a)anthracene .................Benzo(a)pyrene ......................Benzo(b)fluoranthene .............Benzo(k)fluoranthene .............Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ..............Bis-(2-ethythexyl) phthalate ....Bromodichloromethane ..........Bromomethane (methyl bro-

mide) ...................................4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ..n-Butanol ................................Butyl benzyl phthalate ............2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol ..Carbon disulfide .....................Carbon tetrachloride ...............Chlordane ...............................p-Chloroaniline .......................Chlorobenzene .......................Chlorodibromomethane ..........Chloroethane ..........................bis-(2-Chloroethoxy) methanebis-(2-Chloroethyl) ether .........bis-(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether ..p-Chloro-m-cresol ...................Chloroform ..............................Chloromethane .......................2-Chloronaphthalene ..............2-Chlorophenol .......................3-Chloropropene .....................Chrysene ................................Cresol(m- and p-) ...................o-Cresol .............................Cyclohexanone .......................Dibenz(a,h)-anthracene ..........1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene

dibromide) ...........................Dibromomethane ....................m-Dichlorobenzene ................o-Dichlorobenzene .................p-Dichlorobenzene .................1,1-Dichloroethane .................

1609.73.43.4

1400.066

143.40.920.920.920.920.921.81.8

840.0660.0660.0660.0666.0

103.43.4

1 6.81 6.8

1.82815

15152.6

282.54.816.00.26

166.0

156.07.26.07.2

146.0

305.65.7

303.43.25.60.758.2

15

15156.06.06.06.0

48099




PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENTSTANDARDS FOR ORGANics-Con-tinued

INorwastewatervs

Maximum forany grabsanmi

Regulated constituenttotal con-

postion (mg/____________________ kg)

1 2-Dichloroethane .................2,4-Dichlorophenol .................2,6-Dichlorophenol ................2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic

acid .....................................o,p'-DDD .................................pjY-DDD .................................o,p'-DDE .................................p,p'- DE ................................op'-DDT ................................pjY-DDT .................................Dichlorodifluoromethane .........1,1-Dichloroethylene ...............trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene .1,2-Dichloropropane ...............cis-1,3-Dichlropropene .........trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ......Dieldrin ........................Diethyl phthalate .....................2,4-Dimethyl phenol ..............Dimethyl phthalate ..................1,4-Dinitrobenzene .......4,6-Dinitro-o-a'eso ................2,4-Dinitrophenol ....................2,4-Dinitrotoluene ...................2,6-Dinitrotoluene ....................Di-n-butyl phthalate ................Di-n-octyl phthalate .........Di-n-Iropylnitrosoamine .........1,4-Dioxane ............................Diphenylamine ........................Diphenylnitrosamine ...............Disulfoton . ..............Endosulfan ...........................Endosulfan II ..........................Endosultan sulfate ..................Endrin .....................................Endrin aldehyde .....................Ethyl acetate .........................Ethyl benzene .........................Ethyl ether ..............................Ethyl methacrylate ..................Famnphur .................................Fluoranthene ........................Fluorene ...............................Heptachlor .............................Heptachlor epoxide ................Hexachl obenzene ...............Hexachlorobutadiene ......Hexachlorocyclopentadiene .Hexachlorodibenzo-furans ......Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins.HexachloroethaneHexachloropropeneldeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ...........iodonmethane ........ .........Isobutanol .......Isodrin . ..... .........Isosarole .......Kepone....MethacrylonitrileMethanol.Methapyrilene

I

PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENTSTANDARDS FOR ORGANICS-COfl-tinued

(Nonwa ew"aters]

Maximum foranygatb

Regulated constituentMoal corn-

position (mg/____________________ kg)

6.01414

100.0870.0870.0870.0870.0870.087726.0

30181818

0.132814282 3

16016014028282814

170113113

6.20.0660.130.130.130.13

3310

160160153.43.40.0660.066

105.62.40.0010.001

3030

3.465

1700.0662.60.13

840.751.5

PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENTSTANDARDS FOR ORGAws--Con-tinued

[NonwaslewatersMaximum Sor

any grabsampleRegulated constituent

$Old cown

____ ____ ___ kg)

Total PCBs .................. 10This standard represents ft sum of the

concentraions for each of this pair ofconstituents.

2This standard represents Ie sum of theconcentrations for each of ths par ofconstituents.

3This standard represents the sum of theconcentrations of m-xylene, o-xyen, and p-xylene.

PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREAIMENTSTANDARDS FOR ORGANICS

(Waskmawers]

Maxunum for any24 hr. composite

Regulated constituents

Methoxychlr ...................... .3-Methylchloantene .............4,4-Methylene bis-(2-

chloroaniline)Methylene Chloride ...............Meth" ety ketone ...............Methyl isobutyl ketoneMethyl mettacrylate .............Methyl Parathion ...........Naphthalene .........o-Nitroaniline ........................p-Nitroaniline .................Nitrobenzene ........................5-Nitro-o-totuidine ............o-Nitroptienol ..............

rN hnol .......................N-Nitr.mine ............N-Niroso.n-buy*nine ...N-Nltrosomethylethylarnine _N-Nitrosomorpholine .............N-Nitrotsopoefidine .........N-NitrosopyrrolidineParathion ..... .... ..PentachlorobenzenePentachlorodibenzo-furansPentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxinsPentachloroethane ................Pentachloronitrobenzene ........Pentactoophenol ..................Phenacetin . ... ...........Phenarthrene .......................Phenol............Phorate ..... ... .

Phthalic anhydride ...........

Propanenitrle.Pronanie ..................Pyre a ........................... .Pyridine.........SafroleSilvex (2,4,5-TP) ...................2,4,5-T ....................................1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene ...Tetrachlorodlibenzo-furans ......Tetrachtorodibenzo-p-doxins .1.1,12-Teachloroethane....1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ......Tetrachloroethylene .......2,3,4,6-Tetrachorophenol..Toluene ..................................Toxaphene ........................1,2,4-Tdchlorobenzene .......1,1,1-Trictloroethane1,1,2-TrichloroethaneTrichioroethylene2,4,5-Trichlorophenol2,4,6-Trichlorophenol .............1,2,3-Trichloropropane .......1,1,2-Trichloro-1 2,2-

tnfluoroethaneVinyl chloride ........................XyWr*s)

0.1816

30303633

1604.65.6

14281428132928172,32.3

3535

4.6100.0010.00164.87.4

165.66.24.6

28360

1.582

1622

7.97.9

140.0010.0016.06.06.07.4

102.6

196.06.06.07.47.4

30

306.0

330

AcetoneAcenaphthaleneAcenaphthene ........Acetonitr#le ............Acrolein ...........................Acetophenone .......2-AcetylarninolluoreneAcrylonitrde.Aldin .............. ..4-Aminobiphenyl ..........Aniline .........................Anthracene ...Aramite ..........................Aroclor 1016 ....................Aroclor 1221 ...................Aroclor 1232 ....................Aroclor 1242 .................Aroclor 1248 ....................Aroclor 1254Aroclor 1260 .......alpha-BHC .................beta-BHC .......................delta-BHC .. ..............gamma-BlHCBenzal chloride ...............Benzene .........................Benz(a)anthracene ......Benzo(a)pyrene ..............Benzo(b)fhoranthene ......Benzo(g,hi)perylene .......Benzo(k)fluorantheneBromodichloromethane .Bromomethane ..............4-8romophenyl phenyl

n-Butyl alcohol ...............Butyl benzyl phthalate.2-sec-Butyl-4,6-

dinitrophenol ................Carbon tetracNoride ........Carbon disulfide.

0.280.0590.0590.170.290.0100.0590.240.0210.130.810.0590.360.0130.0140.0130.0170.0130.014-0.014G."0140.000140.O230.00170.0550.140.0590.061

10.110.0055

10.110.350.11

0.0555.60.017

0.0660.0570.014




PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENTSTANDARDS FOR ORGANIcS--Con-tinued

[Wastewaters]

Maximum for any24 hr. compositeRegulated constituents

total composition(mg11)

Chlordane ........................p-Chloroaniline ................Chlorobenzene ................Chlorobenzilate ...............2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene ...Chlorodibromomethane ...Chloroethane ...................bis-(2-Chloroethoxy)

methane .......................bis-(2-Chloroethyl) ether2-Chloroethyl vinyl etherChloroform .......................bis-(2-Chloroisopropyl)

ether .............................p-Chloro-m-cresol ............Chloromethane (methyl

chloride) .......................2-Chloronaphthalene .......2-Chlorophenol ................3-Chloropropene .............Chrysene .........................o-Cresol ...........................Cresol (m- and p- iso-

mers) ............................Cyclohexanone ... .......1 ,2-Dibromo-3-

chloropropane ..............1,2-Dibromoethane ..........Dibromomethane .............2,4-

Dichlorophenoxyaceticacid ..............................

o,p'-DDD ..........................p.p'-DDD ..........................o,p'-DDE ..........................p,p'-DDE .........................o,p'-DDT ..........................p,p'-DDT ..........................Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene .........Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene.tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl)

phosphate ....................m-Dichlorobenzene .........o-Dichlorobenzene ..........p-Dichlorobenzene ..........Dichlorodifluoromethane .1,1-Dichloroethane ..........1,2-Dichloroethane ..........1,1-Dichloroethylene .......trans-1 2-Dichloroethene.2,4-Dichlorophenol ..........2,6-Dichlorophenol ..........1,2-Dichloropropane ........cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ..trans-1,3-DichloropropeneDieldrin ............................Diethyl phthalate .............p-

Dimethylaminoazoben-zene ...........

2,4-Dimethyl phenol........Dimethyl phthalate ..........Di-n-butyl phthalate .........1,4-Dinitrobenzene ..........4,6-Dinitrocresol ..............

0.00330.460.0570.100.0570.0570.27

0.0360.0330.0620.046

0.0550.018

0.190.0550.0440.0360.0590.11

0.770.36

0.110.0280.11

0.720.0230.0230.0310.0310.00390.00390.0610.055

0.110.0360.0880.0900.230.0590210.0250.0540.0440.0440.850.0360.0360.0170.20

0.130.0360.0470.0570.320.28

PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENTSTANDARDS FOR ORGANIcS-Con-tinued

[Wastewaters]


total composition(mgA)

2,4-Dinitrophenol ............2,4-Dinitrotoluene ............2,6-Dinitrotoluene ............Di-n-octyl phthalate .........Di-n-propylnitrosoamine ..Diphenylamine .................1,2-Diphenyl hydrazine ...Diphenylnitrosoamine ......1,4-Dioxane .....................Disulfoton ........................Endosulfan I ....................Endosulfan II ...................Endosulfan suffate ...........Endrin ..............................Endrin aldehyde ..............Ethyl acetate ...................Ethyl benzene .................Ethyl ether .......................bis-(2-Ethylhexyl) phthal-ate ................................

Ethyl methacrylate ...........Ethylene oxide .................Famphur ..........................Fluoranthene ...................Fluorene ..........................Heptachlor .......................Heptachlor epoxide .........Hexachlorobenzene ........Hexachlorobutadiene ......Hexachlorodibenzo-furansHexachlorodibenzo-p-

dioxins ..........................Hexachloroethane ...........Hexachloropropene .........Indeno(1,2,3.-c,d)pyrene.lodomethane ...................Isobutyl alcohol ...............Isodrin ..............................Isosafrole .........................Kepone ............................Methacrylonitrile ..............Methanol ..........................Methapyrilene ..................Methoxychlor ...................3-Methylchloanthrene ......4,4-Methylene-bis-(2-

chloroaniline) ...............Methylene chloride ..........Methyl ethyl ketone .........Methyl isobutyl ketone ....Methyl methacrylate ........Methyl methansulfonate ..Methyl Parathion .............Naphthalene ....................2-Naphthylamine .............p-Nitroaniline ...................Nitrobenzene ...................5-Nitro-o-toluidine ............p-Nitrophenol ...................N-Nitrosodiethylamine .....N-Nitrosodimethylamine ..N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamineN-

Nitrosomethylethylami-ne ..........................

0.120.320.550.0170.40

20.920.087

20.920.120.0170.0230.0290.0290.00280.0250.340.0570.12

0.280.140.120.0170.0680.0590.00120.0160.0550.0550.000063

0.0000630.0550.035-0.00550.195.60.0210.0810.00110.245.60.0810.250.0055

0.500.0890.280.140.140.018,0.0140.0590.520.0280.0680.320.120.400.400.40

PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENTSTANDARDS FOR ORGANIcS-Con-tinued

[Wastewaters]


totdl composition(mg)

N-Nitrosomorpholine .......N-Nitrosopiperidine ..........N-Nitrosopyrrolidine .........Parathion .........................Pentachlorobenzene .......Pentachlorodibenzo-

furans ...........................Pentachlorodibenzo-p-

dioxins ..........................PentachloronitrobenzenePentachlorophenol ..........Phenacetin ...........Phenanthrene ..................Phenol .............................Phorate ............................Phthalic anhydride ...........Pronamide ..............Propanenitrile ..................Pyrene .............................Pyridine ...........................Safrole .............................Silvex (2,4,5-TP) .............2,4,5-T .............................1,2,4,5-

Tetrachlorobenzene .....Tetrachlorodibenzo-furansTetrachlorodibenzo-p-

dioxins ..........................1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane1,1.2,2-TetrachloroethaneTetrachloroethene ...........2,3,4,6-TetrachlorophenolToluene ...........................Toxaphene ......................Tribromomethane

(bromoform) .................1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ...1,1,1-Trichloroethane ......1,1,2-Trichloroethane ......Trichloroethene ...............Trichloromonofluorometh-

ane ...............................2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ......2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ......1,2,3-Trichloropropane ....81,11,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-

trifluoroethane ..............Vinyl chloride ...................Xylene(s) .........................Total PCBs ......................

0.400.0130.0130.0140.055

0.000035

0.0000630.0550.0890.0810.0590.0390.0210.0550.0930.240.0670.0140.0810.720.72

0.0550.000063

0.0000630.0570.0570.0560.0300.0800.0095

0.630.0550.0540.0540.054

0.0200.180.0350.85

0.0570.27

30.320.1

1 This standard represents the sum of theconcentrations for each of this pair ofconstituents.

2This standard represents the sum of theconcentrations for each of this pair ofconstituents.

3This standard represents the sum of theconcentrations of m-xylene, o-xylene, and p-xylene.

2. Universal Standards for MetalHazardous Constituents

EPA is also proposing bothwastewater and nonwastewater

48101




universal treatment standards for all 14BDAT list metal constituents. TheAgency believes it appropriate todevelop universal treatment standardsfor all 14 metals because it is commonpracice to mix metal wastes during

th wastewater and nonwastewatertreatment. Since universal standardswould apply to all listed wastes, all 14metals have the potential to be in thetreatment residuals and effluents.Further evaluation of characteristicmetal wastes to determine theapplicability of universal standards willbe made in future LDR rulemakings.

These universal metal standardswould replace the existing listed metaltreatment standards. However, just asfor the organic universal standards, thegenerator or ownerloperator would nothave to analyze for the entire BDAT listof constituents when measuringcompliance; only those constituents thatare regulated constituents in the listedwaste would have to be analyzed.

a. Nonwastewaters. Since.metalscannot be destroyed, treatment optionsare limited, and typically includetechnologies that can either recover themetal or incorporate the metal in astable matrix resistant to leaching. TheAgency believes that the "best"treatment for metals is recovery, wherefeasible, especially when the wastematerial contains high concentrations ofmetals. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 284, 98thCong. 1st Sess. 17. It is encouraging tosee the regulated communityincreasingly evaluating bothpyrometallurgical andhydrometallurgical recovery processesas treatment options.

Pyrometallurgical technologies (oftenreferred to by EPA as high temperaturemetals recovery or HTMR) use heat toseparate metals and other constituentsbased on differences in constituentoxidation potential, melting point,vapor pressure and/or miscibility whenmelted. Hydrometallurgicaltechnologies separate metals and otherconstituents based on differences inconstituent solubilities andelectrochemical properties in aqueoussolutions (or in some cases, such assolvent extraction, organic solutions).

Both of these technologies appear tobe matrix independent, especially thepyrometallurgical processes (i.e.,HTMR). That is, these systemsconsistently achieve the same level oftreatment performance regardless of theinfluent matrix compositions. Often,pretreatment steps such as crushing andpelletizing may be necessary, but theamount of metal recovered is generallyconsistent for each matrix, dependingon the design of the recovery process.For instance, a HTMR process designed

to recover 95% of chromium fromwastes will recover 95% of thechromium in a spent material refractorybrick and 95% of the chromium in awastewater treatment sludge.

If recovery is not feasible because themetal content in the material is low orthe material contains constituents thatmay adversely affect the product, thenthe generator could investigate ways togenerate wastes that are amenable torecovery (e.g., segregation), or tosubstitute materials that are suitable forrecovery for the unrecoverable materialsthat eventually become wastes. Also,combinations of hydrometallurgical andpyrometallurgical recovery processesmay he suitable for some wastesconcentrated with different metals.Because many hazardous wastes containa variety of metal constituents, it oftentakes a series of separation andconcentration steps before a material isgenerated that is suitable for primary orsecondary smelting operations.

As a last resort (see S. Rep. No. 284at 17), technologies such as stabilizationand chemical conversion to lessleachable metal compounds should beused to treat metal-containing wastes.The Agency realizes that recovery ofmetals from all wastes is not practical.Therefore, at some level of metalconcentration (EPA believes this level tobe approximately one percent totalBDAT list metals), recovery effortstypically cease, and the remainingmetals can instead be incorporated intoa stable, leach-resistant matrix'for safedisposal.

EPA is, therefore, proposing todevelop universal treatment standards,for 13 of the BDAT list metals based onthe performance of high temperaturemetals recovery (HTMR) or stabilization.(The treatment standards are presentedin a table at the end of this section.)While the Agency's available dataindicate that these standards can beachieved by either HTMR orstabilization, the Agency solicits data onwhether any specific waste matriceswill not be able to achieve theseuniversal treatment standards.

The Agency believes that the choiceof technology will likely depend on theconcentration of the metals present inthe waste. At low concentrations,stabilization may be the preferredtreatment technology. As the metalconcentration increases, stabilizationmay be difficult and increase volumes tosuch a degree as to make that form oftreatment undesirable. At highconcentrations, recovery will be thepreferred method of treatment because itreduces the amount of waste destinedfor land disposal and recovers valuableresources. (Environmentally sound

recycling is favored as the besttreatment for any waste, wheneverfeasible.) As always, when the Agencydevelops concentration-based treatmentstandards, the use of other technologiesto achieve those standards is notprecluded.

With respect to the other BDAT listmetal, arsenic, EPA is proposing to basethe arsenic treatment standard on slagvitrification. Currently, most arsenic isnot reclaimed from waste materials, butis imported into the United States fromother countries. The Agency knows ofone facility that has plans to recoverarsenic from waste in the near future.Until these recovery processes forarsenic can be evaluated, EPA isproposing to base the arsenic treatmentstandard on the treatment performanceof slag vitrification.

b. Wastewaters. The proposeduniversal metals standards forwastewaters are based on chemicalprecipitation as BDAT. These treatmentstandards are presented in a table at theend of this section. The wastewatertreatment standards were developed byevaluating many different wastewaters.

For the most part, chemicalprecipitation is a matrix independenttechnology. In fact, manyhydrometallurgical recovery processesrecover metals from a wide variety ofwastewaters by adjusting the wastewaterwith chemicals so that metals can beselectively solubilized and precipitated.Simple pretreatment steps such asequalization, skimming, and settling orfiltration may be needed beforeprecipitating reagents are added to thewastewater to facilitate effectivetreatment. Also, depending on theinitial concentration of metalconstituents in the wastewater, theoperating conditions such as retentiontime and mixing may need to beadjusted. Hence, EPA believes that theproposed universal treatment standardsare achievable for all RCRA listedwastewaters.

The Agency notes that the universalstandards for metal wastewaters aredifferent from both the 1987 and 1993effluent guidelines standardsestablished under the Clean Water Act.The Agency solicits comments onwhether the Clean Water Act standardsfor Metal Finishing Point SourceCategory would provide a moreappropriate set of universal wastewaterstandards.

c. Comments on the Advance Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking. Mostcommenters to the Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking supported theestablishment of universal treatmentstandards for metal bearing wastes.However, several disagreed with the



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

approach. In particular, one commenterargued that establishing only onestandard for each metal constituentwould cause a problem because itwould not account for the variety ofwaste matrices, and the differences inthe ability of stabilization to treatdifferent matrices. The commentersuggested that EPA develop a separateset of treatment standards for thefollowing seven different metal-bearingwaste subcategories: (1) Wastewatertreatment residues, (2) direct processwastes, (3) biological and organiccontaining residues, (4) direct processdusts and solids, (5) soils and sludgesfrom remediation projects, (6)incineration residues, and (7) wastetreatment residues (i.e., brines), slags,and refractories.

EPA is not adopting the approachsuggested by the commenter. As statedpreviously, HTMR and stabilization arebeing proposed as BDAT for metal-containing nonwastewaters. BecauseHTMR is not matrix dependent, and,where the metal concentrations areappropriate, stabilization is able toachieve those levels, treatmentstandards for different matrices are notnecessary. While it may be possible toset lower treatment standards for certainof the subcategories, one of the majorreasons for establishing universaltreatment standards is to streamline theLDR program. Establishing differentsubcategories could be just as complexas the current system. In addition,questions on how to distinguishbetween different subcategories wouldrequire development of a multitude ofregulatory definitions. Available dataindicate that each of the suggested wastesubcategories can be treated to comply,with the universal metal standards.

One commenter argued that in orderfor EPA to establish universal standards,the Agency would have to adopt thehighest standard for any constituent toensure that all wastes can be treated toconform with the standard. Thecommenter argued that there is variationamong the specific treatment standardsfor identical metal constituents indifferent wastes and treatment groups.The commenter indicated that the mainreasons for the differences are the widevariety of matrices treated, along withthe limitations of stabilization.

The Agency does not believe that thevariety of treatment standards is solelythe result of treating different matrices.For example, analytical laboratorieshave different levels of accuracy forreporting detection limits, and many ofthe metal treatment standards are basedon detection limits.

Several commenters submitted dataon the treatability of metal wastes using

stabilization. EPA reviewed the data andconcluded that most metal wastes canbe stabilized to the levels proposed asnonwastewater universal treatmentstandards. Some concentratedchromium waste streams were treated tolevels slightly above the universalstandards; however, the Agency believesHTMR to be a more appropriatetreatment technology for concentratedmetal wastes. This is especially true ofwastes with high levels of chromiumwhich are technically very responsive toHTMR and have considerable economicvalue relative to other common metals.

Moreover, since the inception of theLand Disposal Restrictions, EPA hasobserved that treatment facilities alterprocess design -and/or operatingparameters to achieve the levelsestablished as treatment standards.Consequently, the Agency believes thatthere exists a certain degree of flexibilitywith most treatment technologies. (Inaddition, national and site-specificvariances from the treatment standardsremain an option, (See § 268.44).)

In summary, EPA believes it isappropriate to base BDAT for theuniversal metal standards on HTMRbecause it is a matrix independenttechnology that reduces the amount ofmaterial ultimately sent for landdisposal. Also, because these standardscould also be achieved by stabilization,the proposed levels would not betechnology forcing (i.e., data indicatethat stabilization can achieve theproposed universal treatment standardsfor a wide variety of nonwastewatermatrices.)

d. Request for data. The Agencyrequests data and comment on whetherthere are any especially difficult to treatwastes that cannot achieve the proposeduniversal treatment standards. Fornonwastewaters, information providedshould include characterization data onthe untreated wastes, such as total metalcontent, TCLP leachate concentrations,and technical explanations of why thewaste material is inappropriate forrecovery or ineffectively stabilized.Stabilization information shouldinclude type of binder, both weight andvolume binder-to-waste ratios, whetherpremixing with less concentrated wastesis used to make the waste moreamenable to stabilization, and TCLPresults for the 14 metals. Informationdescribing the treatment performance ofstabilization (or other technologies)should also be submitted.

For wastewaters, information shouldinclude total metal concentrations(preferably for all 14 metal present) inthe influent and effluent. Informationshould also address any otherconstituents in the waste that may be

interfering with treatment (such ascomplexing agents), operatingconditions such as Ph and retentiontimes, amount and type of precipitatingreagents added, and any otherinformation needed to assist the Agencyin evaluating the wastewater treatmentprocess.

PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENTSTANDARDS FOR METALS

[No alwaes

Mawium for

Regulated Constituent

Antimony ............. . 2.1Arsenic . ... . .... 5.0Barium . ..................... . 7,6Beryllium ...................... 0.014Cadmium ....................... (tgChromium (Total) .................. 033Lead ..................... 037Mercury ............. 0.009Nickel ............... . &GSelenium ..... ____ 0-46Silver ...................................... 0.30Thallium ............... _ .0. ....... _. 078Vanadium ............................ 023Zinc ..... ............... . 5.3

PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENTSTANDARDS FOR METALS

p/eastewaers

MaXIMWA forRegulated Constituent nle

compositesample (mgf)

Antmony. 1.9Arsenic .. . .... 1ABarium .............. 1.2Beryllium .......... ..... . ..Cadmium ..................... (20Chromium (Total) . 0.37Lead ..................................... 0.28Mercury ........... 0.15Nickel ..................... . ......... . 0.56Selenium 0.82Silver. ..... 029Thallium ............ 1.4Vanadium 0.042Zinc ............. ...... 1.0

3. Universal Standards for CyanideBoth wastewater and nonwastewater

universal treatment standards are beingproposed for cyanide in today's rule.The Agency believes it is appropriate toregulate cyanide because cyanide iscommonly found in many listed metal-containing and organic-containingwastes. Furthermore, it is commonpractice to mix wastes during bothwastewater and noinwastewatertreatment. In developing universalstandards for cyanide, the Agencyreviewed the existing treatment

48103




standards for cyanide as well as the datathat were used in developing thosestandards; some of the standardsinclude levels for total and amenablecyanide, while others only regulate totalcyanide.

The existing wastewater standards arebased primarily on the performance ofalkaline chlorination. Wet air oxidationis another treatment technologysupporting treatment standards foracrylonitrile wastewaters (i.e., K011,K013, and K014). With regard tononwastewater forms, several of theexisting standards are based onincineration (i.e., K048-K052, F037,F038, and F010) while several are basedon treatment of the wastewater todestroy the cyanide prior to generationof the nonwastewater residual bytechnologies such as alkalinechlorination (i.e., F006 and F019) andelectrolytic oxidation followed byalkaline chlorination (i.e., Fil andF012). Several of the existing standardswere established based on transfers oftreatment data from the treatment of asimilar waste.

The types of wastes in which cyanidehas been regulated under the BDATprogram include: Electroplating (D003reactive cyanides, F006); aluminum coilconversion (Foig); heat treating (F010,FOil, F012); metal cyanides (P013,P021, P029, P030, P063, P074, P098,P099. P104, P106, P121); multi-sourceleachate (F039); pigments (K005, K007);petroleum (K048, K049, K050, K051,K052, F037, F038); coking (K060); andorgano-nitrogen (K104). Cyanide is alsoa regulated constituent in acrylonitrilewastes (K011, K013, K014) which arenot included under universal standards(see earlier discussion in this section oftoday's preamble.)

a. Wastewaters. In developing thecyanide universal standards, the Agencyexamined the existing data and noticedcertain patterns. In particular, it appearsthat regardless of process waste type,the wastewaters could generally betreated to levels on the order of 1.9mg/l for total cyanide. Thus, the Agencyis proposing for universal standards atotal cyanide limit of 1.9 mg/l forwastewaters. This level is widely usedin wastewater discharge regulations-namely those for the Metal FinishingIndustry and the Organic Chemicals,Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Industry.The Agency has also established for theMetal Finishing Industry, an alternativestandard of 0.86 mg/l for amenablecyanide. As such, EPA solicits commenton the need to regulate wastewaters forboth total and amenable cyanide, orwhether the amenable cyanide levelshould be an alternative to the total

standard as provided in the MetalFinishing standards, 40 CFR 433.14(b).

b. Nonwastewaters. In developinguniversal standards for cyanide innonwastewaters, the Agency examinedthree options: A standard based on totaland amenable cyanide concentrations, astandard based on TCLP concentrations,and a standard that specifies treatmentmethods. Although EPA is proposingtoday adoption of the first option,comments are solicited on all threeoptions. These three options arediscussed below. In addition, theAgency solicits comment on theappropriateness of withdrawing thecyanide treatability variances in the 40CFR 268.44, if EPA decides topromulgate the leach or the specifiedmethod option. Also, the Agencysolicits data on any technologyadvances in treating iron cyanidewastewaters that would justifywithdrawing these variances, if EPApromulgates the concentration option.

i. A Concentration-Based Standard. Inexamining the total concentrationoption, the Agency examined severalissues that would affect thedevelopment of a universalconcentration-based number. First, thereis a wide range of existing BDATtreatment standards for nonwastewaterforms of cyanide, ranging from 1.8 to590 mg/kg (total cyanide) and 9.1 to 30mg/kg (amenable cyanide). EPAestablished these different treatmentlevels after concluding that the availabletreatment data supported theestablishment of separate treatabilitygroups as a direct result of wastecharacteristics affecting treatmentperformance. For example, iron levels,the presence of organics, or the presenceof complex iron-cyanides can affect thetreatability of cyanide wastes. Inaddition, EPA found that some wastes,as generated, already contained lowlevels of cyanide in the waste.

Second, the analytical method formeasuring cyanide in nonwastewatersallows significant variabilities in theresulting concentrations of total andamenable cyanides. The specifiedmethods, SW 846/Method 9010 and9012, do not specify sample size ordistillation time. By varying these twofactors, reported cyanide concentrationsmay differ by a factor of more than 100.In the Third Third BDAT rulemaking,the Agency avoided these kind ofvariabilities by specifying a 10 gramsample and a 1 hour and 15 minutedistillation time in order to comply withLDRs applicable to nonwastewaterforms of D003, F006, and F019.However, the 10 gram sample size and1 hour and 15 minute distillation timehave not been specified in setting other

LDR treatment standards and thus, donot apply to all LDR cyanide limits-that is, EPA's existing data-basecontains treatability results usingvarious sample sizes/distillation times.This basically ensures that we cannotgroup and compare these data as thoughthey were all based on the sameanalytical method.

A third issue that EPA is consideringis that much of the treatability varianceactivity has been associated with totalcyanide concentrations. There havebeen two variances approved allowingsignificantly higher levels (see 56 FR12351, March 25, 1991) and three othertreatability variance requests indicatingthat the 1.8 mg/kg level of total cyanidein F039 is unachievable. Again, theanalytical test methods or the presenceof iron-cyanide complexes appear toplay some role in these treatabilityvariance petitions.

In spite of these issues, EPA believesthat it is technically feasible to developa concentration based standardprovided analytical variabilities andtreatment of complex cyanides are takeninto account. Electroplating wastes, thealuminum coil conversion wastes, theheat treating wastes, and the metalcyanide P- wastecodes all have highlevels of cyanide in the untreated wasteand/or have cyanide in a matrix (suchas an iron-cyanide complex) that isdifficult to treat. In the June 23, 1989preamble (54 FR 26608), the Agencyagreed with commentors that highconcentrations of iron in the cyanidewastes (when present as iron-cyanidecomplexes) appear to effect the level ofcyanide destruction that is achievable.)

Based on the most difficult to treatnonwastewaters, the Agency isproposing universal treatment standardsof 590 mg/kg for total cyanide and 30mg/kg for amenable cyanide (asmeasured by Method 9010 or 9012).EPA is also proposing that a 10 gramsample and 1 hour and 15 minutedistillation time be used for the purposeof complying with these universalstandards.

Other wastes such as multi-sourceleachate, pigments, petroleum, coking,ink solvents and organo-nitrogen wastesgenerally have very little cyanide in theuntreated waste to begin with, havecyanide along with organic constituentswhich are routinely incinerated, or havecyanide in a free form which is easierto treat by conventional treatmentmethods. For these nonwastewaters, theAgency is soliciting comment onwhether these other wastes need to beregulated at a level below the universaltreatment standard, namely, at 30 mg/kgfor total cyanide and 1.8 for amenablecyanide.




At this time, the Agency believes thatestablishing a lower limit to addresswastes that contain little to no cyanideis unnecessary; that control of organicconstituents which are routinelyincinerated provides adequate control,and that inorganic wastes with cyanidein a free form are adequately controlledby the amenable cyanide limit of 30 mg/kg. However, the Agency specificallysolicits comments on these points.

ii. A Leachable Based Standard. Theleach option involves specifying aconcentration standard based on theTCLP or some other leaching procedure.For previous LDRs, the Agency hasselected a total concentration standardto best reflect the capabilities ofdestruction technologies. In rareinstances, where there are analyticaldifficulties, the Agency has elected toregulate wastes based on a TCLPconcentration, even though the basis forBDAT was a destruction technology. Forcyanide, EPA is faced with a chemicalthat has analytical difficulties and canbe effectively destroyed by certaintechnologies. Basing the standard on theTCLP concentration, however, avoidsthe analytical difficulties and stillprovides the treater with the flexibilityof using a variety of destructiontechnologies to comply with thestandard.

After examining the treatment data forTCLP levels, the Agency solicitscomments on the following TCLPcyanide limits: 16 mg/I for total cyanideand 3.5 mg/I for amenable cyanide. Eachconcentration based standard is basedon two data points from a data set ofthree data points (an outlier test onTCLP levels for the amenable and totalcyanide rejected one data point.) Thesecyanide limits are based on cyanidelevels measured in residues from EPA'srotary kiln incineration test study ofEPA Hazardous Waste No. K088. Thesehazardous wastes are associated withspent carbon electrodes (spent potliners) generated by the aluminumindustry. EPA Hazardous Waste No.K088 wastes are contaminated withsodium aluminum fluoride salts, tracemetals, and heavy concentrations of freeand iron complex cyanides.

EPA subsequently stabilized theseK088 incineration residues in order totreat leachable fluoride values. None ofthe stabilized wastes show, however,any improvement for the leachability ofamenable and total cyanide levels. Tothe contrary, some of the stabilizedK088-incineration wastes show anincrease of TCLP levels for amenableand total cyanide. Still, EPA's studyshows that K088 underwent significantdestruction of total and amenablecyanide values by rotary kiln

incineration; concentrations of cyanidein untreated wastes ranged from 3,400mg/kg to 5,240 mg/kg and in treatedresidues ranged from 95 to 210 mg/kgtotal cyanide and from 38 to 140 mg/kgamenable cyanide.

An alternative to these levels is anamenable cyanide level of 36 mg/l basedon a modified TCLP. The modifiedTCLP is based on a deionized waterleach as opposed to an acid leach. Thisproposed water leach level is based onresidues resulting from the calcinationof spent potliners via a Reynoldsprocess. The Reynolds process carriesout the calcination of K088 in a rotarykiln that operates at similar temperatureand residence time conditions to thoseof EPA's incineration test study. Incontrast to EPA's incineration study,Reynolds' process adds up to 35% sandand 35% limestone to the calcination ofK088 (I088 may comprise up to 30% ofthe total feed charged to the calciner.)

Like EPA's incineration study,Reynolds' calcination process showsthat substantial destruction of cyanidevalues can be achieved by thermalprocesses (in Reynolds' demonstrationstudy, cyanide values in the untreatedK088 wastes ranged from 18.1 mg/kg to1,110 mg/kg for total cyanide and from2.6 mg/kg to 1,110 mg/kg for amenablecyanide and in treated K088 residueslevels of both cyanide species werebelow the detection level of 10 mg/kg.Taking into account any dilutionresulting from the addition of lime andsand, these treated values are morelikely to be in the range of 30 mg/kg.)

Other performance data measuringcyanide concentrations in leachateextracts include CyanoKem'sstabilization of alkaline chlorinatedcyanide wastes, EPA's stabilizationstudy of cyanide wastes from thealuminum coil industry, andstabilization data submitted bycommentors to EPA's second and thirdthird rulemakings of cyanide wastes.EPA has placed all these stabilizationdata in the administrative record oftoday's proposal. (See memorandum toAdministrative Record on AvailableStabilization Data on Cyanide Wastes.)

Except for CyanoKem's data, thesestabilization studies lack information onwhether any pretreatment step for thedestruction of the cyanide occurredprior to stabilization. Of course, amajority of the RCRA-cyanide wastesare likely to be sludges resulting fromthe treatment of cyanide/metal-bearingwastewaters discharged to POTWs or tooutfalls under NPDES permits; however,these wastewater treatment sludges maynot have been generated from cyanidedestruction technologies. Some facilitiesdischarging under NPDES or POTW

permits may simply switch cyanidesfrom wastewaters to sludges in acyanide-metal complex form or into athiocyanate form for the purpose ofcomplying with their water effluentlimitations. These matrices may leachfrom the landfill, migrate to surfacewaters, or oxidize when exposed tosunlight and thus, release free cyanidesinto the environment. EPA thus believesthat treatment standards for cyanidesmust be based on residues from thedestruction of cyanides prior to anystabilization or ultimate disposal.However, the Agency is solicitingcomment on whether there are cyanidewastes that are more appropriatelyimmobilized. Any commentorssubmitting such data should includeproper justification for why the cyanidein these wastes cannot be destroyed(which is the Agency's preference).

Although 3004(m) of RSWA givesregulatory discretion to EPA on whetherto set treatment standards thatsubstantially reduce the mobility ortoxicity of hazardous constituents priorto land disposal, the legislative historyalso emphasizes the Congressionalconcern that cyanides should be treatedby destruction technologies prior todisposal: Idlestruction of total cyanidesshould be required as a precondition toland disposal." 130 Cong. Rec. S 9179(daily ed. July 25, 1984) (Statement ofSenator Chaffee explaining theamendment which became section3004(m).)

CyanoKem's stabilization datasubmittal may support development ofa treatment standard of 10 mg/I ofamenable cyanide, as measured in anextract of an alkaline leach ofchemically stabilized cyanide wastes.These cyanide wastes were previouslytreated by alkaline chlorination andsubsequently treated by stabilization.CyanoKem's data are based on monthlycomposite samples. CyanoKem pointsout, however, that the amenableleachate cyanide level can be enforcedwith the collection of grab samples.CyanoKem's data also indicate that abroad variety of cyanide wastes withuntreated total cyanide concentrationsup to 500,000 mg/kg, including complexcyanides, were treated by alkalinechlorination (to levels below 400 ppm-total cyanide, as measured by Method9010) followed by chemicalstabilization. The wastes treated byCyanoKem include: D003, F006-F012,P013, P021, P029, P030. P098, P106,and P121. CyanoKem also indicated thatthe addition of solidification/stabilization agents such as fly ash orcement does not result in any furthertreatment of cyanide in the final (thealkaline chlorinated) sludge. EPA

48105




requests comments on the feasibility ofbasing a leachate standard based onthese CyanoKem data including theadoption of its leaching procedure. TheAgency also requests comments onwhether amenable, total, or both totaland amenable cyanide should beregulated under the universal standards.

iii. Specifying Treatment Methods.The final option is to specify methods.EPA is soliciting comments on requiringthe use of incineration, alkalinechlorination, or electrolytic oxidationfollowed by alkaline chlorination, andwet air oxidation to treat cyanide. EPAbelieves these technologies have beendemonstrated to treat wastes with highconcentrations of free cyanides (over100,000 ppm) or complex iron cyanides(the most difficult to treat of all thecyanide species.)

As part of the First, Second, andThird Third rulemakings, EPAexamined a broad range of oxidationtechnologies that enable the destructionof cyanides in a diverse universe ofwastewater and nonwastewater forms ofhazardous wastes. Chemical oxidationtechnologies enable the destruction ofdissolved cyanides in aqueoussolutions, such as wastewaters fromplating and finishing operations, or ofinorganic sludges from these operations.Chemical oxidation technologiesexamined by EPA include:

(1) Electrical oxidation, (2)hypochlorite or chlorine oxidation(alkaline chlorination), (3)permanganate, ozone, or Sulfur dioxide/air (Inco process) oxidation, (4) wet airoxidation, (5) high temperature(cyanide) hydrolysis, and (6) UV/Ozonolysis.

One, or combinations, of thesetechnologies can reduce theconcentration of cyanides in the wastes.Incineration, peroxide treatment,alkaline chlorination, or electricoxidation followed by alkalinechlorination, high temperaturehydrolysis, or UV/ozonolysis appear toeffectively destroy amenable cyanides,cyanide-metal complexes (to varyingdegrees), or chelating agents. EPA hasdata in today's docket showing that highconcentrations of amenable cyanides(over 100,000 ppm) can be treatedeffectively by high temperaturehydrolysis or electric oxidation to levelsbelow 500 ppm when followed byalkaline chlorination or other oxidationtechnologies. There are also datashowing that complex cyanides,including iron-cyanides, can be treatedeffectively by combinations of alkalinechlorination and some oxidationtechnologies.

It appears that the use of sulfurdioxide/air oxidation, the Kastone

process (an oxidation process fortreating rinse waters from zinc orcadmium metal finishing operations),and potassium permanganate alone mayonly oxidize amenable cyanides tocyanates or thiocyanates and thus,further oxidation treatment is necessaryto destroy cyanides. These technologiesdo not appear to destroy iron-cyanidecomplexes. For instance, sulfur dioxide/air oxidation leaves behind iron cyanidecomplexes reduced in a ferrous statethat-are removed from solution byprecipitation of ferro-cyanidecomplexes. EPA solicits comments thatdemonstrate how these chemicaloxidation technologies can destroy iron-cyanide complex wastes and not justshift iron-cyanide complexes from onemedia to another.

Incineration, UV/ozonation(catalyzed), and a proprietary improvedalkaline chlorination process appear tomore effectively treat complex cyanidesincluding iron cyanides-the mostresistant to oxidation treatment of thecyanide-metal complexes. EPA'has datademonstrating its applicability to thefollowing cyanide wastes: K086, F010,K048-K052, F037, F038, K011, K013,K014, K104, K106, F006, F010, andF019.

EPA also has data on the treatment ofaluminum spent potliners byincineration and calcinationtechnologies. These incineration andcalcination data show that cyanidecomplexes and amenable cyanides canbe treated to a total cyanide level below210 mg/kg. (See above discussionsupporting the alternative universalleachable levels for cyanides.)

Wet Air Oxidation (WAO) is anothercyanide destruction technologyexamined by EPA. It is, in fact, the basisof treatment standards for K011, K013,and K014 (acrylonitrile) wastewaters(See 55 FR 22584, June 1, 1990). WAOcan reduce the concentration of organicsand cyanides in wastewaters (thatcontain less than 1% Total SuspendedSolids and less than 5% Total OrganicContent.) Effluent wastewaters oftenundergo additional treatment by othertechnologies such as biologicaltreatment to further reduce organiclevels in the wastewaters. Similarly,subsequent treatment of nonwastewaterforms is often provided in order tocomply with applicable LDRs fororganics and metals. EPA thus believesthat it is technically feasible to includeWAO among those cyanide destructiontechnologies being considered under theoption of prescribed technologies.

These treatment standards forwastewaters and nonwastewaters mustbe achieved by destruction, not bystabilization or immobilization or by

simply converting the cyanide tocyanate, ferrous or ferric cyanidecomplexes. In light of the legislativehistory of HSWA, EPA believes(cyanide) destruction technologies willserve better the requirements of3004(m).

In general, the Agency would prefer tospecify a numerical standard, so thattreaters may be free to use othertechnologies to destroy the cyanide andachieve the standard. Due to thecomplexity of the issues involved intreating cyanide, the Agency isincluding this option to providecommentors a complete range of optionsto consider.

PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENTSTANDARD FOR CYANIDE

[Wastewaters]

Maximum forany singleRegulated constituent composite

sample (mg/I)

Cyanide (Total) ..................... 1.9

PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENTSTANDARDS FOR CYANIDE*

[Nonwastewaters]

Maximum forany single

Regulated constituent compositesample (mg/

kg)

Cyanide (Total) .....................Cyanide (Amenable) .............

59030

Note: * Cyanide nonwastewaters areanalyzed using SW-846 Method 9010 or9012, sample size 10 grams, distillation time,one hour and 15 minutes.

4. Universal Standards for PetroleumRefining Wastes

In the Third Third final rule (55 FR22520, June 1, 1990) the Agencyexamined treatment data fromnoncombustion technologies as a basisfor BDAT for certain petroleum refininglisted wastes-K048-52. In the LDRPhase I final rule (57 FR 37194, August18, 1992), the Agency extended thoselimits to other petroleum refiningwastes-F037-38. The universalstandards for organics, however, arebased on combustion. The proposal tocover these wastes under the universalstandards is based on the expectationthat the noncombustion technologiesconsidered during the development ofthe K048-52 standards (viz. 3- or 5-phase solvent extraction) can alsoachieve the universal standards. Thebackground document for the F037-38standards lists in Appendix B twentytreatability tests used to develop the




K048-52 standards. Eleven of these testsfully complied with the universaltreatment standards. Appendix C of thesame document identifies 28 other testruns using noncombustion technologies.All of these tests fully complied withuniversal standards.

During the later development of theF037-38 standards, comments weresubmitted that thermal desorption couldachieve much lower levels than thoseused for K048-52; lower, in fact, thanthe universal treatment standardsproposed in today's rule. Based on theinformation that noncombustiontechnologies can also achieve theuniversal standards when treatingpetroleum refining wastes, the Agencyis proposing to include K048-52 andF037-38 petroleum refining wastesunder the universal standards.

The Agency is aware that the industryis using combustion and thermaldesorption, both of which should becapable of meeting the universalstandards. Comments are solicited onwhether the industry has invested inother technology that cannot meet theuniversal standards. In particular,information on the type of treatment,performance data, and an explanation asto why operational factors could not beadjusted to comply with the universalstandards, are solicited. To the extentdata demonstrates that petroleumrefining wastes treated by appropriatenoncombustion technologies canachieve slightly higher levels than thoseproposed for universal standards, theAgency may choose to revise theuniversal standards.

As a general matter for all hazardouswastes, the Agency solicits commentsand data on whether slight adjustmentsto the universal standards wouldencourage the further use ofnoncombustion technologies and stillrepresent BDAT.

5. Universal Standards Will Not Applyto F024

F024 is being excluded from theuniversal treatment standards.Treatment standards for F024constituents, including polychlorinateddioxins and polychlorinated furans,were promulgated in the Second Thirdrule (54 FR 26615, June 23, 1989). Thestandards were revised in the ThirdThird rule (55 FR 22580, June 1, 1990).These concentration-based treatmentstandards for F024 are lower than theuniversal standards for the regulatedF024 constituents. The revised -standards did not include any specificconcentration-based treatment standardsfor dioxins or furans, but did requirethat the F024 waste be treated byincineration.

The Agency believes that if F024wastes are properly incinerated, and thetreatment standards for the nineregulated organic constituents are met,then dioxins and furans, as well as allof the other hazardous constituents inthe waste will be substantiallydestroyed. In light of this issue, theAgency is retaining the existingIreatment standards for F024 and is notapplying the universal treatmentstandards to this waste.

B. Incorporation of Newly Listed Wastesinto Lab Packs and Proposed Changes toAppendices

On June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22629), EPApromulgated alternative treatmentstandards for lab packs under 40 CFR268.42(c) that specified methods oftreatment that could be used prior toland disposal. EPA promulgated thesealternative standards to provide relief totreaters from having to monitorcompliance with numeric treatmentstandards for many different wastes thatcould be included in the lab pack. Thealternative treatment standards appliedto two categories of lab packs asspecified in Appendix IV(organometallic) and Appendix V(organic) to part 268. In the January,1991, correction notice and again in theMay 30, 1991, Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (56 FR 24453),the Agency requested comment onpotential improvements to the existingalternative treatment standards forAppendix IV and Appendix V. Inparticular, the Agency solicitedopinions on whether a regulatorydefinition of organometallics wasnecessary, or whether other regulatoryrequirements should be developed toprevent potential misuse of the existingappendix IV lab pack requirements.

As noted in the May, 1991 ANPRM,EPA's original intent in establishingthese two appendices was to simplifythe regulations related to lab packsneeded incineration followed bychemical stabilization of the ash(Appendix IV), from those lab packsneeding only incineration (AppendixV). However, under 40 CFR 268.42(c)(4),the residue from incineration of bothtypes of lab packs must be treated toaddress any hazardous characteristic forthe TC metals, i.e., D004-D008, D010,and D011. (DO09 mercury wastes are notincluded in this list because mercury-bearing wastes are excluded from thealternative lab pack treatment standard.)As such, there is no practical differencebetween the treatment required for thetwo types of lab packs. The Agencybelieves that combing the appendicesinto appendix IV will simplifyprocedures. In the May 30, 1991

ANPRM, EPA solicited comment onconsolidating appendix V into appendixIV. Comments received were favorablein that such a change would simplifycompliance with the procedures.

The Agency is proposing to replacethe two appendices with a list ofexcluded wastes. The existingalternative treatment standard for labpacks would be retrained: Incineration(40 CFR 268.42(c)(3)) followed bytreatment of characteristic metals(excluding mercury (40 CFR268.42(c)(4).) Considering that twoorgano-mercury wastes, P065 andP092, are allowed in lab packs, theAgency solicits comments on whetherincinerator residues should also berequired to comply with the D009mercury standards.

Because the number of prohibitionwaste codes is small, the regulatedcommunity will be able to'quicklydetermine if a waste is excluded fromthe alternative lab pack treatmentstandard. The proposed list of excludedwaste codes is shown in table D-1,below.

TABLE D-1 .- LIST OF WASTE CODESTO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LABPACKS

D009, F019, K003, K004, K005, K006, K062,K071, K100, K106, P010, P011, P012,P076, P078, U134, U151.

The waste proposed for exclusion arethe same as those currently excluded,with the following exceptions. K071, amercury waste that was inadvertentlylisted on appendix IV, will now beexcluded. The Agency's actionregarding K071 is consistent with theexclusion of all other inorganic mercurywastes. Another difference with thecurrent exclusion list is that sixcyanide-containing wastes-F007, F008,F009, F011, F012, and K007 will beallowed in lab packs. EPA believes thatcyanide will be effectively destroyed bycombustion.

EPA is also proposing that thefollowing newly listed wastes (i.e., allwastes listed or identified sinceNovember 1984) be eligible for thealternative treatment standards for labpacks: The newly listed wastes forwhich treatment standards werepromulgated in the LDR Phase I rule (57FR 37194, August 18, 1992), and thenewly listed and TC wastes for whichtreatment standards are being proposedin today's rule.

EPA requests comments on all aspectsof today's alternative lab pack proposal,including the usefulness of theproposed standards at treatment,

48107



48108 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 1 Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

storage. and disposal facilities, andwhether a list of excluded wastes isnecessary, given the alternative of usinglimits on emissions from combustionunits and metal limits on the solidresiduals. For example, inorganicmercury wastes are excluded from labpacks. The reason for excluding thesewastes is that they are not effectivelytreated by combustion; and furthermoremercury, which is a volatile metal, maycause emission concerns. Alternatively,EPA could rely on existing mercurystandards for Boilers and IndustrialFurnaces and omnibus limits forhazardous waste incinerators to addressemission concerns; and a mercury limitcould be placed on the solid residual byadding D009 to the list of metal limitsin § 268.42(c)(4) to ensure effectivetreatment of the solid residual.

C. Proposed Changes in the LDRProgram in Response to the LDRRoundtable

1. Background

The Office of Solid Waste convened aroundtable meeting on January 12-14,1993, to discuss the LDR program. Thepurpose of the roundtable was to hearfrom persons experienced inimplementing the LDR program on whatwas working well, what was notworking well, and what could be doneto improve the program. Thesediscussions were a forum for sharingconcerns and information in aconstructive and candid manner, ratherthan to reach consensus or serve asformal negotiations.

In the spirit of quality improvement,EPA's goal is to make the LDR programmore efficient and easier to implement.The roundtable was part of acomprehensive LDR implementationstudy. EPA developed the LDR programunder stringent deadlines; thus theimplementation study presents anopportunity to assess its effectivenessand implementation. The Agency isusing the information gained from thisstudy, beginning with the Januaryroundtable, to improve the existing LDRprogram and to guide its futuredirection.

Roundtable participants were wastegenerators, treaters and disposers,public interest groups, stateenvironmental agencies, other Federalagencies, and EPA headquarters andregional personnel. Major issues wereidentified in advance by roundtableparticipants and the discussions focusedon these topics: Treatment standards,monitoring, and administrative andpaperwork requirements.

To facilitate discussion, five smallgroups were created. The small groups

discussed the issues, identified the mostimportant issues associated with eachtopic and provided additional detail orpotential solutions. The small groupsthen reconvened in general session toreport back the group'srecommendations. (The completeproceedings for the roundtable areincluded in the RCRA docket numberedF-92-CD2F-S0144.)

The participants identified thefollowing major issues relative to theLDR treatment standards:

" Wastecode-carry through." Use of health-based versus

technology-based numbers as thestandard, "

e Defining the point at which wastesenter or exit the LDR "system",

a Inconsistency of individualstandards for constituents across wastecodes,

" Capacity for treatment,* Storage of waste for greater than one

year,• Existing treatment standards for

hazardous soil," Standards modifications, and" The need for user-friendly guidance

on treatment standards.The participants identified the

following major issues relative to LDRmonitoring

e Providing clarification for the use ofgenerator knowledge,

" Constituent monitoring," Revisions to the Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure(TCLP),

* Detection limits,* Waste analysis plans, and* Guidance and training.Although views on the LDR program

varied, feedback from the participantsindicated that coming together todiscuss these issues was veryworthwhile. EPA is today proposing toincorporate some of therecommendations made by roundtableparticipants, as discussed below. Forexample, the Agency is proposing toconsolidate the three existing treatmentstandard tables and to simplify thenotification requirements, as discussedbelow. In addition, as discussed insection III.A., the Agency is alsopreparing to develop a uniform set ofuniversal treatment standards. For otherissues raised at the roundtable, theAgency is continuing to developimprovements to the LDR program.

2. Consolidated Treatment TableSeveral 3f the groups present at the

LDR roundtable expressed an interest inhaving a consolidated treatmentstandard table in the regulations.Participants stated that the existingsystem of three tables (see 40 CFR

268.41-268.43) was too complex andburdensome to use.

When the LDR program began, theAgency believed it was useful to cearlydelineate in 'the regulation thedifferences between numericaltreatment standards as measured inleachate from the Toxicity CharacteRisticLeaching Procedure (table CCWE at268.43) from standards measuredthrough a total waste analysis (tableCCW at 268.42). Furthermore, it wasuseful to clarify that the specifiedmethods of treatment (tables 2 and 3 at268.43) differed from numericalstandards in that numerical standardscan be met through the use of anytechnology, whereas specified methodsmust be used to treat the waste. Whenspecified methods are used, there is noneed to measure the treatment residuefor compliance purposes.

However, now that the program hasbeen in place for a number of years andalmost all hazardous wastes are subjectto treatment standards, the Agencyagrees that the regulations can besimplified. First, the Agency believesthe program has been in place longenough so that the regulated communitygenerally understands the system. Thus,it may not be necessary to make suchobvious delineations. Second, there isconsiderable overlap between the tables.For instance, a listed waste may containboth organic constituents and metals.Treatment standards for the organicconstituents appear in § 268.43, where across reference to § 268.41 appears thatrefers the reader to the treatmentstandards for the metals. A few wasteshave treatment standards appearing inall three places. The consolidated tableprovides all necessary information in aneasier-to-read format. The Agency notesthat the new table does not contain theproposed universal treatment standards,instead relying on the standardscurrently found in the three existingtables. If the consolidated table and theuniversal standards are both finalized,the table will contain the universalstandards.

Therefore, EPA is proposing intoday's rule a table which combines theinformation found in § 268.41 TableCCWE.-Constituent Concentrations inWaste Extract, § 288.42 Table 2.-Technology-Based Standards by RCRAWaste Code, and § 268.43 Table CCW.-Constituent Concentrations in Wastes.The Agency is proposing to call thetable "Treatment Standards forHazardous Waste" and place it at§ 268.40 along with much of the textfound currently in §§ 268.41, 268.42,and 268.43. Section 268.42 wouldcontinue to be used to describe thetechnology ,odes, regulate California




list PCBs and HOCs, set out exemptionsfrom the required methods, and providefor procedures for equivalencydeterminations. The Agency requestscomments on the usefulness of theconsolidated table.

3. Simplified LDR NotificationRequirements

Comments on the § 268.7 notificationrequirements at the LDR roundtableranged from eliminating notificationaltogether to modifying or deleting dataitems on the notification form. It wasalso suggested that the LDR notificationform be combined with the manifest.The manifest form is currently beingrevised through a regulatory negotiationprocess; as part of the process, the groupdiscussed the possibility of combiningthe manifest and the notification form.Due to a number of factors, the groupdecided not to consider combining theLDR notification requirements with the

manifest form. Since it is not possible atthis time to combine the manifest withthe notification form, and since theAgency believes that the LDRnotifications are necessary to documentcradle-to-grave hazardous wastemanagement, the Agency explored waysto simplify the information required onthe notification form. The Agencyproposes to omit the requirement at§ 268.7(a)(1)(ii) and at § 268.9(d)(1) thatthe notification include treatmentstandards or references to thosestandards.

Such a simplification makesparticular sense in conjunction withconsolidating the treatment standardtables. Therefore, the Agency isproposing that the only informationrequired to be included in thenotification will be the EPA HazardousWaste Number, whether the waste is anonwastewater or wastewater, wasteanalysis data where available, the

manifest number associated with theshipment, the constituents in the wastefor certain D001 and D002 wastes forwhich treatment standards for theunderlying hazardous constituents mustbe met (see 58 FR 29860, May 24, 1993),and the specific hazardous constituentsin EPA Hazardous Wastes Nos. F001-F005, and F039 for which treatment isrequired. Today's proposal would notalter the certification requirements at§ 268.7.

Participants at the LDR roundtablealso requested a summary of all the LDRpaperwork requirements. The Agency istherefore proposing that such a table beincluded as an appendix to part 268.The Agency requests comment on thenotification simplification and summarytable shown below. Also, comment andexamples are requested on whether aflow chart might be more useful thanthe summary table.

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

Entity Scenaro = Frequency Recipient of notification Record-keeping, notification, and/or certificationI I Irequirements

I. Generator ........ A. Waste does notmeet applicable treat-ment standards orexceeds applicableprohibition levels[§268.7(a)(1)].

B. Waste can be dis-posed of without fur-ther treatment (meetsapplicable treatmentstandards or doesnot exceed prohibi-tion levels upon gen-eration)[§ 268.7(a)(2)].

C. Waste is subject toexemption from aprohibition on thetype of land disposalutilized for the waste,such as a case-by-case extension under§268.5, an exemp-tion under §268.6, ora nationwide capacityvariance1§ 268.7(a)(3)].

D. Waste is in tanks orcontainers regulatedunder 40 CFR262.34 (accumulatedwaste) and beingtreated in such con-tainers to meet appli-cable treatmentstandards[§ 268.7(a)(4)].

Each shipment ...........

Each shipment ...........

Treatment or storagefacility.

Land disposal facility ...

Each shipment ........... Receiving facility ..........

Minimum of 30 daysprior to treatmentactivity.

EPA Regional Adminis-trator (or his des-ignated representa-tive) or authorizedState. Delivery mustbe verified.

Notice must be in writing and include:" EPA hazardous waste number" Constituents of concern for certain wastes" Treatability group" Waste analysis-data (where available).

Notice and certification statement that wastemeets applicable treatment standards or ap-plicable prohibition levels.

Notice must include:" EPA hazardous waste number" Constituents of concern for certain wastes" Treatability group* Manifest number" Waste analysis data (where available)Certification statement required under

§266.7(a)(2)(ii) that waste complies withtreatment standards and prohibitions.

Notice must include:" Statement that waste is not prohibited from

land disposal* EPA hazardous waste number" Constituents of concern for certain wastes• Treatability group" Manifest number" Waste analysis data (where available)" Date the waste is subject to the prohibitions.

Generator must develop, keep onsite, and foi-low a written waste analysis plan describingprocedures used to comply with the treat-ment standards.

If waste is shipped offsite, generator also mustcomply with notification requirement of§ 268.7(a)(2).

48109



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

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

Entity Scenario Frequency cipt oRecord-keeping, notification, and/or certificationI I RI requirements

II. Treatment Fa-cility.

E. Where generator ismanaging a lab packcontaining certainwastes and wishes touse an alternativetreatment standard[§ 268.7(a)(8) or(a)(9)].

F. Small quantity gen-erators with tollingagreements [pursu-ant to 40 CFR262.20(c)][§268.7(a)(10)1.

G. Generator has de-termined waste is re-stricted based solelyon his knowledge ofthe waste[§ 268.7(a)(5)].

H. Generator has deter-mined waste is re-stricted based. ontesting waste or anextract [§268.7(a)(5).

I. Generator has deter-mined that waste isexcluded from thedefinition of hazard-ous or solid waste orexempt from SubtitleC regulation[§ 268.7(a)(6)].

J. Other record-keepingrequirements[§268.7(a)(7)].

A. Waste shipped from.treatment facility toland disposal facility[§268.7(b)(4). ('o)(5)].

B. Waste treatment res-idue from a treatmentor storage facility willbe further managedat a different treat-ment or storage facil-ity J§ 268.7(b)(6)].

Each shipment ........... Treatment facility .........

Initial Shipment ......... Treatment facility .........

N/A ............................. I G enerator's file ............

Notice in accordance with §268.7(a)(1), (a)(5),and (a)(6), where applicable.

Certification in accordance with §268.7(a)(8) or§ 268.7(a)(9), respectively.

Must comply with applicable notification andcertification requirements in §268.7(a).

Generator also must retain copy of the notifica-tion and certification together with tollingagreement onsite for at least 3 years aftertermination or expiration of agreement.

All supporting data must be retained onsite ingenerator's files.

N/A ............................. I Generator's file ............ All waste analysis data must be retained onsitein generator's files.

One-time .................... I Generator's file ............

N/A ........................Generator's file ............

Each shipment ........... I Land disposal facility ...

Each shipment ........... Receiving facility ..........

File a one-time notice stating such generation,subsequent exclusion from the definition orexemption from Subtitle C, and the disposi-tion of waste.

Generator must retain a copy of all notices,certifications, demonstrations, waste analysisdata, and other documentation produced pur-suant to §268.7 onsite for at least 5 yearsfrom the date that the waste was last sent toonsite or offsite treatment, storage, or dis-posal. This period is automatically extendedduring enforcement actions or as requestedby the Administrator.

Notice must include:* EPA hazardous waste number• Constituents of concern* Treatability group* Prohibition levels* Manifest number* Waste analysis data (where available)Certification as set out in §268.7(b)(5)(i), (ii)

and (iii) stating that the waste or treatmentresidue has been treated in compliance withapplicable performance standards and prohi-bitions.

Treatment, storage, or disposal facility mustcomply with all notice and certification re-quirements applicable to generators.




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

Entity Scenario Frequency Recipient of notification Record-keeping, notification, andor cetificationrequirements

C. Where wastes are Each shipment ........... Regional Administrator No notification to receiving facility required pur-recyclable matedals (or his delegated rep- suant to §268.7(b)(4).used In a manner resentative). Certification as described In _§ 268.7(bHS) andconstituting disposal notice with information listed In §268.7(b)(4),subject to §26620(b) except manifest number.[§268.7(b)(7)l. Recycling facility must keep records of the

name and location of each entity receivinghazardous waste-derived products.

III. Land Disposal A. Wastes taken to ................... . ..... Maintain copies of notice and certificationsFacility, land disposal facility specified in §268.7(a) and (b) and §268.8, if

_ 1§268.7(c)]. applicable.

4. Demonstrating Acceptable Knowledgeof One's Waste

Under the LDR program, generatorsmay characterize their waste basedeither on knowledge of the waste or onanalytical data. On the other hand,treatment, storage, and disposalfacilities (TSDFs) must periodically testtheir wastes, according to the frequencyspecified in the Waste Analysis plan(WAP); at other times, they may useknowledge to characterize their waste.Several participants at the LDRRoundtable expressed the need forguidance as to what constitutesacceptable knowledge whencharacterizing waste.

a. Background. The general andspecific waste characterizationrequirements can be met using severalmethods or combinations of methods.Wherever feasible, the preferred methodto meet the waste characterizationrequirement is to conduct sampling andlaboratory analysis because this data inmost cases provides the most definitiveinformation on constituentconcentration levels in waste comparedto LDR treatment standards. However,generators and TSDFs also can meetwaste characterization requirements byapplying "acceptable knowledge."Acceptable knowledge can be used tomeet all or part of the wastecharacterization requirements.

b. What Constitutes AcceptableKnowledge? Acceptable knowledge isbroadly defined to include "processknowledge" and the facility's records ofanalysis performed before the effectivedate of RCRA regulations, or acombination of these with actualchemical analysis of the waste.

"Process knowledge" could constituteacceptable knowledge when detailedinformation on the wastes is obtainedfrom existing published or documentedwaste analysis data or studiesconducted on hazardous wastesgenerated by processes similar to thatwhich generated the waste. EPA also

solicits comment on other types ofinformation that would come under thedefinition of process knowledge.

EPA lists certain hazardous wastes in40 CFR part 261. For example, the K-listed wastes (e.g., K001 wastes, definedas bottom sediment sludge from thetreatment of wastewaters'from woodpreserving processes that use creosoteand/or pentachlorophenol) are listed bythe specific process that generated thewaste (rather than by the characteristicof the waste that is generated.)Therefore, with many listed wastes("K", "P", and "U") the application ofacceptable knowledge is appropriatebecause the waste characteristics aregenerally consistent and well knownfrom facility to facility. In the casewhere a generator sends waste off-sitefor treatment, storage, or disposal, theTSDF may rely on process knowledgesupplied by the generator as a basis forthe TSDF's waste characterization. (See§ 264.13.)

Some facilities have records ofanalysis performed before the effectivedate of RCRA regulations. Whileseemingly attractive because of thepotential savings associated with usingexisting information (such as publisheddata), the facility must ensure that thisinformation accurately characterizesapplicable wastes.

c. When Might Acceptable KnowledgeBe Used? Generators and TSDFs mayuse acceptable knowledge alone or Inconjunction with sampling andlaboratory analysis. There are situationswhere it is appropriate to applyacceptable knowledge, for example,when:

e The hazardous constituents inwastes from specific processes are welldocumented, such as with the K-listedwastes mentioned previously.

* Wastes are discarded unusedcommercial chemical products, reagentsor chemicals of known physical and,chemical constituents. Several of thesefall into the "P" and "U" categories.

9 Other site-specific/process-specificfactors.

The Agency requests comment onother appropriate situations in whichacceptable knowledge is appropriate.

d. Why Provide Evidence to SupportAcceptable Knowledge? Forenforcement purposes, EPA seeksevidence that demonstrates that theinformation relied upon is sufficient toidentify the waste accurately andcompletely. Such evidence (e.g.,knowledge of the process that generatedthe waste) is essential for identifyingconstituents that must meet LDRstandards.

e. How Can A TSDF Verify DataSupplied by a Generator? There areconsiderations that a TSDF should beaware of when relying upon acceptableknowledge to manage wastes. First, ifthe TSDF relies in part on informationsupplied by a generator, the TSDF mustbecome thoroughly familiar with thegenerator's processes to verify theintegrity of the data. This can beaccomplished by: (1) Conducting facilityvisits of generators, (2) obtaining splitsampling for confirmatory analysis,and/or (3) gathering other information.

Second, if the TSDF uses processdescriptions and documented studies asacceptable knowledge, the data shouldbe scrutinized carefully as to whether..

e There are any differences betweenthe process in the study and the processused by the generator.

* The studies used are applicable.These issues are of concern, for

example, because EPA revised thecriteria that qualify a waste as ahazardous waste due to meeting thetoxicity characteristic. Not only werethe number and type of constituents thatcould deem a waste hazardous modifiedbut also the test for identifying theseconstituents was amended (i.e., theToxicity Characteristic LeachingProcedure (TCLP) replaced theExtraction Procedure Toxicity Test (EPTOX Test).)

48111




Therefore, if a TSDF has been usingacceptable knowledge, it needs toreview the waste analysis or wastecharacterization data to determine if itis managing any solid wastes that arenow hazardous wastes. The TSDF needsto determine whether its existing data issufficient to identify any newconstituent concentrations limitation(i.e., demonstrate compliance with LDRrequirements).

In addition, where documentedstudies are used as acceptableknowledge, the TSDF should determinewhether the information is based onvalid sampling and analyticaltechniques. Also, the ability ofanalytical equipment to detect lowconcentrations of contaminants hasimproved over the years, andconstituents that once were determinedto be "nondetectable" may, in fact, bedetectable using the sophisticatedequipment available today.

Although EPA recognizes thatsampling and analysis is not aseconomical or convenient as usingacceptable knowledge, it does have anumber of advantages. Because accuratewaste identification is such a criticalfactor for demonstrating compliancewith RCRA, misidentification canrender a facility liable for enforcementactions with respect to permitconditions, LDR requirements, annualreporting, and other RCRArequirements. In addition, accuratewaste analysis is critical for meetingsome of the requirements of otherregulatory programs such as effluentdischarges under the Clean Water Act,and transportation requirementsregulated by the Department ofTransportation.

5. Advance Notice of Possible Changesto the LDR Program Resulting From theLDR Roundtable

As was elaborated above in thesection presenting background on theLDR Roundtable, EPA intends furtherreview comments and recommendationsmade during the Roundtable andpropose to incorporate them-whereappropriate-into future LDRregulations. Below, some of the mainproblems and recommendationsidentified by Roundtable participantsare briefly discussed. Therecommendations are being presented inthis proposed rule to solicit furthercomments that will be considered whendeveloping possible revisions to existingLDR provisions in future rulemakings.Comment is solicited on each of therecommendations discussed above.More detailed information on the LDRRoundtable can be obtained by callingor writing the RCRA Docket and

requesting the document "Summary ofthe Land Disposal RestrictionsEvaluation Roundtable" found in thedocket numbered F-92-CD2F-S0144.

a. Waste code carry through. One ofthe issues concerns the management ofresiduals from treating listed wastes.The waste codes for these wastes "carrythrough" to the treatment residual, evenwhen the physical or chemical state ofthe waste has been modified. TheRoundtable participants'recommendations included: (1)Dropping the waste code when the LDRtreatment standards are met-groupscontended that once standards are metfor a waste, the waste code should bedropped from the residual so thatlegitimate mixing and other treatmentcould occur without retesting; (2)allowing the use of process knowledgeto identify a short list of constituents inresiduals for which analysis should beconducted; and (3) developing residualwaste codes (as the Agency has done formulti-source leachate.)

b. Use of health-based levels versustechnology-based levels in establishingtreatment standards. A number of theparticipants suggested. that the LDRsshould be revised to allow materials toleave the hazardous waste (i.e., RCRAsubtitle C) system-that is, the LDRtreatment standards should be based onrisk. Other participants recommendedthat EPA should considersocioeconomic factors and resourceallocations during these riskevaluations. For further discussion, seeSection II.H. Furthermore, it was alsosuggested that the Agency create a deminimis program to eliminate certainspecific categories of small volumewastes from the LDR requirements.(This last alternative would, of course,likely require a statutory change.)

c. Inconsistency of standards. Someparticipants stated that requiringcharacteristic wastes to be treated belowthe characteristic level is inconsistentwith the regulatory standards used forhazardous waste identification.Remedies included: (1) Cappingtreatment with risk-based levels; (2)implementing universal standards basedon the least-stringent treatmentstandard; and (3) having EPA focus onhazardous compounds in wastes ratherthan on the existing set of waste codes,and establish technology-basedtreatment standards so that eachcompound would have a specificstandard regardless of the waste inwhich it was found (such "universalstandards" are proposed in section III.Aof this preamble.)

d. Capacity-related issues.Participants cited a-number of capacity-related concerns, including the lack of

treatment capacity for highly-concentrated mercury waste, andinsufficient treatment technologies toaddress ignitable, corrosive and reactive(ICR) wastes. With regard to mercurywastes, participants suggested EPAallow the low-level mercury treatmentstandard to be applied to high-levelmercury wastes. For ICR wastes, therecommendation was to allowmaximum flexibility concerningcontinued use of deactivation.

Furthermore, it was stated that thestorage for greater than one year willoccur for certain wastes because notreatment capacity exists (e.g.,radioactive mixed wastes, mercury-bearing wastes not amenable to thecurrent standards, PCBs, and dioxin-contaminated wastes.) (The 'one-yearlimitation' is, of course, a misnomer.Persons storing for over one year merelyhave the burden of showing they arestoring waste in order to accumulatesufficient quantities to facilitate propertreatment or disposal. § 268.50(c).)Participants also indicated that the one-year storage limitation is a disincentivefor waste minimization because the costof disposal decreases as the volume ofwaste increases, and pollutionprevention/waste minimizationprograms have created problemsassociated with generating sufficientwaste for disposal. There is alsoconfusion on the part of industry onwhat constitutes a good-faith effort tofind treatment capacity. Possiblesolutions voiced included: (1) Guidanceon what constitutes a good-faith effort tofind treatment capacity; (2) streamliningcapacity variance procedures; and (3)waste minimization storage allowances(e.g., EPA offering storage for greaterthan one year as a waste minimizationincentive for non-permitted facilities.)

e. Generator knowledge. It was statedby a number of the participants thatgenerator knowledge with respect toidentifying constituents of concern intheir hazardous waste was often rejectedby TSDs, requiring testing by generatorsprior to acceptance of wastes fortreatment or disposal. The onerecommendation was to instituteguidance on what the Agency considerssufficient written documentation tosupport a generator's knowledge of thewaste. (The Agency is providing someguidance on this issue in section 4above.)

f. Constituents. Conversely, a numberof the participants stated that theAgency requires testing for too manyconstituents, presenting a cost burden toindustry. Because generators are said toknow the constituent content of theirwaste, it is unnecessary to test. Potentialsolutions to this problem included: (1)




Developing short, waste-specific,indicator constituent lists for testing; (2)initially testing the whole range ofconstituents, then testing again only ifthe waste stream changes; and (3)having EPA remove dioxins and furansfrom the F039 list due to the expense ofanalysis, while retaining the currentstandards for these compounds in F020-F023 and F026-F027.

g. Detection limits. Some participantsmaintained that some treatmentstandards are set at levels that may bebelow detection limits, creating obviouscompliance difficulties.Recommendations included: (1)Allowing ranges in detection limits andin LDR treatment standards; (2)establishing LDR standards at levels thatare not below detection limits; (3) usethe practical quantitation limits (PQLs)as the default for matrix difficulties; (4)refining detection limits over time andallow the use of indicator compounds indifficult analyses; and (5) allowing thestates and regions discretion whendealing with difficult matrices andstandards.

h. Waste Anaysis Plans (WAPs). Thegeneral problem voiced was thatgenerators, treaters, disposers, andenforcement officials often obtaindifferent analytical results for the samewaste depending on the sampling (eg.,grab versus composite samples), and thestatistical or weighting methodsemployed, necessitating re-testing.Potential remedies included: (1)Developing WAP guidance to, amongother things, minimize redundanttesting and over-certification of wastes,and solicit comment on whether tospecify WAP guidance at the time ofpromulgation of the rules; (2) having theAgency develop sampling guidance; (3)using composite sampling over grabsampling; (4) establishing mandatoryquality control procedures; and (5)having the waste analysis plans relymore on generator knowledge.

i. Paperwork. In general it was feltthat the paperwork requirements weretoo complicated. Some participantssuggested that there is no longer a needfor the LDR notification, and said'thatthe separate LDR notification hampersinspections. Alternative optionsincluded: (1) Including the LDRnotification on the manifest; (2) revisingthe LDR notification to exemptgenerators from informing the treater of.the treatment standards applicable tothe waste (EPA is proposing to makethis change in this preamble at section3 above); (3) creating a summary tableof notification and certificationrequirements (included above in Table1); and (4) solicit comment on reducing

the number of years that records mustbe retained.

j. Complexity of the regulations. Mostof the participants agreed that thepreamble language is not consistentlyinterpreted among government officialsand that it is necessary to work withboth the regulations and the preamble tounderstand what is required. Discussionin the groups pointed to the LDRs beingdifficult to understand, largely becausethe Codes of Federal Regulations (CFR)are quickly out of date; the preamblelanguage contains significant guidancethat is not always implicit in theregulatory language; and the treatmentstandards are found in the CFR inseveral tables. Recommendationsincluded: (1) Developing consolidatedtreatment tables (this suggestion is beingproposed in this notice, as discussed atsection C.2 above); (2) having EPAdevelop a bulletin board to keep allinvolved parties informed of policymemoranda, scheduled briefings, andnew rules; (3) having the Agency makeinspector checklists available to theregulated community and holdworkshops on compliance; (4) EPAphysically reorganizing its regulationsby incorporating part 268 into thegenerator and facility requirements(parts 262, 264 and 265); and, (5) havingEPA expand preambles to include animplementation section, solicitingcomment on implementationinformation during the development ofthe regulations (this is beingimplemented in this proposed rule insection XI.)

W. Treatment Standards for ToxicityCharacteristic WasteA. The Third Third Court Decision, theEmergency Interim Final Rule, andTheir Applicability to TC Wastes

In today's notice, EPA is proposingtreatment standards for wastesdisplaying the toxicity characteristic(TC wastes) when the TC wastes aremanaged in systems other than: (1) Inwastewater treatment systems whichinclude surface impoundments andwhose ultimate discharge is subject tothe Clean Water Act (CWA); (2) in ClassI non-hazardous underground injectionwells subject to the Safe Drinking WaterAct (SDWA) Underground InjectionControl (UIC) program; or, (3) by a zerodischarger who, before permanent landdisposal of the wastewater, treats thewastewaters in a wastewater treatmentsystem equivalent to that utilized byCWA dischargers. Consistent with theThird Third Case, the treatmentstandards proposed for these wastesinclude standards for "constituentssubject to treatment" (i.e., any regulated

constituent present at levels above theuniversal constituent-specific treatmentstandards at the point of generation ofthe TC waste).

This proposed approach is the sameas that adopted in the recent interimfinal rule, promulgated on May 10, 1993(published on May 24, 1993, 58 FR29860) in response to the court'sdecision in Chemical WasteManagement v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2 (D.C.Cir. 1992). That case vacated andremanded certain Agency regulations(commonly referred to as the ThirdThird rule) establishing prohibitionsand treatment standards forcharacteristic wastes, and alsoestablished rules as to when theprohibitions and standards would notapply.

This section provides a summary ofthe court's decision, an overview of theinterim final rule published on May 24,1993, and how the Agency proposes toapply this approach to the TC wastes.

1. BackgroundAmong other things in the Third

Third final rule, the Agencypromulgated treatment standards andprohibitions for hazardous wastes thatexhibited one or more of the followingcharacteristics: Ignitability, corrosivity,reactivity, or EP toxicity (40 CFR261.21-261.24). The Agency alsoevaluated the applicability of the LDRdilution prohibition to characteristicwastes, including characteristic wastesultimately managed in wastewatermanagement systems with land disposalunits (i.e., impoundments or injectionwells) which are subject to varying,degrees of regulation under the CWAand SDWA. This was done in an effortto ensure the successful integration ofthese programs with the LDRregulations (see generally 55 FR 22653-59 (June 1, 1990)). Thus, except wherethe Agency specifically identified andrequired that hazardous constituents betreated, the rule indicated in essencethat characteristic wastes need only betreated to remove the characteristicbefore land disposal where landdisposal involved placement in surfaceimpoundments whose ultimatedischarge was subject to regulationunder the CWA, or where the waste wasinjected into a Class I UIC well.

On September 25, 1992, the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the Districtof Columbia Circuit ruled on variouspetitions for review of this rule. Theprincipal holdings of the case withrespect to characteristic wastes werethat: (1) EPA may require treatmentunder RCRA section 3004(m) to morestringent levels than those at whichwastes are identified as hazardous so

48113




long as the level defining the waste ashazardous was above the level at whichthreats to human health and theenvironment are minimized, 976 F. 2dat 12-14; (2) section 3004(m) requiresthat treatment standards address both.short-term and long-term potentialharms posed by hazardous wastes, aswell as removal of the characteristicproperty, id. at 16, 17, 23; as aconsequence, dilution is permissible asan exclusive method of treatment onlyfor those characteristic wastes that donot contain hazardous constituents "insufficient concentrations to pose a threatto human health or the environment"(i.e., the minimize threat level in section3004(m)), id. at 16; and, (3) situationswhere characteristic hazardous wastesare diluted, lose their characteristic(s)and are then managed in centralizedwastewater management land disposalunits (i.e., subtitle D surfaceimpoundments or injection wells) arelegal only if it can be demonstrated thathazardous constituents are reduced,destroyed or immobilized to the sameextent as they would be pursuant tootherwise-applicable RCRA treatmentstandards, id. at 7.

As a consequence of these holdings,the court held that the deactivationtreatment standard for ignitable andcorrosive wastes (which allowed thehazardous characteristic to be removedby any type of treatment, includingdilution) did not fully comport withRCRA section 3004(m). This wasbecause that standard could be achievedby dilution, and section 3004(m) "* * *requires that any hazardous waste betreated in such a way that hazardousconstituents be removed from the wastebefore it enters the environment." 976 F.2d at 24.

In response to the court decision, EPAissued an emergency interim final rulewith respect to those treatmentstandards that were vacated (as opposedto remanded) by the court (58 FR 29860,May 24, 1993). The distinction betweenvacated and remanded rules is thatvacated rules are no longer in effect(once the court's mandate issues),whereas remanded rules remain in forceuntil the Agency acts to replace them.This distinction has considerablesignificance with respect to LDRtreatment standards. If there is notreatment standard for a prohibitedwaste (for example, as a result of avacatur), that waste is prohibited fromland disposal, because it has not beentreated to meet the treatment standardestablished by EPA, and (presumably) isnot being disposed in a no-migrationunit. RCRA sections 3004 (d), (e), and(g)(5). A remanded treatment standard,on the other hand, would remain in

effect, and disposal of prohibited wastestreated pursuant to that standard is legaluntil the standard is amended.

In the Agency's opinion, the rulesdealing with centralized wastewatermanagement involving land disposal(§§ 268.1(c)(3) and 268.3(b)) wereremanded, not vacated. (See 976 F.2d at7, 19-26 where these rules are discussedand not expressly vacated.) This meansthat the only wastes to which theinterim final rule applied were thoseignitable and corrosive wastes for whichthe treatment standard was deactivation(since the deactivation standard forthese wastes was vacated) and whichwere managed in systems other thanCWA, CWA-equivalent, or Class I UICwells regulated under the SDWA.

The treatment standards promulgatedin the interim final rule retained therequirement of deactivation to removethe hazardous characteristic; however,the rule also established numericaltreatment standards for the underlyinghazardous constituents that could bepresent in the wastes.

2. Applicability of This Approach to TCWastes and Hazardous Soil Covered byThis Proposed Rule

The Agency is today proposing thesame approach adopted in the interimfinal rule for determining whichhazardous constituents in TC wastesand hazardous soils to regulate and thetypes of treatment/disposal unitscovered. As with ignitable and corrosivewastes, the underlying hazardousconstituents must be treated. TheAgency believes that to do otherwisewould be inconsistent with the court'sholding that RCRA section 3004(m)requires that treatment standardsaddress both short-term and long-termpotential harms posed by hazardouswastes.

With respect to the units to beregulated, EPA is proposing to defercontrol of the same units not addressedby the interim final rule. Under thatrule, the new treatment standards do notapply to ignitable or corrosive wastesmanaged in wastewater treatmentsystems whose ultimate discharge issubject to the CWA, Class I undergroundinjection wells subject to the SDWAUnderground Injection Control (UIC)program, and zero dischargers who,before final land disposal, treatwastewater with treatment equivalent tothat utilized by CWA dischargers. CWA-equivalent treatment means biologicaltreatment for organics, reduction ofhexavalent chromium, precipitation/sedimentation for metals, alkalinechlorination or ferrous sulfateprecipitation of cyanide (to the extentthese constituents are present in the

untreated influent to wastewatertreatment systems), or treatment that thefacility can show performs as well orbetter than these enumeratedtechnologies. See § 258.37(a), 58 FR at29885 (May 24, 1993).

EPA is proposing the same deferredcoverage when these units are used totreat TC wastes. The Agency believesthat it would be most appropriate toaddress all issues pertaining to suchwastewater management operations atone time. Therefore, it is not addressingTC wastes managed in these systems inthis rulemaking. They will be addressedin a later rulemaking, along with issuesthat pertain to the wastewatermanagement facilities excluded fromthe interim final rule.

The treatment standards beingproposed today for TC wastes wouldapply, however, when these wastes areinjected into other than Class I wells(e.g., Class V shallow injection wells),even if the wastes were renderednoncharacteristic ("decharacterized")first. The exception to the dilutionprohibition of the Third Third FinalRule never applied to other than ClassI nonhazardous injection wells. Thismeans that today's proposedrequirements will apply to someinjection practices, in particular, thoseinvolving Class V injection wells. Thesetypically are wells injectingnonhazardous wastes above or intounderground sources of drinking water.(If, however, the TC wastes injected intonon-Class I wells were to be treated byCWA-equivalent means before injection,the proposed treatment standards wouldnot apply. This is an example of thetype of zero discharger referred toabove.) The Agency solicits commentsand data on volumes of TC wastesmanaged in Class V injection wells, andon waste management practicesemployed prior to injection.

The TC wastes covered by this rulehave been, and will continue to be,managed in combustion devices or bestabilized. Upon promulgation of a finalrule, such facilities must treat thewastes to meet the treatment standardfor the TC waste-including standardsfor any underlying hazardousconstituents-prior to land disposal.

3. Future Response to Issues Remandedby the Court

The Agency plans to address theissues having to do with CWA andCWA-equivalent wastewatermanagement systems and injection intoClass I injection wells in futurerulemakings. For example: (1) Directdischargers managing decharacterizedwastes in surface impoundments; (2)indirect dischargers managing




decharacterized wastes in surfaceimpoundments; (3) zero dischargers(including those injecting into non-ClassI injection wells) who perform CWA-equivalent treatment before ultimatedisposal; and (4) persons injectingdecharacterized wastes into Class I deepinjection wells will be subject toregulation in the future when theAgency addresses remanded issues fromthe Third Third Case. See 58 FR at29860, May 24, 1993 explaining thebasis for these categorizations.

Many of these remanded issues aresignificantly more complex than thosedealt with in the interim final rule andin today's proposed rule. In addition,the universe of facilities affected by theremanded portions of the Third Thirdrule is much broader than that coveredin either of these rules, as it will include(among other things) treatment systemsregulated under the CWA, Class Inonhazardous injection wells regulatedunder the SDWA, plus zero dischargefacilities that engage in treatment that isequivalent to that of CWA dischargers.Furthermore, the volumes of wastesaffected by the remanded rules aremuch greater than those at issue in thisregulation and the interim final rule.

Options for addressing theseremanded issues with respect toignitable, corrosive, and reactivecharacteristic wastes were presented inthe Supplemental Information Reportprepared for the January 19, 1993 Noticeof Data Availability (58 FR 4972),available in the RCRA docket. EPAexpects that most of the issuesdiscussed there will also apply to TCwastes when treatment standards arepromulgated. The following discussionsummarizes many of the issues raised inthe Supplemental Information Report.

It is clear that the court intended forthe Agency to revise the special dilutionprovisions for management in a CWAfacility (§ 268.3(b)) and in SDWA ClassI injection wells (§ 268.1(c)(3)), becauseit specified that dilution alone is notadequate treatment if an ignitable,corrosive, and reactive waste containshazardous constituents at levels abovethose the Agency finds minimizethreats. This will greatly impact theinjection of these wastes (and,potentially, TC wastes) in Class Inonhazardous deep wells, since thereare few treatment systems currently inplace upstream of the injection well thatcould treat the underlying hazardousconstituents that are present. Suchfacilities seem to have few options fordealing with the court's decision:undertaking substantial wasteminimization efforts; installing on-sitetreatment systems; arranging for off-sitetransport and treatment; or, applying

for, and being granted, a no-migrationpetition that would allow continuedland disposal of untreated wastes.Although commenters on theSupplemental Information Reportsuggested that EPA could promulgate arule that does not require treatment ofthe underlying hazardous constituents,based on a generic finding that injectionis a protective practice, the Agency'stentative view is that this is not a viableoption (see Supplemental InformationReport, pp. 25-7). However, the Agencyseeks additional comment on thetechnical and legal issues raised inNotice of Data Availability andSupplemental Options Report as theymay pertain to TC wastes.

Probably the most significant issue forCWA wastewater treatment facilitieswill be that of determining theequivalency of CWA treatment systemswith RCRA LDR treatment. Associatedissues such as whether the courtopinion authorizes controls on leakageor volatilization from treatment surfaceimpoundments, or whether sludgesgenerated in impoundments must betreated, will be particularlycontroversial and will take time toresolve. Comments are solicited onthese issues as they pertain to treatmentof TC wastes.

4. Request for Comment on PetitionFrom Chemical Manufacturer'sAssociation Regarding Deep WellInjection of Ignitable and CorrosiveCharacteristic Wastes

In the May 24, 1993 interim final rulefor ignitable and corrosive wastesmanaged in other than wastewatertreatment systems whose ultimatedischarge is subject to the CWA, inother than Class I underground injectionwells subject to the SDWA UIC program,and by zero dischargers who do not treatwastewater with treatment equivalent tothat utilized by CWA dischargers, theAgency discussed plans for futurerulemakings covering those ignitableand corrosive wastes disposed in suchunits. As part of its response to May 24interim final rule, the ChemicalManufacturers' Association (CMA)requested that the Agency developtreatment standards intended for thosewastes disposed in Class I deepinjection wells. CMA specificallyrequested the Agency to promulgatetreatment standards for ignitable andcorrosive wastes managed by deep wellinjection that, in view of the uniquecircumstances of deep well injection,meet the statutory "minimize threats"standard. Consequently, the Agency hasplaced CMA's petition in the docket andis soliciting comment on the petition.

B. Background

1. Legal and Policy BackgroundOne of the key issues in the Third

Third rule was whether characteristicwastes must be treated to a lesser extentthan listed wastes. This result couldcome about because, under Agencyregulations, characteristic wastes stopbeing "hazardous wastes" at the pointthey stop exhibiting the characteristicproperty. § 261.3(b). However, iftreatment of characteristic wastes mustcease at the point they are no longerhazardous wastes, any underlyinghazardous constituents (hazardousconstituents other than those for whichthe waste exhibits the characteristic) cango untreated. 55 FR at 22652 (June 1,1990). Moreover, at that time, theAgency viewed the characteristic levelas higher than the "minimize threat"level required for treatment ofhazardous wastes by section 3004(m).id.

The Agency consequently took theposition that Congress did not compelless treatment for characteristic wastesthan for listed wastes (or, put anotherway, did not compel non-treatment ofunderlying hazardous constituents,treatment only to characteristic levels,or dilution to meet treatment standardsfor characteristic wastes.) id. at 22652-58. The Agency established thisg rinciple by stating that if a waste is

az ous at the point it is generated,.the obligation to treat to section 3004(m)levels attaches at that point, whether ornot the waste still exhibits acharacteristic at the point it is disposed.id.

Reviewing this rule, the D.C. Circuitupheld the point of generationprinciple; however, it also invalidatedsome of the discretion EPA had assertedin whether to apply it. 976 F. 2d at 7,13-14, 23, 25-6. The Agency is, ofcourse, bound by this opinion, andtoday's proposal for TC wastes reflectsthe Agency's view of what the opinionrequires in establishing treatmentstandards for characteristic wastes.Further discussion of the opinion, inparticular, when different parts of theopinion start to apply, is found in theinterim final rule promulgated on May10, 1993 (58 FR 29860, May 24, 1993),as well as the preceding section of thispreamble.

Today's rule consequently proposestreatment standards for TC wasteswhich standards are not constrained bythe characteristic level, that prevent thestandard from being achieved bydilution (albeit issues related to mosttypes of land-based centralizedwastewater management are not beingaddressed in this proposal), and which

48115




require treatment of the underlyinghazardous constituents.

With respect to treatment belowcharacteristic levels, section 3004(m) ofRCRA states that treatment standardsmust substantially diminish the waste'stoxicity or mobility so that short-termand long-term threats posed by thewaste are minimized. See 55 FR at22654 (June 1, 1990). EPA has notedthat the EP/TC limits are levels at whichwastes clearly are hazardous. 45 FR33084 (May 19, 1980); 51 FR 21648(June 13. 1986); See 55 FR 11798 (March27, 1990). EPA thus believes that furthertreatment below a characteristic levelmay be necessary before threats tohuman health and the environment are".minimized" within the meaning ofsection 3004(m). See 55 FRat 22654(June 10, 1990). For some of the TCwastes addressed in today's rule, theconcentration-based treatment standardsare consequently lower (i.e. morestringent) than the regulatory levels thatestablish those wastes ascharacteristically hazardous.

Dilution rules are intended to prohibitdilution in lieu of treatment and toensure that hazardous constituents aredestroyed or removed by treatment.Third Third Case, 976 F. 2d at 16, 28.EPA is consequently proposing that it isimpermissible to achieve the treatmentstandards for TC wastes by means ofdilution. (As stated above, however,EPA is not addressing in this rule themanagement of TC wastes in land-basedcentralized wastewater managementsystems that were not included withinthe scope of the recent emergency rule.The court remanded these issues in theThird Third Case (id.), leaving in placeexisting regulations that allow dilutionin such systems).

Also, as described earlier, EPA isreposing treatment standards for theazardous constituents that can be

present in treatable concentrations inTC wastes, but which are not the basisfor causing the waste to be identified ashazardous (for example, lead present atless than TC levels, but present at levelsexceeding treatable concentrations andexceeding LDR levels, in a waste thatexhibits the TC because of benzene).The Agency is proposing the same typesof monitoring rules for theseconstituents recently adopted in theemergency rule, so that (in essence)monitoring for hazardous constituents islimited to those reasonably expected tobe present in the wastes.

The Agency requests comments,generally, on mechanisms that may beused to streamline the compliancemonitoring requirements under the LDRprogram. For example, forTC wastesthat contain organic underlying

hazardous constituents, incinerationmay destroy not only the TC constituentbut the underlying organic hazardousconstituents present at lowerconcentrations than the TCconcentration. Comments are solicitedon the need to monitor the residual ashfor compliance with the treatmentstandards for the underlying organichazardous constituents, if the treatmentstandard for the TC constituent has beenmet. The Agency solicits specific datathat demonstrate that alternativemonitoring requirements would provideadequate assurance that all treatmentstandards are met.

2. Background on ToxicityCharacteristic

On March 29, 1990, EPA revised 40CFR 261.24--the Toxicity Characteristicor "TC"-replacing the extractionprocedure (EP) with the toxicitycharacteristic leaching procedure(TCLP). This rule also increased thenumber of hazardous constituentsregulated under this characteristic from14 to 40. These TC wastes are newlyidentified wastes for the purpose ofdeveloping land disposal restrictions(LDRs). See section 3004(g)(4). They fallinto three categories for purposes of theLDR program. The first category consistsof new organic constituents andincludes all wastes identified as D018-D043. Today's proposal would establishtreatment standards for D018 throughD043 wastes when they are managed innon-CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non-Class I SDWA systems. The second andthird categories consist of those D004-Doll metal wastes and D012-D017pesticide wastes that are now hazardousbased on TCLP analysis rather than EPanalysis. EPA established treatmentstandards in the Third Third final rulefor these wastes if they exhibit both theTC (because they had to be hazardouswaste) and the EP (because only EPwastes were covered by the Third Thirdprohibition). Today's rule establishestreatment standards for the TC pesticidewastes that do not exhibit the EPcharacteristic. EPA is not proposingtreatment standards for the TC organic,and pesticide wastewaters that aremanaged in CWA facilities or facilitiesthat engage in CWA-equivalenttreatment prior to land disposal or inClass I injection wells, or for TC metalwastes (D004-D011). Such standardswill be proposed in a later rule.

EPA is soliciting information that maybe used to characterize industrialgeneration patterns to assess thepotential for source reduction orrecycling for these TC wastes. Whilesource reduction and recycling are highpriorities for any hazardous waste, the

wide diversity of these TC wastes isexpected to impact EPA's ability toevaluate source reduction and recycling.(See also EPA's general solicitation forinformation on pollution preventionopportunities in section I.B. above).

C. Treatment Standards for New TCOrganic Constituents

D018-BenzeneDOI 9-Carbon tetrachlorideD020-ChlordaneD021-ChlorobenzeneD022--ChloroformD023-o-CresolD024-m-CresolD025-p-resolD026--CresolD027-1,4-DichlorobenzeneD028-1,2-DichloroethaneD029--1,1-DichloroethyleneD030-2,4-DinitrotolueneD031-HeptachlorD031-Heptachlor epoxideD032-HexachlorobenzeneD033-Hexachloro-1,3-butadieneD034--HexachloroethaneD035-Methyl ethyl ketoneD036-NitrbenzeneD037-PentachlorophenolD038--PyridineD039--TetrachloroethyleneD040-TrichloroethyleneD041-2,4,5-TrichlorophenolD042-2,4,6-TrichlorophenolD043-Vinyl chloride

1. General Approach for EstablishingConcentration-Based TreatmentStandards

Treatment standards establishedunder the land disposal restrictions(LDR) program are based onperformance of the best demonstratedavailable technology (BDAT) for treatinga waste. Under EPA's procedure forestablishing treatment standards, theAgency establishes concentration-basedtreatment standards with compliancemeasured through a total waste analysisas the best measure of destruction orextraction (typically BDAT for organics),or establishes concentration-basedtreatment standards with compliancemeasured through analysis of the TCLPleachate, as the best measure of metaltreatment. The Agency generallyspecifies treatment technologies only forthose situations where there are noanalytical methods to measurecompliance with a concentration-basedtreatment standard.

a. Nonwastewaters. The Agency istoday proposing concentration-basedtreatment standards for nonwastewaterTC organic wastes based on existingtreatment data that were used toestablish treatment standards for thesesame constituents in listed wastes. Theproposed standards are presented at theend of this section. The treatment



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

standards proposed today are at thesame levels as those proposed asuniversal standards in a separate part oftoday's rule.

The concentration-based treatmentstandards being proposed are primarilybased on incineration data. The Agencybelieves, however, these proposedtreatment standards can also be met bya number of other treatmenttechnologies. (See discussion in sectionI.A of this preamble for moreinformation about these proposedtreatment standards). In fact, the Agencyhas some data on the treatment of theseconstituents by innovative technologies(i.e., solvent extraction, thermaldesorption) that support the levels beingproposed today.

The treatment technologies typicallyused for organic nonwastewaters (e.g.,incineration, thermal desorption,solvent extraction) tend to destroy orextract the organics to a highly efficientdegree. Thus, setting standards based onthese treatment data may result inhazardous constituents being removedfrom the waste before disposal.

The Third Third Case directs EPA toensure that the hazardous constituentsin characteristic waste are adequatelytreated. Many TC organicnonwastewaters contain hazardousconstituents in addition to thoseconstituents which caused the waste tobe identified as a hazardous TC waste;for example, a waste which is classifiedas TC hazardous waste because of itsbenzene concentration may also containlead at levels of concern although hotcharacteristically hazardous for lead, ormay contain non-TC hazardousconstituents. (Standards for thesehazardous constituents would also bebased on the universal treatmentstandards, since these are virtuallyidentical to standards for F039, the basisfor the standards included in the May10 emergency interim final rule).

PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FORTC ORGANIC WASTES

[Nonwastewaters]

Maximum for

Code Regulated con- any nlegrabCode stituent

Total composi-tion (mg/kg)

D018. I Benzene ..............D019. Carbon tetra-

chloride.

D0020.D021D022D0230024D025D026

Chlordane ............Chlorobenzene ....Chloroform ...........o-Cresol ...............m-Cresol ..............p-Cresol ...........Cresol ..................

10

6.0

0266.06.05.63.2328.8

PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FORTC ORGANIC WASTES-Continued

[Nonwastewaters]

Maximum forany single grab

Code Regulated con- samplestituentTotal com i-tion (W9/k)

D027 . 1,4-Dichloroben-zene 6.0

D028 . 1,2-Dichloroe-thane 6.0

D029. qxll,1-Dichloroethy-lene. 6.0

D030 . 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 140D031. Heptachlor ........... 0.066D031 . Heptachlor epox-

ide. 0.066

D032. Hexachloroben- 10zene

D033 . Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene. 5.6

D034 . Hexachloroethane 30D035 . Methyl ethyl 36

ketoneD036 . Nitrobenzene ....... 14D037. Pentachlorophenol 7.4D038 . Pyridine ............... 16D039. Tetrachloroethy-

lene 6.0

D0040. Trichloroethy- lene 6.0D0041 . 2,4,5-Trichloro-

phenol 7.4

D042. 2,4,6-Trichloro-phenol 7.4

D043. Vinyl Chloride ...... 6.0

b. Wastewaters. In today's notice, EPAis proposing treatment standards fornewly identified TC wastewaters thatare managed in systems other than thoseregulated under the CWA, thoseregulated under the SDWA that injectTC wastewaters into Class I injectionwells, and those zero discharge facilitiesthat engage in CWA-equivalenttreatment prior to land disposal. Theproposed treatment standards for newlyidentified TC wastewaters wouldrequire treatment to meet the universaltreatment standards for the TCconstituent and for the underlyinghazardous constituents.

BDAT STANDARDS FOR TC ORGANICS[Wastewaters]

Maximum for anysingle grab sam-

Constituent pie

D018--Benzene ...............D019--Carbon tetra-

chloride .........................D020-Chlordane .............D021--Chlorobenzene .....D022--Chloroform ............D023--o-Cresol ................D024--m-Cresol ...............D025--p-Cresol ................D026-Cresol ...................D027-1,4-Dichloroben-

zeneD028-i ,2-Dichloroe-

thaneD0029-i ,1-Dichloroethy-

leneD030-2,4-Dinitrotol- ueneDO31-Heptachlor ............DO31-Heptachlor epox-

ide .................................DO32-

Hexachlorobenzene ......D033-Hexachloro-1,3-bu-

tadiene ..........................DO34-

Hexachaloroethane .......DO35-Methyl ethyl ke-

tone ...............................D036-Nitrobenzene ........DO37-PentachlorophanolD038--Pyridine ................DO39-

Tetrachloroethylene ......DO40-Trichloroethylene..D041-2,4,5-Trchloro-phenol

D042-2,4,6-Trichloro-phenol

D0043-Vinyl Chloride .......

I oiai composiban

0.014

0.0570.00330.0570.0460.110.770.770.88

0.09

021

0.0250.320.0012

0.016

0.055

0.055

0.055

0.280.0680.0890.014

0.056

0.054

0.18

0.0350.27

2. Radioactive Mixed Waste

Radioactive mixed wastes are thosewastes that satisfy the definition ofradioactive waste subject to the AtomicEnergy Act (AEA) that also containwaste that is either listed as a hazardouswaste in subpart D of 40 CFR part 261,or that exhibit any of the hazardouswaste characteristics identified insubpart C of 40 CFR part 261. Since thehazardous portions of the mixed wasteare subject to RCRA, the land disposalrestrictions apply. This means that theRCRA hazardous portion of all mixedwaste must meet the appropriatetreatment standards for all applicablewaste codes before land disposal. In thecase of these organic TC wastes, anyradioactive waste mixed with organicTC wastes that are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non-Class ISDWA facilities would have to meet the

48117




promulgated treatment standards for theTC waste.

For the most part, the lowconcentrations of radioactivecompounds should not interfere withthe treatability of the hazardousconstituents in the waste. Therefore, thestandards being proposed for TC wastesare also being proposed forTCradioactive mixed wastes. The Agencyis requesting data where this is not thecase. The Department of Energy (DOE)has expressed some concerns aboutmeeting certain treatment standards.DOE is currently collecting data fromtheir facilities on mixed TC wastes.They are welcome to submit these dataas part of this rulemaking, and the datawill be placed in the RCRA docket forpublic review. The EPA will analyzethese data along with all other datareceived on TC wastes, and considerthem in promulgating final treatmentstandards.

D. Treatment Standards for TC PesticideWastes (DO12-D017)

DOl2-EndrinD013-LindaneD014-MethoxychlorD015-ToxapheneD016--2,4-DD017-2,4,5-TP (Silvex)

In the final rule for the Third Thirdwastes (55 FR 22520), EPA promulgatedtreatment standards for D012-D017wastes, but only for those wastes thatwere hazardous by both the TCLP andthe EP leaching procedures. Wastes thatwere not hazardous by the EP leachingprocedure, but hazardous by the TCLP,are newly identified D012-D017 wastesand are currently not prohibited. EPA isproposing treatment standards forD012-D017 wastes managed in non-CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non-Class ISDWA facilities in this notice. EPA isalso proposing revised treatmentstandards for pesticide wastewaters, asexplained below.

1. Newly Identified PesticideNonwastewaters

There is no reason to think thesewastes cannot meet the existingtreatment standards for D012-D017nonwastewaters (55 FR 22554).Therefore, EPA is proposing that theexisting treatment standards apply tonewly identified D012-D017nonwastewaters. (It should be noted thatEPA determined that the amount ofD012-DO17 waste subject to thetreatment standards is very small. 55 FRat 22634, 22646. Based on thisdetermination, it is very unlikely thatnewly identified D012-D017 are beinggenerated).

The Agency is also proposing toprohibit dilution of D012 and 13017nonwastewaters injected into Class Ideep injection wells. If thisprohibitionon dilution before Class I injection ispromulgated, these pesticide wastesmust be treated to meet the treatmentstandards before they can permissiblybe injected into such units, unless thatunit has been granted a no-migrationdetermination. See section IV.E whichfollows for more discussion on theproposed dilution prohibition for theseand certain ignitable wastes.

2. Pesticide Wastewaters

EPA set treatment standardsexpressed as required methods oftreatment for the EP toxic pesticidewastewaters in the Third Third finalrule (55 FR 22554). EPA is notproposing to revise the treatmentstandards for pesticide wastewaters intoday's rule. (See 268.40)

PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FORPESTICIDES

[Nonwastewaters]

Maximumfor anysinglegrab sam-

Code Regulated constituent pieTotal

composi-tion (ag/

kg)

D012 Endrin ........................... .13D013 alpha-BHC .................... .066D013 beta-BHC ...................... .066D013 gamma-BHC ................. .066D013 delta-BHC ..................... .066D014 Methoxychlor ................ .18D015 Toxaphene .................... 2.6D016 2,4-D ............................. 10D017 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) ........... 7-9

E. Proposed Exemptions for De MinimisLosses of TC Wastes and for TCLaboratory Wastes Discharged to CWAWastewater Treatment

The Agency is proposing to extendthe exemptions established in the May24, 1993 emergency interim final rule toTC organic wastes (58 FR 29860). Thusde minimis losses of TC organic wastesand TC organic laboratory wastesdischarged to CWA wastewatertreatment systems would not be subjectto the requirements of 40 CFR part 268.(See proposed § 268.1 in today's rule.)

V. Deep Well Injection Issues

A. Prohibition of Dilution of High TOCIgnitable and of TC Pesticide WastesInjected Into Class I Deep Wells

In the Third Third rule, EPAdetermined that decharacterized wastescould permissibly be injected in SafeDrinking Water Act Class Inonhazardous deep injection wells(wells that dispose of wastewaters deepbelow the lowermost undergroundsource of drinking water) without firstbeing treated to meet the treatmentstandard for the waste. See 55 FR at22658 and § 268.1(c)(3). EPA indicatedthat so long as wastes that exhibit acharacteristic at the point they aregenerated no longer exhibit acharacteristic when disposed in a ClassI deep injection well, they are notprohibited from land disposal. EPA tookthat position because the Agencybelieved that the deep injection of suchwastewaters was an environmentallysound and technically effective wastemanagement practice, and consequentlythat disposal of decharacterized wastesin Class I deep injection wells wouldnot pose hazards to drinking water or tohuman health. Id.

As described previously, thisdetermination was remanded by theD.C. Circuit. The court said, in essence,that not only must characteristic wastesbe treated to destroy or removehazardous constituents before landdisposal, but that no deviation from thisprinciple (pursuant to RCRA section1006) was acceptable for undergroundinjection practices because thesepractices were a type of permanent landdisposal (as opposed to temporary landdisposal incident to treatment in unitsthat are part of Clean Water Acttreatment systems). 976 F.2d at 25-6.Although the Agency is still evaluatingits interpretation of this part of theopinion, the Agency has indicated (atleast initially) that the most likelyreading is that the available alternativesfor decharacterized wastes beinginjected in Class I nonhazardous deepwells is for either these wastes to betreated to meet the treatment standardbefore injection (which option mayinvolve segregation of wastes exhibitingcharacteristics at the point they aregenerated), or apply for and obtain a no-migration variance for the injectionwell. See 58 FR 4972, January 19, 1993and 58 FR 29860, May 24, 1993. Thetreatment standards that apply'to thesewastes are found in the proposedtreatment table found at § 268.40 of thisrule. For D001 High TOG ignitables, thetreatment standard is expressed asmethQds of treatment that must be usedprior to land disposal: Fuel substitution.



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

solvent recovery or incineration. Thetreatment standards for EP pesticidewastewaters are also expressed asmethods: Biodegradation orincineration. The treatment standardsfor EP pesticide nonwasewaters aeexpressed as levels that may beachieved by using any treatmenttechnology.

EPA is proposing today to exchdetwo types of wastes from the portion ofthe rule (§ 268.1 (c3)l that allows thewaste to be injected into a Class I deepinjection well if it no longer exhibits acharacteristic when it is injected. Thetwo types of waste are nonwastewatersthat at the point of generation exhibitthe characteristic of ignitability andcontain greater than 10 percent TotalOrganic Carbon ("high TOC ignitableliquids subcategory") and TC toxichalogenated pesticide wastes (1)012-DO 17). The Agency is singling out thesewastes not only because of the court'smandate in the Third Third Case, butbecause the Agency believes thattreatment of these wastes is a preferredmanagement approach for them.(Indeed, the Agency had already singledthese wastes out from the exception thatallowed dilution of characteristic wastesthat were to be managed in Clean WaterAct treatment systems including landdisposal units, § 268.3(b) and 55 FR at22657). High TOC ignitablenonwastewaters contain highconcentrations of organics that caneither be recovered directly for reuse, orthat can be burned for energy recovery.Treatment, consequently, not onlyeliminates the hazardous constituents inthese wastes but utilizes recoverableresources in the wastes. The prohibitedpesticide wastes contain a number ofparticularly toxic hazardousconstituents (such as toxaphene, 2,4-11,and (in some cases) dioxins and furans)that warrant destruction or removalbefore land disposal. See generally 55FR at 22657 and the waste managementhierarchy in RCRA section 1003(6).

In addition, these wastes are notinjected in significant volumes, so thatredirection of the wastes to treatmenttechnologies will not have anysignificant impact on well operators.(Although the issue of adverse impocton injection practices is ultimately"irrelevant" to determining how toapply prohibitions to undergroundinjection pactices, see 976 F. 2d at 26,the issue is relevant (at leest to someextent) in determining how quickly EPAresponds to the issues remanded by thecourt). In fact, as a worst case, theinformation the Agency gathered for theThird Third rulemaking indicated that amaximum of .9 million gallons of pointof generation DOO1 ignitable wastes

were injected in Class I nonhazardousdeep injection wells annually. Thatsame data set also indicated that allwastewaters which exhibit the toxicitycharacteristic for halogenated pesticidecontent (DO12-DO?1 at the point theyare generated totaled approximately 15million gallons annually. The mostrecent information used for capacitydetermination in this proposed ruleindicate that these injected volumes are,in fact, much lower. However, even thelargest potential volumes are relativelysmall for Class I underground injectionwell waste streams.

EPA is not proposing to grant anational capacity variance for either ofthese waste types. There isapproximately one-half million tons(i.e., approximately 120 million gallons)of available alternative treatmentcapacity for these liquid wastes. Thistreatment capacity is large compared toeven the largest potential injected wastevolumes, however, a three monthcapacity variance is proposed for theother wastes included in this proposedrule, in order that generators have timeto locate and arrange for treatment oftheir wastes (see section XII for moreinformation about capacity variances).This three-month variance would alsoapply to the prohibition of dilution ofhigh TOC ignitable and TC pesticidewastes when they are injected into ClassI wells.

The Agency is requesting any and allinformation regarding volumes,facilities, and properties of these wastesbeing injected in Class I nonhazardousdeep wells in order to make a finaldetermination on these issues.

B. Request for Comment on PetitionFrom Chemical Manufacturer'sAssociation Regarding Deep WellInjection of Ignitable and CorrosiveCharacteristic Wastes

In the May 24, 1993 interim final rulefor ignitable and corrosive wastesmanaged in other than wastewatertreatment systems whose ultimatedischarge is subject to the CWA, inother than Class I underground injectionwells subject to the SDWA UIC program,and by zero dischargers who do not treatwestewater with treatment equivalent tothat utilized by CWA dischargers, theAgency discussed plans for futurerulemakings covering those ignitableand corrosive wastes disposed in suchunits. As part ofits response to May 24interim final rule, the ChemicalManufacturers' Association (CMA)requested that the Agency developtreatment standards intended for thosewastes disposed in Class I deepinjection wells, CMA specificallyrequested the Agency to promulgate

treatment standards for ignitable andcorrosive wastes managed by deep wellinjection that, in view of the uniquecircumstances of deep well injection,meet the statutory "minimize threats"standard. Consequently, the Agency hasplaced CMA's petition in the docket andis. soliciting comment on the petition.

VI. Treatment Standards for NewlyListed Wastes

A. Treatment Standards for Coke By-Product Production Wastes

K141-Process residues from the recoveryof coal tar. including but not limited to tarcollecting sump residues from the productionof coke from coal or the recovery of coke by-products produced from coal. This listingdoes not include K087, decanter tank tarsludge from coking operations.

K142--Tar storage tank residues from theproduction of coke from coal or the recoveryof coke by-products produced from coaL

K143--Process residues from the recoveryof light oil, including but not limited to thosegenerated in stills. decanters, and wash oilrecovery units from the recovery of coke by-products produced from coal.

K144-Wastewater treatment sludges fromlight oil refining, including but not limited tointercepting or contamination sump sludgesfrom the recovery of coke by-productsproduced from coaL

K145--Residues from naphthalenecollection and recovery operations from therecovery of coke by-products produced fromcoal.K147-Tar storage tank residues from coal

tar refining.K149-Residues from coal tar distillation,

including but not limited to still bottoms.The Agency recently promulgated-the

listing of K14l, K142, K143, K144,K145, K147, and K148 as hazardouswastes (August 18, 1992 (57 FR 37284)).These seven wastes are generated in theproduction, recovery, and refining ofcoke and cokeby-products producedfrom coal. EPA estimates that there areapproximately thirty-four facilities inthe United States generating thesewastes. Greater details on thedescription and generation of thesewastes can be found in the listing ruleand in the technical backgrounddocument supporting that rule.

The final listing ru e also describescertain recycling scenarios in whichthese materials are excluded from thedefinition of solid wastes (i.e., they arenot listed as K141, K14Z, K143, K144,K145, K147, and K148). This occurswhen these materials are recycled inone of three ways: Combined with coalfeedstock residue as it is charged intothe coke oven; added to the tar recoveryprocess; or mixed with coal tar beforethis coal tar is sold as a product orfurther refined. See 57 FR 37285.3727-37Z99 (August 18,199Z) forspecific details of these conditions.

4a119




Under such conditions, since they arenot the listed wastes, the proposed landdisposal restrictions in today's rule forK141-K145, K147, and K148 would notapply.

1. Proposed Treatment StandardsIn general, these waste streams consist

primarily of organics with a minimumamount of water. Many are quite viscousand have the consistency of semisolidsor sludges. With respect to hazardousorganics, these wastes typically containthousands of ppm of polynucleararomatic compounds and hundreds ofppm of phenols, benzenes, and othersingle-ring aromatic compounds.

Because of their highly organicnature, EPA has determined thatthermal destruction technologies, suchas incineration or fuel substitution,represent BDAT for these wastes. Whileextraction technologies, such as thermaldesorption and critical fluid extraction,appear to be potentially applicable, EPAcurrently lacks data verifying theirperformance on wastes similar to K141,K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, andK148. If these technologies can achievethe levels of performance (i.e., complywith the concentrations) of the proposedtreatment standards, they could also beconsidered to be BDAT.

While most of these wastes, asgenerated, would be classified as"nonwastewaters" according todefinitions applicable to the landdisposal restrictions (40 CFR 268.2 (d)and (f}), EPA nevertheless sets treatmentstandards for wastewater forms as wellas nonwastewater forms of these wasteson a waste code-basis. Even though thelisting of these seven wastes does notspecifically include wastewaters, ifwater or wastewater cones in contactwith these wastes (such as duringstorage, treatment, or disposal), awastewater form of these wastes would

be generated that would have to complywith the treatment standards (providedthe waste was to be placed in a landdisposal unit).

As a result, EPA is proposingtreatment standards for both wastewaterand nonwastewater forms of K141,K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, andK148 wastes which are numericallyequivalent to the universal standardsproposed for the constituents selectedfor regulation in these wastes. Thedevelopment of these standards ispresented in the BDAT backgrounddocument for these wastes located inthe administrative docket for today'srule. EPA is proposing maximumconcentration limits for benzene,naphthalene, and six polynuclearorganics in both wastewaters andnonwastewaters. The tables at the end ofthis section list, by waste form, theproposed standards for each constituentand indicate the constituents that areregulated in each waste code. Theproposed nonwastewater standards arebased on the limits of analyticaldetection of these eight compounds inincineration ash residues. EPA has datafrom the incineration of fourteen vastlydifferent, difficult to treat hazardouswastes indicating that these standardsshould be achievable on a routine basisfor most hazardous wastes. Theproposed wastewater standards reflectthe performance of industrialwastewater treatment systems asdocumented in several of EPA's Officeof Water and Risk ReductionEngineering Laboratory databases andpresented in Volume C of the FinalBDAT Background Document for U andP Wastes and Multi-Source Leachateavailable in the Third Third rulemakingdocket.

2. Potential Future Revisions toTreatment Standards for Existing CokingWastes K087, K060, and K035

In response to the rulemaking forThird Third wastes, the HazardousWaste Treatment Council submitteddata that they believe indicate thattreatment standards for certainconstituents (e.g., benzene) in othercoking wastes, namely K087, K060, andK035, cannot be achieved on a regularbasis in ash residues from theincineration of other types of hazardouswastes. (Note: The proposednonwastewater standard for benzene inK141, K142, K143, K144,1K145, K147,and K148 in today's rule is nottransferred from K087, K060, or K035).The Agency agrees that when K087,K060, and K035 nonwastewaters arecommingled with other wastes prior totreatment (such as the new cokingwastes) the promulgated standards forthose nonwastewaters may not alwaysbe achievable (primarily the benzenenonwastewater standard for K087 andK060). The Agency has not, however,received any requests for a treatabilityvariance for any of these three wastes(i.e., K087, K060, and K035) nor has itbeen notified that any particulargenerator has had a problem complyingwith the standards. EPA believes thatthis is primarily because these wastesare no longer generated or generate noresidues when treated, and there is,therefore, no demand for treatment. TheAgency is, nevertheless, solicitingcomment from generators on whetherthey have been unable to get their K087,K060, and K035 wastes treated becausetreatment standards could not beachieved or verified. The Agencyrequests any additional comment orinformation that would assist indetermining whether the standards forthese three wastes need to be revised.

PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FOR K141, K142, K143, K144,[Nonwastewaters]

K145, K147, AND K148

Maximum for any sin- Constituents regulated for waste codes

Constituent gle grab sample

Total composition K141 K142 K143 K144 K145 K147 K148________________________________ (mg/kg) ____

Benzene ...................................................... 10.0 X X X X X XBenz(a)anthracene ...................................... 3.4 X X X X X X XBenzo(a)pyrene ........................................... 3.4 X X X X X X XBenzo(b)fluoranthene I ............................... 6.8 X X X X X XBenzo(k)fluoranthene I ............................... 6.8 X X X X X XChrysene ..................................................... 3.4 X X X X X X XDibenz(a,h)anthracene ................................ 82 X X X X X XIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ............................... 3.4 X X X XNaphthalene ................................................ 5.6 X

I This standard represents the sum of the concentrations for each of this pair of constituents.



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

PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FOR K144, K442, K143, K144, K145, K147, AND K148[Wastewatersl

Maximum for any Constituents regulated for waste codessingle grab sampleConsrtuentTotal composition K141 K142 K143 K144 K145 K147 K148

(mgA)

Benzene ....................................................... 0.14 X X X X X XBewz( a)eltwacene .......................................... 0.05% X X X X X XBeno(a)pyrene ..... ........ 0.061 X X X X X. X XBemo(b)fluorarthene ................... .............. 10.11 X X X X X XBemno(k)fluoraothene ........ .............. 10.11 X X X X X XChrysene ...... . .. 0.059 X X X X X X XDibenz(a.h)anthracene .............................. 0.055 X X X X K XIndeno(1.2,3-cd)pyrene ............................. 0.0055 X X X XNaphthalene .................... .............. 0.059 X

I This standard represents the sum of the concentrations for each of this pair of constituents.

B.Treatment Standards forChlorotoluenes

K149-Distillation bottoms from theproduction of alpha (methyl) chlorinatedtoluenes, ring-chlorinated toluenes, benzoyrchlorides, and compounds with mixtures oftheseifunctional groups. (This wastedoes notinclude still bottoms from the distillation ofbenzyl chloride.)

K150-Organic residuals, excluding spentcarbon adsorbent, from the spent chlorine gasand hydrochloric acid recovery processesassociated with the production of alpha(methyl) chlorinated toluenes, ring-chlorinated toluenes, benzoyl chlorides, andcompounds with mixtures of these functionalgroups.

K151-Wastewater treatment sludges,excluding neutralization and biologicalsludges, generated during the treatment ofwastewaters from the production of alpha(methyl) chlorinated toluenes, ring-chlorinated toluenes, benzoyl chlorides andcompounds with mixtures of these functionalgroups.

The Agency recently promulgated thelisting of K1(49, K150, and K1 51 ashazardous wastes on October 15, 1992(57 FR 47377). These three wastes aregenerated in the production ofchlorinated toluenes and include bothring-chlorinated toluenes (where thechlorine atoms are attached to thearomatic ring) and methyl-chlorinatedtoluenes (where the chlorine atoms areattached to toluene's methyl moiety).EPA estimates that there are fourfacilities in the United States generatingthese wastes. Greater details on thedescription and generation of thesewastes can be found in the final listingrule and in the technical backgrounddocument supporting that rule.

K149 and K150 waste streams aretypically generated as organic liquids.Any aqueous phase that may be presentin these streams is expected to beextremely acidic; therefore, both streamscould potentially be hazardous by thecharacteristic of corrosivity (i.e., D002).

With respect to hazardous organics,both of these wastes contain thousandsof ppm of chlorinated aromatic-andchlorinated aliphatic compounds- Infact, K149 wastes can contain up to 10percent benzotrichloride. K151 wastesinclude a variety of solid and semisolidstreams including sludges andskimmings from various separationunits. K151 can contain up to 3 percenttoluene and lesser concentrations ofchlorinated aliphatics, chlorinatedaromatics, and benzene.

Because of their highly organicnature, EPA has determined thatthermal destruction technologies, such.as incineration or fuel substitution,represent BDAT for K149 and K150. Ina similarmanner, since K151 wastesmay contain significant concentrationsof hazardous organics and since KI51wastes comprise a variety of wastematrices, EPA has determined thatincineration also represents BDAT forthese wastes. While extractiontechnologies, such as thermaldesorption and critical fluid extraction,appear to be potentially applicable tosome K151 wastes, EPA currently lacksdata verifying their performance onwastes similar to these K151 wastes. Ifthese technologies can achieve thelevels of performance (i.e., comply withthe concentrations) of the proposedtreatment standards, they could also beconsidered to be BDAT.

While most of these wastes, asgenerated, would be classified as"nonwastewaters" according todefinitions applicable to the landdisposal restrictions (40 CFR 268.2 (d)and (0), EPA nevertheless sets treatmentstandards for wastewater forms as wellas nonwastewater forms of these wasteson a waste code-basis. Even though the,listing of these three wastes does notspecifically include wastewaters, ifwater or wastewater comes in contact

with these wastes (such as duringstorage, treatment, or disposal), awastewater form of these would begenerated that would have to complywith the treatment standards (providedthe waste was to be placed in a landdisposal unit.)

As a result, EPA is proposingtreatment standards for both wastewaterand nonwastewater forms of K149,K150, and K151 wastes which arenumerically equivalent to the universalstandards proposed for the constituentsselected for regulation in these wastes.The development of these standards ispresented in the BDAT backgrounddocument for these wastes located inthe administrative docket for today'srule. EPA is proposing maximumconcentration limits for benzene,toluene, five chlorinated aliphatics, andsix chlorinated aromatics in bothwastewater and nonwastewater forms ofthese wastes. The tables at the end ofthis section list, by waste form, theproposed standards for each constituentand indicate the constituents that areregulated in each waste code. Theproposed nonwastewater standards arebased on the limits of analyticaldetection of these compounds inincineration ash residues, EPA has datafrom the incineration of fourteen vastlydifferent, difficult to treat hazardouswastes indicating that these standardsshould be achievable on a routine basisfor most hazardous wastes. Theproposed wastewater standards reflectthe performance of industrialwastewater treatment systems asdocumented in several of EPA's Officeof Water and Risk Reduction

.Engineering Laboratory databases andpresented in Volume C of the FinalBDAT Background Document for U andP Wastes and Multi-Source Leachateavailable in the Third Third rulemakingdocket.

48121




PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FOR K149, K150, AND K151[Nonwastewaters]

Maximum for Constituents regulated forany single waste codes

Constituent Total corn- K149 K150 K151position(mg/kg)

Benzene .............................................................................................................................................. 10 XCarbon tetrachloride ................................................................................................................ 6.0 X XChloroform .......................................................................................................................................... 6.0 X X XChloromethane .................................................................................................................................... 30 X XChlorobenzene .................................................................................................................................... 6.0 X1,4-Dichlorobenzene ........................................................................................................................... 6.0 X XHexachlorobenzene ............................................................................................................................ 10 X X XPentachlorobenzene ........................................................................................................................... 10 X X X1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene ................................................................................................................ 14 X X X1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ................................................................................................................... 6.0 XTetrachloroethylene ............................................................................................................................ 6.0 X X1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ....................................................................................................................... 19 XToluene ............................ . ................................................................................................. 10 X X

PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FOR K149, K150, AND K151[Wastewaters]

Maximum for ,Constituents regulated forany single waste codes

Constituent Total corn- K149T K150 K151position(n /1)

Benzene .............................................................................................................................................. 0.14 XCarbon tetrachloride ............................................................................................. .................. 0.057 X XChloroform .......................................................................................................................................... 0.046 X X XChloromethane ............................................................... .................................................................... 0.19 X XChlorobenzene .................................................................................................................................... 0.057 X1,4-Dichlorobenzene ........................................................................................................................... 0.090 X XHexachlorobenzene ............................................................................................................................ 0.055 X X XPentachlorobenzene ............................................. ; ............................................................................. 0.055 X X X1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene ................................................................................................................ 0.055 X X X1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ................................................................................................................... 0.057 XTetrachloroethylene ............................................................................................................................ 0.056 X X1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ....................................................................................................................... 0.055 XToluene .................................................................................................... .............. 0.080 X X

VIl. Treatment Standards forHazardous Soils

A. IntroductionThis section discusses proposed

alternative treatment standards forhazardous soils that may be met insteadof the treatment standards that currentlyapply to the contaminating hazardouswastes. These proposed alternativestandards would apply to soils thatcontain listed hazardous wastes, andsoils that exhibit any of thecharacteristics of hazardous waste.

In particular, EPA is proposing twoalternative technology-based treatmentapproaches for compliance with thehazardous soil treatment standards andalso soliciting comment on variations ofthese alternate approaches. It should beunderstood that the Agency is also inthe process of developing a proposed

rule for contaminated media (includingsoil) in the context of the HazardousWaste Identification Rule. As a result ofthat effort, the Agency may proposeadditional regulatory options for LDRtreatment standards for hazardous soils,or modify the options presented here inorder to establish a consistent regulatoryframework for hazardous soils underRCRA.

Today's proposal is important inseveral respects. First, it continues theprocess of developing tailoredstandards, such as the previouslypromulgated treatment standardstailored to multi-source leachate and tohazardous debris. Because today'sproposed treatment standards aretailored to contaminated soil media, thisproposal would primarily affectactivities associated with cleanup and

consequent waste management atcontaminated facilities and sites.

Second and more important, thetreatment standards proposed today arebased on levels attainable by a varietyof technologies, including innovativetechnologies. Thus, technologies thatare more appropriate for the treatmentof hazardous soils than combustion areidentified as BDAT.

In addition, EPA is proposing tocodify the contained-in policy for soils(as it did for debris in the Phase I LDRrule, see 57 FR 37194, August 18, 1992.)The regulation would establish aprocess for determining on a site-specific basis whether or notenvironmental media (e.g., soil andground water) "contain" a hazardouswaste.




B. Applicability, Regulatory Status ofTreated Soils, and Definitions

1. ApplicabilityUnder current regulations, land

disposal of soils that contain aprohibited listed hazardous waste, orthat exhibit a prohibited characteristicof hazardous waste, is prohibited unlesssuch soils have been treated to meet thetreatment standards promulgated forthat hazardous waste (i.e., the sametreatment standard the waste wouldhave to meet if it was newly generatedrather than found in the soil matrix.)Today's rule proposes alternativetreatment standards that are specific tohazardous soils. This continues theprocess of developing treatmentstandards tailored to specific types ofhazardous wastes associated withremediation activities. The Agency thushas promulgated treatment standardsspecific to multi-source leachate and forhazardous debris.2. Regulatory Status of Treated Soils

Under this proposal, treatment of soilsto meet the proposed treatmentstandards may or may not affect theregulatory status of the soils underRCRA subtitle C, depending on whetherthe soil is contaminated with listedwaste or displays a hazardouscharacteristic, or upon a site-specificdetermination that the soil no longercontains hazardous waste (see section 3below). Treatment of hazardous soils tomeet the proposed treatment standardswould not, of itself, determine whetherthe soils would remain a hazardouswaste. However, treatment to meet theproposed treatment standards may, insome cases, achieve the result that thesoil is no longer hazardous based onseparate regulatory determinations.

It is not possible to predict at thistime precisely how, or if, the Agencymay exempt certain hazardous soilsfrom subtitle C in future actions, or howthose exemptions (if such exemptionsare developed) might compare with theLDR treatment standards proposed herefor hazardous soils. If, however, thefinal exemption levels were at or abovethe LDR treatment standards andrepresented minimize threat levels,treatment standards would be capped atthose levels, and the wastes also wouldno longer be subject to any other subtitleC control.

3. "Contained-in" DeterminationsThe Agency's "contained-in" policy

says that environmental media such assoil or ground water that iscontaminated with hazardous wastemust be managed as the hazardouswaste until the waste is separated from

the media so that it no longer"contains" the hazardous waste. EPA isproposing in this notice to codify thecontained-in policy for environmentalmedia. The codification will provide amechanism for determining whenenvironmental media (e.g., soil, groundwater) no longer "contain" listedhazardous wastes, and thus, are nolonger subject to subtitle C regulation.

As proposed today, these contained-indeterminations will be made by the EPARegional Administrator or designee on asite-specific basis, considering factorssuch as exposure potential andcontaminant characteristics (e.g.,concentrations, mobility, persistence).Management scenarios for thecontaminated media (e.g., disposal in alined landfill) would not be a factor inmaking contained-in determinations.However, contained-in determinationscould constitute "minimize threat"levels at a particular site. Thus, for aparticular site, contained-in levels couldfunction as a cap for LDR treatmentstandards.

4. DefinitionsEPA isproposing a definition for

hazardous soil, and identifying theconstituents subject to treatment forhazardous soil. Soil is unconsolidatedearth material composing the superficialgeologic strata (material overlyingbedrock), consisting of clay, silt, sand,or gravel size particles (sizes asclassified by the U.S. Soil ConservationService), or a mixture of such materialswith liquids, sludges, or solids which isinseparable by simple mechanicalremoval processes and is made upprimarily of soil. Cf. 57 FR at 37224(August 18, 1992) where EPA adopted asimilar classification scheme for debris.

This proposed definition would allowsite managers (e.g., on-scenecoordinators, remedial projectmanagers, or equivalent correctiveaction officials) to determine whetherthe material to be excavated is waste,debris, or soil by judging the results ofsimple in-situ mechanical removalprocesses to separate the materials.Such processes include pumping,dredging, or excavation by backhoe,forklifts, or other devices. Of course, anynon-soil that is separated is'subject tothe treatment standard for that material.Id. In addition, any intentional mixingof soil with non-soil does not result inthe mixture being classified as soil.Rather, it is a type of impermissibledilution. Id. and id. at 37243.

This approach would avoid requiringchemical analysis for soil properties inorder to differentiate precisely betweenwaste, soil and debris (e.g., consideringsuch things as soil particle size,

elemental composition of the soil, orother properties that might distinguishsoil from waste or debris). Attempting todistinguish more precisely betweenwaste, soil, or debris using a chemicalanalysis or other tests would be difficultto develop and support, andcumbersome to administer. In addition,a basis for chemical analysis or othertests has not been developed, andimplementation of any such approachwould most likely not be beneficial, butrather simply delay the progress ofremedial actions. The Agencyspecifically solicits comment on thedefinition proposed for soil and thistype of pragmatic approach forclassifying mixtures of soil and othermaterials. (As noted in a followingsection, however, adding soil to othermaterials to attempt to reclassify themixture as "hazardous soil" is a form ofimpermissible dilution and is illegalunder the LDR program.)

a. Hazardous soi7. Hazardous soil issoil that contains RCRA hazardouswaste(s) listed in 40 CFR part 261,subpart D, or soil that exhibits one ormore of the characteristics of ahazardous waste defined in 40 CFR part261, subpart C. It can be generated froma wide variety of activities, includingremedial actions at Superfund andRCRA corrective action sites, and spillsat manufacturing plants. It should benoted that in the Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)published on October 24, 1991 (see 56FR 55160 at 55172), EPA suggested thatsoils containing listed hazardous wastesand soils that exhibit one or more of thehazardous characteristics be defined as"contaminated soil." Many commentersto the ANPRM were confused as to thescope of the definition. They felt thatthe definition suggested in the ANPRMincluded not only hazardous soils butall soils contaminated with any toxicconstituents. To clarify this point, theAgency is changing the term used torefer to soils subject to regulation from"contaminated soil" to "hazardoussoil."

b. Constituents subject to treatment.Under today's proposed approach,hazardous soil would be treated for eachconstituent subject to treatment,regardless of whether the contaminatingwaste is a listed or characteristic waste.The Agency is proposing to defineconstituents subject to treatment as anyregulated constituent found on TableUTS in today's proposed § 268.48, thatis present at levels above the universalconstituent-specific treatmentstandards. The constituents in TableUTS are all of the BDAT list hazardousconstituents that can be analyzed. Aswith multi-source leachate, hazardous

48123




soil can contain potentially all of theseconstituents. See, e.g., 55 FR at 22619-620 (June 1, 1990). Of course, not everysoil will contain all of theseconstituents, and EPA is not proposingthat soils necessarily be monitored forthe entire list of hazardous constituents.(See section VII.A.) However, a schemethat limited treatment only to thehazardous constituents in the listedwaste or the TC constituentcontaminating the soil would usuallyoverlook the reality of the situation:Soils (like multi-source leachates)frequently are contaminated with anenormous variety of contaminants fromdiverse sources. A treatment schemethat ignored this reality would not fulfillthe requirement of section 3004(m) ofRCRA that the hazardous constituentspresent in prohibited wastes be treatedso as to minimize threats to humanhealth and the environment. See alsoThird Third Case, 976 F.2d at 16(treatment must remove or destroy thehazardous constituents in prohibitedwastes in order to satisfy section3004(m), and merely removing oneindicia of bazardousness is insufficientto satisfy this requirement). For soilwhich is hazardous because it exhibitsthe characteristics of ignitability,corrosivity, or reactivity, the Agencywould require treatment until the soilno longer exhibits the characteristic andalso requires that the numericaltreatment standards be met for allconstituents subject to treatment.

c. Illegal contamination of soil. Asnoted above, illegal contamination ofsoil is the deliberate addition ofhazardous constituents or hazardouswaste to soil (or vice versa). The Agencybelieves that existing regulationsconcerning impermissible dilution (40CFR 268.3 (a) and (b)) already make thisconduct illegal, and subject the mixtureto the most stringent treatment standardfor any waste in the mixture (40 CFR268.41(b)). The Agency acknowledges,however, that the promulgation ofstandards tor hazardous soil which areless stringent than the treatmentstandards that apply to hazardous wastemay create an incentive to illegally mixwaste with soil.

Because such action would be illegal,the Agency believes that mostgenerators of hazardous waste will notmix prohibited hazardous waste withsoil. Specifically, section 3008(a) ofRCRA provides EPA the authority toissue an order assessing a civil penaltyagainst any person who violates anyrequirement of subtitle C of RCRA.Criminal penalties may also apply. EPArequests comment on whether anyfurther safeguards are needed, however,

to assure that no attempts are made todilute hazardous waste with soil.

d. Nonanalyzable constituents.Hazardous soils are often contaminatedwith more than one hazardousconstituent, many of which haveanalytical methods available whileothers do not. For soils containingmultiple organic constituents, some ofwhich are nonanalyzable, the Agencybelieves that treatment of the analyzableconstituents to meet the soil treatmentstandards should provide adequatetreatment of any nonanalyzableconstituents to appropriate levels. TheAgency is therefore not proposingtreatment standards for nonanalyzableconstituents found in such hazardoussoil. The Agency requests comment onthis approach as well as data on thedegree to which nonanalyzableconstituents are treated when the soil istreated for other organic constituents. IfEPA should choose, based on publiccomments, to regulate theseconstituents, it could require treatmentby specific technologies known toachieve adequate treatment of theconstituent. If this is determined to benecessary, EPA could publishperformance standards for the specifiedtechnologies with the promulgation ofthis regulation.

In other cases, a hazardous soil maybe contaminated solely bynonanalyzable constituents, such asnonanalyzable U or P wastes. For thesesoils, the Agency proposes requiringtreatment by the methods specified in§ 268.42 for those U or P wastes. TheAgency solicits comment on whetherother technologies should be allowedfor treatment of such soils.

EPA points out that in proposing toexempt certain wastes from subtitle Ccontrol (see 57 FR at 21469, May 29,1992), the Agency did not allow wastesthat contained nonanalyzableconstituents to qualify for the genericexemption. The Agency has not yetfinally determined whether such wasteswill be available for the genericexemption, and whether hazardous soilsshould be addressed differently thanwastes.

C. Proposed Approaches forEstablishing Treatment Standards forHazardous Soils

In developing an LDR program forhazardous soil, the Agency had aprimary objective: The treatmentstandards should be appropriate for soil.The technology-based soil standardsthus should not be based exclusively onincineration. See 55 FR at 8760-61(March 8, 1990). Innovativetechnologies are particularly

appropriate to treat the large volumes oflow and moderately contaminated soil.

To satisfy this objective, the Agency isproposing two approaches it believesare achievable (in most cases) usinginnovative technologies, and issoliciting comment on a variation of oneof the two options. The Agency solicitscomments on which of the approachesshould be promulgated in the final rule.Table UTS in today's proposal (§ 268.48)lists the constituents subject totreatment and the universal treatmentstandards which are the basis of the soiltreatment standards.

1. Technology-Based TreatmentStandards for Hazardous Soils

As indicated above, the Agency isconsidering several approaches fordeveloping technology-based treatmentstandards for hazardous soils. Underthese approaches, the universaltreatment standards (discussed insection III.A of this preamble) areproposed for soil as "base" standards.Each approach allows for treatment tolevels above the universal standards anddiffer primarily in the extent oftreatment required.

Under the first approach, the Agencyis proposing a range of standards witha "ceiling" one order of magnitudeabove the universal standard, provided90% treatment of each constituentsubject to treatment is achieved. Thesecond approach is a variation of thefirst, in that the Agency is proposing arange of standards with a "ceiling" oneorder of magnitude above the universalstandard, however, there is norequirement that 90% reduction occur.The third approach proposes anunlimited range of values above theuniversal standard provided 90%treatment is attained (i.e., there wouldbe no "ceiling" value) unless 90%treatment would treat the waste to alevel below the universal treatmentstandards. If such a level would beachieved through 90% treatment, theuniversal treatment standards would bemet.

Analysis of the available soiltreatability data has revealed thatinnovative technologies (e.g., thermaldesorption, biological treatment,dechlorination) can generally achievethe universal standards proposed today.In several cases, however, non-combustion does not achieve theuniversal standards. Thus, the variousapproaches proposed today provide anadditional assurance as to theachievability of meeting the treatmentstandards for potentially hard-to-treatsoil matrices. Additionally, theproposed approaches would encouragethe use of effective innovative (i.e. non-




incineration) technologies, a reasonableobjective given EPA's determinationthat combustion is not alwaysappropriate as the Best DemonstratedAvailable Technology for many soils. 55FR at 8761.

Furthermore, the Agency believesthese approaches are appropriate forsetting treatment standards forhazardous soils, given the unique andoften heterogeneous characteristics ofsoils. The proposed approachesaccommodate possible limitations of thedata: That is, the data may not representpotentially problematic matrices andvarying contaminant levels. Theproposed universal treatment standardsare expressed as total concentrationlevels for each organic constituent. Theproposed universal treatment standardsfor each metal constituent is expressedas a level measured in the TCLP extract,because metal treatment technologiestypically involve stabilization orimmobilization, and leachability andreduced mobility of the metals is bestreflected in the concentrations in the TCextract (i.e., metals are not destroyed oreliminated after treatment withstabilization or immobilizationtechnologies, but rather have reducedmobility.) Although metals recoverytechnologies are available, they are notgenerally practical for treatinghazardous soil because of the relativelylow levels of metal contaminationtypically found in soil (i.e., low relativeto the concentrations necessary foreconomical metal recovery).

Soils that were contaminated withboth organic and metal constituentswould possibly require treatment bymore than one technology. Generally,the first technology would treat theorganic constituents (e.g., by thermaldesorption) and the second technologywould treat the metals (e.g., bystabilization).

Stabilization is typically notconsidered an effective treatmenttechnology for organics; in addition,organics can interfere with thestabilization process. Nevertheless,difficulties can occur at those siteswhere metals are the constituents ofconcern, and where organic compoundsare also present at concentrations onlyslightly greater than the universalstandards. In this case, the generator ortreater may consider treating the soil bystabilization without additionaltreatment for the organic constituentspresent. The data currently available tothe Agency do not fully address theeffectiveness of stabilizationtechnologies for treatment of very lowlevels of specific organic constituents.Although not considered an appropriatetreatment technology for organic

constituents, the Agency requestscomment on the practicality of usingstabilization technologies for treatingsoil containing low levels of organicconstituents. The Agency also requeststhat commenters provide analytical datademonstrating the effective treatment bystabilization of soil contaminated withorganic constituents, if available.

a. Range of standards with a "Ceiling"one order of magnitude above theUniversal Standard, provided 90%treatment occurs. Under this approach,EPA is proposing treatment standardsfor hazardous soil as a range of values.The base levels would correspond to theproposed universal standards, and the"ceiling" would be one order ofmagnitude above the universal levels. Ifthe generator or treater of hazardous soilachieves a treatment standard above theuniversal level (but no higher than oneorder of magnitude above the universalstandard, or the "ceiling"), they mustdocument that at least 90% treatment ofthe constituent has been achieved byindicating the initial constituentconcentration and the final constituentconcentration. Such documentationwould be placed in the generator's orfacilities' files. (See proposed § 268.48.)

As concentrations increase in ahazardous soil, the percent treatmentnecessary to achieve at least the"ceiling" levels would also increase. Forexample, if the untreated concentrationis one order of magnitude above theceiling, achieving the ceiling level willrequire a 90% reduction of theconstituent. As the initial concentrationincreases beyond an order of magnitudeabove the ceiling, reductions of greaterthan 90% would be needed in order toachieve the ceiling level. Thus, highinitial concentrations would requirehigh treatment efficiencies. Forexample, an initial concentration of5,000 mg/kg of anthracene in hazardoussoil would require a treatment efficiencyof 99.3% to achieve the "ceiling" levelof 34 mg/kg (anthracene universalstandard = 3.4 mg/kg).

It could be argued that high initialconcentrations requiring high treatmentefficiencies would force treaters toselect incineration and other highefficiency technologies. The Agencyacknowledges that this may be the casewith very high untreatedconcentrations. However, the Agencydoes not consider this a problem for.three reasons: (1) Data indicate thatrelatively high treatment efficiencies arepossible using some innovativetechnologies; (2) most hazardous soil isnot highly contaminated and is well-suited to the use of innovativetechnologies; and, (3) when highlycontaminated hazardous soils are

encountered, the use of highly efficienttechnologies (i.e. incineration) may beappropriate. Thus, the Agencyacknowledges that a highlycontaminated hazardous soil may haveto be treated with a fairly aggressivetechnology in order to achieve the"ceiling" value.

In analyzing the data, the Agencydetermined that a one order ofmagnitude "ceiling" was appropriategiven the Agency's commitment to theincreased use of innovativetechnologies. Although 65% of all datapairs for treated organics in EPA'sdatabase were treated using innovativetechnologies to levels less than theproposed universal standards, theproportion of data pairs capable ofachieving the standard increased to 69%when the levels were established at theorder of magnitude "ceiling" provided90% treatment. Many innovativetechnologies were capable of achieving'the treatment levels under thisapproach. The EPA solicits comment onthis overall approach and also onwhether the "ceiling" of ten times theuniversal standard (or other ceiling)appropriately addresses technical andenvironmental concerns wherehazardous soils are heavilycontaminated with toxic constituentsand the 90% treatment portion of theoption neither optimizes technologyperformance nor reduces hazardousconstituents to levels at which threatsare minimized.

b. Range of standards with a "ceiling"one order of magnitude above theuniversal standard. The Agency alsorequests comment on a variation of thisapproach: The order of magnitudeincrease over today's proposeduniversal standard would be thetreatment standard. Under this option,the treater would be required to treat allconstituents subject to treatment tolevels at or below the ceiling, (i.e., theuniversal standard times ten), withoutconsideration of treatment efficiency. Inother words, the treater would have toachieve the standard regardless ofwhether to do so for a given constituentrequired a 20% treatment efficiency ora 99.9% treatment efficiency.

The basis for this option would be toincrease the number and type ofinnovative technologies capable ofachieving the treatment standards. Inaddition, this option has the advantageof simplifying compliance with the rule:Only one number per constituent wouldfunction as the treatment standardindependent of treatment efficiencies.Under this option, analysis of the datafor treatment of organic hazardousconstituents in soils reveals that 91% ofthe organic data were treated to levels

48125




less than or equal to the universalstandard times 10 by a diverse range ofinnovative treatment technologies. TheAgency solicits comment on how muchwaste volume would still be incineratedif this option is promulgated as thetreatment standard.

c. Achieving 90% treatment with no"ceiling". Alternatively, EPA is alsoproposing today an approach whichwould allow the treater of hazardoussoil the option of meeting the landdisposal restriction requirement for soilby either achieving 90% treatment ofeach constituent subject to treatment orby achieving treatment to the universaltreatment standard (in cases where 90%treatment would result in aconcentration lower than the universaltreatment standard.) This approachdiffers from the previous approaches inthat there would be no numericaltreatment standards that would have tobe met in situations where 90%treatment occurs; documenting 90%treatment would be sufficient to meetthe LDR requirements.

The Agency is presenting thisapproach as an alternative to possiblyencourage the development of new andinnovative technologies to provide safer,more cost-effective, and more publiclyaccepted methods for treatingremediation-related wastes. There issome question whether innovativetechnologies can generally meet thenumerical standards proposed under theapproaches discussed above because itis unclear whether the available data inthe soils database fully characterize thewide range of soils and contaminantspotentially encountered in the field.Remediation-related soils are highlyvariable in concentration, contaminantmix, and type in the field, and EPA isconcerned that its existing data may notadequately represent this diversity.

In addition, there is also concern thatthe existing data may not berepresentative of the performance ofinnovative technologies in the field.EPA collected available data of threescales: Bench, pilot, and field. EPAconsidered all available data indetermining the treatment standardsproposed under the previous approach;however, over 50% of the treatmenttests upon which EPA based thetreatment standards are bench scaletests. The Agency believes that lessweight may need to be given to benchscale data than full and pilot scale databecause of the greater uncertainty inperformance of the technology.

EPA solicits comment on thetechnical or environmentalappropriateness of a 90% reductionapproach, in particular where hazardoussoils are heavily contaminated with

toxic constituents and a 90% floor ontreatment neither optimizes technologyperformance nor reduces hazardousconstituents to levels at which threatsare minimized. EPA also solicitscomments as to whether a 90%approach should be applied to inorganichazardous constituents.2. Explanation of Numeric TreatmentStandards for Hazardous Soils

Under today's proposal, the specifichazardous soil treatment standard for agiven constituent will depend on whichof the approaches is promulgated. Thefollowing examples illustrate how theproposed approaches would work.

Example 1. The hypothetical basis for thisexample is a waste regulated forpentachlorophenol, which is present in theuntreated soil at 1200 mg/kg.

Scenario 1. Today's proposed rule wouldrequire treatment to a level one order ofmagnitude greater than the universalstandard (7.4 mg/kg), provided a-90%reduction in the constituent concentrationoccurs. Under this approach,F entachlorophenol would be reduced to ateast 74 mg/kg, the value one order of

magnitude greater than the universalstandard (totals levels). Achieving thetechnology-based standard of 74 mg/kgwould require a treatment efficiency of 94%for treating pentachlorophenol. The standardunder this scenario is affected by theuntreated contaminant level. If the untreatedwaste was at 120 mg/kg, 90% treatmentwould require achieving 12 mg/kg. If theuntreated level was 12 mg/kg, 90% treatmentwould achieve 1.2 mg/kg; however, becausethe universal standard is 7.4 mg/kg,treatment would be required only to the 7.4mg/kg universal standard level.

Scenario 2. Under this scenario, theproposed rule would require treatment to alevel one order of magnitude greater than theuniversal standard. The proposed universaltreatment standard for pentachlorophenol is7.4 mg/kg; therefore soil would need to betreated until it achieved at least 74 mg/kg.Because a percentage removal is not requiredunder this scenario, the limit is valid for allsoils regardless of the untreated level.

Scenario 3. Under this scenario, a 90%reduction in constituent concentration mustbe achieved. The untreated level ofpentachlorophenol was 1200 mg/kg. Thisconstituent concentration must be reducedby 90%, thus a treated level of at least 120mg/kg (1200 mg/kg reduced 90% is 120 mg/kg) would have to be met. The standardunder this scenario is also affected by theuntreated contaminant level. If the untreatedwaste concentration is 120 mg/kg, 90%treatment would require achieving 12 mg/kg.If the untreated level was 12 mg/kg, 90%treatment would achieve 1.2 mg/kg; however,because the universal standard is 7.4 mg/kg,treatment is required only to 7.4 mg/kg.

Example 2. Soils that are hazardousbecause they exhibit the characteristics ofignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity, wouldrequire treatment by technologies whicheliminate these characteristics. If the

hazardous soil was hazardous solely becauseit contained a TC constituent and no otherunderlying hazardous constituent, theproposed hazardous soil treatment standardfor that constituent would have to beachieved. If, however, these wastes containedother constituents subject to treatment, asexplained above, they would have to betreated to achieve the hazardous soiltreatment standards for each constituent.

3. Treatment Standards for Residuesfrom Soil Treatment

When hazardous soil is treated,several types of residues can begenerated: The treated soil, including insome cases soil fractions containingconcentrated levels of contaminants,wastewater from the treatment ofhazardous soil, and possibly debris. Inaddition, treatment units often generateair emissions. The regulatory status ofthese residues and emissions isdiscussed below.

Treated soil, and any soil-like residue,would continue to be subject to the soiltreatment standards (unless, asdiscussed above, the soil wasdetermined on a site-specific basis to nolonger "contain" hazardous waste, andthus the level of hazardous constituentsremaining in the soil were determinednot to exceed minimize threat levels). Inparticular, when a fraction of the treatedsoil contains concentrated levels ofcontaminants, additional treatment maybe necessary using a different and moreappropriate treatment technology. Forexample, soil washing may effectivelytreat the sandy fraction of a hazardoussoil to the soil treatment standards, butmay generate a clay fraction with highconcentrations of contaminants thatwould more appropriately be treatedwith a thermal desorption orimmobilization technology. This(hypothetical) clay fraction would alsohave to be treated to meet the applicabletreatment standard. Thus, EPA does notconsider such residues to be a newtreatability group for purposes of thisrule, and consequently such anonwastewater residue would remainsubject to the soil treatment standard.Cf. 55 FR at 22661 (June 1, 1990).

Hazardous wastewater from thetreatment of hazardous soil would besubject to the universal standards beingproposed under 40 CFR 268.48 for allhazardous constituents subject totreatment and for any hazardousconstituents added during treatment.The Agency believes the universalstandards are appropriate for suchwastewater, given that the standardswere initially developed for multi-source leachate, a wastewater thatresults from contact of water with soiland disposed hazardous constituents.(Characteristic wastewater managed in




land-based wastewater treatmentsystems, however, would normally notbe subject to treatment standards underthis rule, but rather would be addressedwhen the Agency takes up the issuesrelating to centralized wastewatermanagement remanded by the court inthe Third Third Case.)

Any hazardous debris residualswould be subject to the treatmentstandards for debris that werepromulgated on August 18, 1992 (57 FR37194).

Air emissions from treatment unitsare controlled, in some cases, byregulatory programs under the Clean AirAct (CAA) or under RCRA. In particular,the Agency initiated a three-phasedprogram under section 3004(n) of RCRAto address air emissions from hazardouswaste management units other thanthermal treatment units (e.g.,incinerators, boilers, industrialfurnaces). The first phase addressedorganic air emissions as a class from twotypes of emission sources. The firstsource category was process equipment(e.g., pumps, valves) that contacthazardous waste that contain greaterthan 10 percent organic compounds,including units such as distillationcolumns and incinerators. The secondsource category was certain vents onvarious treatment technologies, such asair or steam strippers. These standardswere promulgated as final rules andpublished in the Federal Register onJune 21, 1990 (55 FR 25454). Thesecond phase of standards developedunder section 3004(n) of RCRA wasproposed on July 22, 1991 (56 FR 33491)and addressed organic air emissionsfrom containers, surface impoundments,and certain tanks. In the third phase ofthe section 3004(n) standardsdevelopment, the Agency wil developadditional standards for the sourcesaddressed in the first two phases asnecessary to address residual risks.

In addition to the RCRA section3004(n) standards, the Agency regulatesorganic and metal emissions from thecombustion of hazardous waste inincinerators, boilers and industrialfurnaces. See subpart 0, part 264 forincinerators, and subpart H, part 266 forboilers and industrial furnaces. Thesecontrols are expected to address manyrisks posed by air emissions duringtreatment of hazardous soils in theseunits. (A May 18, 1993 Agencystatement indicated, however, that someof these standards should be amendedto be made more strict in order toadequately control such pollutants asparticulate matter and dioxins.)

4. Treatability VariancesWhen a hazardous soil cannot be

treated to the specified standard, thegenerator or treatment facility maypetition the EPA for a variance from thetreatment standard. A variancemechanism exists under the LDRs forproviding variances from the requiredtreatment standards for hazardous soils.See 40 CFR 268.44.

EPA established the varianceprocedure to accommodate those wastesthat cannot be treated to meet thestandards even when appropriate well-designed and well-operated treatmentsystems are used. A variance is alsoavailable when a treatment technologyis inappropriate for a waste. Petitionersmust demonstrate that the standardcannot be met because the physical orchemical properties of the hazardoussoil differ significantly from thehazardous soils EPA examined inestablishing the standard or that thestandard is otherwise inappropriate forthe hazardous soil. (See 51 FR 40605;Nov. 7, 1986.) While treatabilityvariances may be granted that havegeneric applicability, usually forhazardous soil they are granted on asite-specific basis by the RegionalAdministrator.

D. Contained-In DeterminationsEPA is proposing today to codify the

"contained-in" policy for hazardous soiland other environmental media in new§ 261.3(g). EPA recently codified thisprinciple for hazardous debris. See§ 261.3(f)(2); 57 FR 37194 (August 18,1992). Today's rule also proposesprocedures for obtaining contained-indeterminations for contaminated mediaand requests comment on decisioncriteria for evaluating petitions for suchactions.

In current practice, the primaryfunction of a contained-indetermination has been to determinespecific constituent concentrations atwhich the media at a specific site nolonger "contained" hazardous waste,and thus would no longer be subject tothe management standards forhazardous waste. Such a determinationmay be made prior to treatment orsubsequent to treatment. In the lattercase, the contained-in concentrationlevels for hazardous soil, if they are alsominimize threat levels, would serve asa floor on the LDR hazardous soiltreatment standards. Thus, such soil isno longer subject to subtitle Cmanagement standards, provided thatthe soil does not exhibit a hazardouswaste characteristic. EPA believes that.fundamentally, it is important andnecessary to be able to consider, in

certain cases, site-related conditions andwaste-specific characteristics inestablishing soil treatment standardsand subtitle C exclusion levels.

Contained-in determinations wouldnot be self-implementing. Rather, EPAbelieves that site-specificdeterminations must be made by theappropriate regulatory agency, in carefulconsideration of relevant factors. Thisproposal therefore specifies the factorsand procedures to be considered andutilized in making contained-indeterminations for soil. The proposedrule would not, however, require theseexplicit requirements when contained-in determinations are made in thecontext of RCRA closures and remedyselections under RCRA and CERCLA.Such activities are typically conductedwith considerable Agency oversight,and cleanup decisions are made inconsideration of substantial amounts ofsite specific technical data. Suchremedy selection decisions are generallysubject to public notice and comment.through Records of Decision (underCERCLA) or permit modifications, oranalogous administrative mechanismsunder RCRA. Thus, these processes willprovide a surrogate for the petitionreview process that EPA is proposingtoday for contained-in determinationsthat are pursued outside the context ofRCRA or CERCLA remedial actions.

In making contained-indeterminations, we believe that EPA (orthe authorized State) must consider allpossible exposure pathways whichcould pose a threat to human health orthe environment. Exposure pathways tobe considered thus include directhuman contact through ingestioan,exposure to ecosystems, and potentialfor leaching of constituents to groundwater.

Given the extreme variations in site-specific and constituent-specificcharacteristics, EPA is not proposing toadopt specific formulae or otherquantitative means of calculatingappropriate contained-in levels. TheAgency believes that considerableflexibility must be allowed for suchdecisions, if the process is to beworkable.

Proposed § 260.42 provides a set ofdecision factors that may be consideredby the Regional Administrator (or StateDirector) in making contained-indeterminations. In particular:

* Media characteristics;" Waste constituent characteristics,

including solubility, mobility, toxicity,and interactive effects of constituentspresent that may affect these properties;

e Exposure potential, includingpotential for direct human contact, and

48127




potential for exposure of sensitiveenvironmental receptors;

* An "acceptable ' risk range of 10-4to 10-6

9 Surface and subsurfacecharacteristics, including depth toground water, and characteristics ofsubsurface formations;

" Climatic conditions; and• Other site or waste-specific

characteristics or conditions that mayaffect whether residual constituentconcentrations will pose a hazard tohuman health or the environment.

The Agency specifically requestscomment regarding these contained-indecision criteria. In particular: (1)Should the final rule specify a list ofcriteria that must be considered; (2)should the criteria listed above be morespecific regarding the conditions whichwould allow for or preclude contained-in determinations; and (3) are thereother factors the Agency shouldconsider when making contained-indeterminations, in addition to thoselisted above?

The procedure for contained-indeterminations, as specified in proposed§ 260.42, would involve submission of apetition to the EPA RegionalAdministrator or State Director thatrequests approval of specific contained-in concentration levels, and whichprovides adequate supportinginformation addressing the factorsspecified in this section to enable aninformed decision to be made.Opportunity for public comment wouldgenerally be provided for contained-indeterminations by means of notice in alocal newspaper. There would be aminimum 30-day period for submissionof comnAents from the public. TheRegional Administrator (or StateDirector) would assess any writtencomments received, and a notice in thelocal newspaper would be publishedannouncing the final determination.Separate written notice would be sent tothe petitioner. Such determinationswould constitute final Agency action,and would not be subject toadministrative appeal procedures. TheAgency also proposes to waive from theprocedural requirements of thecontained-in determination thosealready subject to public notice underRCRA or CERCLA authority (Seeproposed § 260.42(c)).

We noted above that the Agencyrecently codified the contained-inprinciple for hazardous debris. See§ 261.3(f)(2); 57 FR 37194 (August 18,1992). The Agency did not, however,establish procedures at that time formaking the determinations. Given thatthe procedures discussed above forhazardous soil are also appropriate for

hazardous debris, we are todayproposing to apply these procedures to

oth hazardous debris and hazardoussoil and other environmental media.

EPA also notes that contained-inlevels could represent site-specificlevels at which threats to human healthand the environment posed byhazardous constituents in the wastehave been minimized. See 57 FR at 985-86 (Jan. 9, 1992) where EPA made asimilar statement in the context ofcontaminated debris. In such a case,treatment standards would be capped atthat level. Id. Although the contained-inand minimize threat determinationsneed not be identical (cf. HazardousWaste Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F.2d at 362-63, explaining that theminimize threat level is a stricterstandard (for example) than the levels atwhich wastes are identified or listed ashazardous), and indeed is generallyregarded as among the strictest of thestatutory environmental standards (id.and Third Third Case, 976 F. 2d at 14),there is no absolute bar to adetermination that sufficientconcentrations of hazardousconstituents have been destroyed,removed, or immobilized to determineboth that the soil no longer "contains"hazardous wastes and that threats tohuman health and the environmentposed by the hazardous constituents inthe wastes have been minimized. EPAstresses that in making such adetermination, threats to both humanhealth and the environment would haveto be considered (see section 3004(m)and 886 F.2d at 362). In addition, anysuch determination would have to bebased exclusively on remaining threatsposed by the waste without regard tohow the waste will be managed (seeAmerican Petroleum Institute v. EPA,906 F. 2d 729, 735-36 (D.C. Cir. 1990)explaining that section 3004(m)standard ordinarily can be satisfied onlyby treatment occurring beforesubsequent disposal of the waste).

EPA solicits comment on its proposedapproach for contained-indeterminations, particularly on thedecision factors to be used, theprocedures for making determinations,and the proposed linkage to treatmentstandards and subtitle C exclusionlevels.

E. Soil Treatment Database

1. Treatment TechnologiesEPA believes that nine general

technologies have been demonstratedand are available for treating hazardoussoil: (1) Biological treatment; (2)chemical extraction; (3) dechlorination;(4) high-temperature metals recovery;

(5) solidification/stabilization/immobilization; (6) thermal desorption;(7) thermal destruction; (8) vitrification,and, (9) soil washing. A briefdescription of each technology ispresented in Appendix A following thispreamble.

2. Development of the DatabaseThe Agency has collected data on the

treatment of hazardous soil fromCERCLA remedial actions,demonstrations under the SuperfundInnovative Technology Evaluation(SITE) program, industrial sources, andEPA-sponsored treatment tests. TheAgency attempted to obtain all availablesoil treatment data which met minimumrequirements of quality assurance andquality control. Each treatment testcontains information on the treatmentprocess used and results of laboratoryanalyses on untreated and treated soil.A hazardous soil database wasdeveloped to organize and analyze thistreatment data. The database will beavailable as a national resource to EPAregions, states, PRPs and othergovernment agencies to support LDRapplications and compliance,technology screening for selection ofremedial actions, and variance petitionscreening and support.

To develop the soil treatabilitydatabase, the Agency prepared DataSummary Forms (DSFs) to recordinformation from the treatment testreports. The DSFs contain informationon site identification, soil matrix, soilcollection description, treatmentsystem, design and operating conditionsof the treatment system, concentrationsof hazardous constituents in untreatedand treated soil, QA/QC information,and residual matrix information.

After all the data were edited (thenext section of this preamble explainsthe criteria used to edit the data), 36treatment technologies were representedby 2541 data pairs, for a total of 295treatment tests: 43 (15%) of the testswere full scale, 108 (36%) were pilotscale, and 144 (49%) were bench scale.Table I lists the number of DSFs havinginformation for each technology as wellas the scale of the test.

TABLE 1-NUMBER OF BENCH, PILOTAND FULL SCALE TREATMENT TESTSBY TECHNOLOGY

Treatment Tech- Scale of testnology Bench Pilot Full

BT01 *-AerobicBioremediation 2 1 0

BT03*-Aerobic/AnaerobicBioremediation 0 1 0




TABLE 1--NUMBER OF BENCH, PILOTAND FULL SCALE TREATMENT TESTSBY TECHNOLOGY-Continued

Treatment Tech- Scale of testnotgy Bench Pilot Full

BT04 -compostng 4 1 0

BTO5"-AerobicBioslurry . . ...... 1

BT07"---n-situBioremediationfUnlined ........... 0 0

BT08*-AerobfcCompostg/Lined ..... ... ..... 0

BT12*-AerobicLand Treat-ment/Lined ...... 2 0 2

CEOO ---Chemi-cal Extration ... 0 3 0

CEO 1*-SoventExtraction . ..... & 0

CEO--CriticalFluid Extraction 0 2 0

CTO--Hydroly-sis ................... 1 0 0

DCOI*--KPEGDechlorination s T 1

DC02.-APEGDechlorination 4 0 1

DC03-HighTemperatureDechforination 0 1 C

IMOO--Immo-bilization ......... 9 2 1

IM01--Stabiliza-

IM03--CementStabilization 39 a 2

IM04-Fly AshStabilization .... 3 0

IM04/M05--FIyAsh/Ume Sta-bilzationr 1 0

IM06-Kin DustStabilization .... 5 0

STO *-Air Strip-ping............... 0 1 1

ST2*-SteamStripping.......... 0 0 1

ST03*--VacuumExtraction ..... 0

SWO1*--SoilWashing ..... 8 0

SW02*-AcidWashing ......... 0 1

SW03"-WaterWashing ........ 4 1 1

TDOO--ThefnalDestruction ....... 1 0

TD01--RotaryKiln .............. 1 13

TDO4-4nfrared .. 0 8TDO6--Pyrolysis 0 2 1TDO7--irculat-

ing Bed Com-bustion. ....... 0 1

TDOd-Viiifica-iOn ... ....... ..... . 0

THO 1*--LowTemperatureThermalDesorption ...... 9 28

TABLE I-NUMBER OF BENCH, PILOTAND FULL SCALE TREATMENT TESTSBY TECHNOLOGY--Coninued

Treatment Tech- Scale of testnology Bench Pilot Full

TH02-HighTemperatureThermatDesorplion ...... 3 1

THO-Photoly-sis ............. 1 5 0

THO7"-ThermalDistllation 1 1

Totals: ..... 144 108 43(Percent) (49) (36) (15)

These technologies are considered by theAgency to be innovalive technologies.

3. Analysis of the Database.

In analyzing the soil treatabilitydatabase, the Agency needed todetermine the adequacy of the data forsetting treatment standards forhazardous soil. Therefore, the Agencyreviewed the design and operating,conditions for each treatment testincluded in the database to determine ifany data should be eliminated, i.e., theAgency believed that poorly designedand operated treatment tests should beeliminated from the data set used todetermine treatment standards. Toevaluate the data, the Agency developeda set of minimally acceptable design andoperating conditions for eachtechnology., These criteria, orperformance standards, can be found inthe Hazardous Soil Rule BackgroundDocument which is in the RCRA docketfor this proposed rule. A list of the dataeliminated from consideration alongwith the rationale for each decision canbe found in the docket. A total of 1183data pairs were removed from the soiltreatment standard data set as a result ofthis review.

The Agency then further reviewed thedata set using the following criteria: (1)Immobilization data for organicconstituents were not used; (2) metalconstituents data from immobilization,high temperature metals recovery, soilwashing, acid washing, water washing,or detergent washing were used whilemetals data from all other technologiesdeemed as inappropriate for metalswere removed, (3) dechlorination datawere used only for appropriate organicconstituents; (4) data pairs withnondetect untreated concentrationswere not used; (5) data pairs where thetreated concentration for metals wasgiven as total concentration were notused (and initial concentration was aleachate); (6) treated levels were notused where the QA/QC indicated that

the percent recovery values for spikeswere less than 20% or greater than200%. and, (7) data pairs with untreatedconcentrations less than the proposeduniversal standard were not used. Atotal of 2541 data pairs remained afterapplication of these criteria.

a. Consideration of innovativetechnologies. As indicated earlier, theAgency belieVes it important (andreasonable) to allow the use ofinnovative technologies, as well asincineration, in setting treatmentstandards for soils. Our basis for this isseveralfold: First, the data suggest thatinnovative technologies can achievetreatment levels within a reasonablerange of the levels obtained byincineration. Second, the Agencybelieves that it is not generallypracticable to treat the large volumes ofhazardous soil by incineration,particularly given the relatively lowconcentrations of hazardousconstituents typically present. Acommon sense approach would indicatethat incineration may be practical onlyfor "hot-spots" where soil is highlycontaminated with organic constituents(see 55 FR 8760-61, March 8, 1990). Forthe large volumes of soil that arecontaminated with low or moderatelevels of toxic constituents, innovativetechnologies are practical, available, andcan achieve the proposed levels of thetechnology-based standards. Third,several innovative technologies (e.g.,high temperature metals recovery,chemical extraction) are recoverytechnologies; we note that RCRA voicesa strong preference for use of suchtechnologies. (See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No.198, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. 31.] And,fourth, the Agency is committed toallowing and encouraging the use ofinnovative technologies, particularlybiological technologies, for thetreatment of hazardous waste.

b. Rationale for not using the"traditional" BDAT approach todevelop hazardous soil treatmentstandards. In analyzing the data, theAgency determined that the"traditional" statistical methodpreviously used by the LDR programwas not appropriate for hazardous soil.In the past, the Agency has typicallyevaluated incineration treatability datato identify the "most difficult to treat"waste and established the treatmentstandard based on a statistical analysisof data from the treatment of that waste.We believe this approach is notappropriate for hazardous soil. Asindicated above, the Agency prefers toestablish soil treatment standards atlevels achievable by a variety oftechnologies, including innovativetechnologies. Given the large volumes of

48,129



48130 Federal Register,/ Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

hazardous soil, wide variations incontamination, and varying soil types,the Agency believes that flexibility inchoice of technology is appropriate. Forexample, an aggressive highly efficienttechnology would not be needed to treata lightly contaminated soil.

c. Graphical analysis of data. TheAgency used a graphical representationof the data for each of the 80constituents for which there wasadequate data. The Agency thendeveloped a data set for eachconstituent with the screened data. Thedata in each data set were plotted usingone variable, treated concentration. TheY-axis represented the treatedconcentration in parts per million andthe X-axis arrayed the data from lowestto highest concentration. The data wereplotted using symbols to distinguish thevarious treatment technologies forwhich data was available and to denotewhether the value was a "detect" or a"nondetect" value. The existing LDRtreatment standards for the constituentand the proposed universal standardwere also represented on the plots asbenchmarks. These graphs are availablein the docket.

The graphical plots for each of the 80constituents facilitated a comparison ofthe treatment levels achievable by thevarious technologies, the existing wastecode treatment standards, and theproposed universal standards. Toidentify a potential soil treatment level,we identified the point on the graph thatwas the last point in the lowest"plateau" (i.e. where the slope of thecurve is close to zero) and below whichwere included data representing one ormore well designed and operatedinnovative technologies obtainingefficient removal of constituents (i.e.,high percent removal). This point wascalled the potential BDAT level.Because the proposed universalstandards were within a reasonablerange of this potential BDAT level, andin order to simplify and streamline theLDR program, the universal standardswere selected as base treatment levels.(We note that the proposed universalstandards were within a reasonablerange of, and generally higher than, thetreatment level suggested by the plateauon the graph.)

To determine that the treatment datafrom the innovative technologies were,in fact, representative of well-operated,efficient treatment units, we analyzedall data points considering factorsincluding: untreated concentration,percent treatment, and design andoperating conditions of the technology.

Essentially, this analysis was used toanswer two questions: (1.) Can theproposed universal standards be met for

hazardous soil utilizTing innovativetechnologies? and; (2.) Are there anyconstituents for which the universaltreatment levels would not beachievable? The analysis concluded thatfor almost all constituents, the proposeduniversal standards can be met usingwell-designed and well-operatedinnovative technologies. For severalconstituents for which only incinerationdata were available, this conclusioncould not be reached. However,incineration was shown to be effectivein treating these constituents.

d. Transfer of proposed universalstandards to constituents without data.The soil data base includes data for 94of the 191 constituents subject to today'sproposed soil treatment standards.Because the available data largely justifythe use of the universal standards forsoil treatment, (i.e., innovativetechnologies appear capable of treatingsoil to the universal levels proposedtoday), the universal standards weretransferred to constituents for which thedatabase does not contain data. Thistransfer is justified because for allorganic constituents for whichinnovative technology data wereavailable, the data supported the use ofthe universal standards. In addition,allowing the 90% reduction inhazardous constituents alternative, withor without the one order of magnitude"ceiling," provides assurance that theproposed levels would be routinelyachievable. Treatability variancesremain an option for particular soilswhich prove more difficult to treat.

4. Request for Additional Data andComment

EPA continues to solicit treatabilitydata and other information relevant tothe hazardous soil treatment standardsproposed today. Commenters submittingperformance data for treatment orrecovery technologies in response totoday's proposed rule are requested toinclude, to the extent possible, thefollowing: Complete chemical andphysical analysis of the hazardous soil,treated soils, treatment residuals, andany other materials separated from thehazardous soil; technical descriptions ofthe treatment or recovery process,including design and operatingparameters; and information on thequality control/quality assurance (QA/QC) procedures utilized for sampling,anazing, and operating the technology.

NAdeveloped "Quality Assurance

Project Plan (QAPP) for CharacterizationSampling and Treatment TestsConducted for the Hazardous Soil andDebris (CS&D) Program" that describesthe data quality objectives of thehazardous soil and debris program and

provides the following: Detailedprotocols for field sampling andmeasurement; a list of hazardous soiland debris constituents; procedures forsample custody and transportation; andadditional QA/QC procedures forsampling and analysis. This documentis available in the docket. Thoseintending to submit additional data toEPA are urged to consult the QAPP andcommunicate with EPA to confirm thatthe data meets EPA's QA/QC objectives.

EPA prefers pilot and full scale dataover bench scale data. The Agencyconsidered treatment test scale to beassociated closely with the quantity ofmaterial used in the individualtreatment tests that provided treatmentdata. When entering data into EPA'sdatabase, scale was entered as indicatedby the data and accompanyingdocuments. When the data reference didnot provide scale information, the scalewas assigned by EPA according to thequantity of soil treated. Generally, if lessthan 1 kg was treated, the test wascategorized as bench-scale. If more than1 kg, but less than 1,000 kg was:treated,the test was categorized as pilot-scale.Cases where treatment involved morethan 1,000 kg, the tests were categorizedas full-scale. EPA requests comments onthese quantity specific categories.

Alternative methods for defining thescale of the treatment test will also beconsidered. One proposal considers theintent of the test. For example, bench-scale tests are designed to determinewhether alternative technologies canachieve established performancecriteria. Whereas the intent of a pilot-scale study is to provide detailed cost,design, and performance data. Thus,data collected from a pilot-scale studyshould yield accurate scale-upinformation. Full-scale operations aredesigned to achieve remediation of thesite and are not considered studies. TheAgency requests comment on thisalternate definition of scale, and onother potential definitions orapplications of treatment test scale.

In addition, EPA continues to solicitinformation on the costs associated withtreatment or recovery technologies forhazardous soil in order to prepare arevised regulatory impact analysis. Ofinterest are technical reports thatinclude costs or estimates of costs forset-up and operation of the treatmenttechnology. These reports shouldinclude the appropriate information ontreatment efficiencies and applicabilityto 'various soil types, including all thetechnical information discussed in thepreceding paragraphs.




F. Sampling and Analysis Protocols-Grab vs. Composite Samples

Where performance data were basedon the analysis of composite and grabsamples, the Agency establishedtreatment standards based on theanalysis of grab samples. Grab samplesnormally reflect maximum processvariability, and thus would reasonablycharacterize the range of treatmentsystem performance. Basing treatmentstandards on grab samples (andenforcing on that basis) is, of course,permissible. Third Third Case, 976 F.2dat 34.

In cases where only composite dataexist, the Agency considers the QA/QCof the data, the inherent efficiency of theprocess design, and the level ofperformance achieved. The Agency maythen choose to use this composite datato develop treatment standards. Wherethese data were used to establishtreatment standards, the treatmentstandards were identified as based onanalysis of composite samples.Enforcement of that standard thuswould also be based on compositesamples.

G. Relationship to Other Regulationsand Programs

1. RCRA Land Disposal RestrictionsProgram

a. Existing LDR treatment standards.The Agency has promulgated landdisposal restriction treatment standardsfor all hazardous waste that were listedor identified in part 261 before theenactment of HSWA. Soil contaminatedwith a hazardous waste that is subjectto a treatment standard is also subject tothat treatment standard. There is aquestion as to whether treatmentstandards applicable to "as generated"hazardous waste are also appropriate forhazardous soil. The Agency is alsoconcerned that treatment technologiesconsidered BDAT for the actual wastemay not be able to achieve the wastetreatment standards in soil. The Agencybelieves that soil may be more difficultto treat than waste because of factorssuch as: (1) Contamination frommultiple wastes results in complextreatment and analysis matrices; and, (2)varying soil types, such as easy-to-treatsandy soil, difficult-to-treat clays, andsoils with high content of organicmatter. To address these concerns, theAgency developed the soil treatmentdatabase to establish treatmentstandards that would be appropriate forhazardous soil. Thus, when today'sproposed soil treatment standards arepromulgated, hazardous soil willbecome subject to those standards in

lieu of the treatment standards for theRCRA wastes contaminating the soil.

b. Soil contaminated with newly listedwastes which have final treatmentstandards. EPA recently promulgatedtreatment standards for "newly-listed"(i.e., listed since enactment of HSWA in1984) hazardous wastes in the Phase Ifinal rule (August 18, 1992) including:F037-F038, K107-Kl10, Kill, K112,Kl17, Kl18, K123, K124, K125, Kl26,K131, K132, K136, U328, U353, andU359. The Agency chose not to applythe treatment standards for these wastesto hazardous soil contaminated withthese wastes. Consequently, we areproposing today to subject soilcontaminated with these newly listedwastes to the soil treatment standards.

c; Soil contaminated with newly listedand identified wastes which haveproposed treatment standards. In aseparate section o this proposed rule,the Agency is proposing treatmentstandards for additional newly listedand identified hazardous wastes,including those that exhibit the toxicitycharacteristic for organics. Theproposed hazardous soil treatmentstandards, when final, would apply tosoils contaminated with those newlylisted or identified hazardous wastes.

2. RCRA Corrective Action

Treatment standards proposed in thisrule would, when finalized, apply to allRCRA hazardous soil (i.e., soilcontaminated with a listed waste orexhibiting a hazardous characteristic.)For example, soil treatment standardspromulgated under this rule wouldapply to corrective action at RCRA-permitted facilities or interim statusfacilities, when remediation ofhazardous soil involves excavation andland disposal or placement of such soil.However, the Corrective ActionManagement Units and TemporaryUnits Final Rule (58 FR 8656) creates aremediation unit, called a correctiveaction management unit (CAMU),within which management ofremediation wastes would notconstitute land disposal or placement.(See 58 FR 8659). Remediation wasteincludes soils containing listedhazardous wastes or which themselvesexhibit a hazardous waste characteristic,that are managed for the purpose ofimplementing corrective actionrequirements under § 264.101 andRCRA section 3008(h). (See 58 FR 8683).Therefore, management of remediationwastes within a CAMU designatedaccording to the criteria in § 264.552would not require the application ofLDRs, including today's soil treatmentstandards.

3. Voluntary RCRA CleanupsThe proposed hazardous soil

treatment standards, when final, wouldapply to all RCRA hazardous waste landdisposed. Therefore, hazardous soilgenerated during the course of avoluntary cleanup would be subject tothe hazardous soil treatment standards.

The Agency is concerned that theexisting treatment standards that applyto hazardous waste (and soil containinghazardous waste) may pose adisincentive to voluntary cleanups. Thesoil treatment standards proposed todayshould begin to alleviate theimpediments to voluntary cleanups. Ingeneral, the treatment standardsproposed in today's rule regardinghazardous soil are higher than theexisting treatment standards, and areintended to allow flexibility indetermining what treatmenttechnologies to utilize. EPA requestscomment regarding the proposed soiltreatment standard options and theeffect the approaches, if promulgated,may have on voluntary cleanups.

4. Phase I LDR Rule: Hazardous DebrisOn August 18, 1992, the Agency

published the Phase I LDR rule; amongother things, this rule set technology-based treatment standards for hazardouswaste-contaminated debris. In summary,to meet the land disposal restrictions,hazardous waste-contaminated debrismust be treated to the existingstandards, or alternatively by specifiedtechnologies (i.e. treatment methods)based on the type of debris and the typeof contaminants present. If thistreatment is performed with a specifieddestruction or extraction technology, thetreated debris would no longer beconsidered contaminated nor is it ahazardous waste (provided it also doesnot exhibit a hazardous characteristic),and thus is no longer subject to RCRAsubtitle C regulation. For a furtherdiscussion, refer to the final rule (57 FR37194, August 18, 1992).

Debris is defined as a solid material(man-made objects or environmentalmedia) intended for disposal that: (1)Has been originally manufactured orprocessed, except for solids that arelisted wastes or can be identified asbeing residues from treatment of wastesand/or wastewaters, or air pollutioncontrol devices; or (2) is plant or animalmatter; or (3) is natural geologic materialexceeding a 60 mm sieve size includinggravel, cobbles, and boulders (sizes asclassified by the U.S. Soil ConservationService), or is primarily debris mixedwith soil, liquid, sludge, or other solidwaste materials. The "primarily"determination is based on the volume of

48131




soil and debris in the loader bucket asexcavated. Separation is not required.However, the generator may usescreening (or other separationtechniques) to separate the soil from 60mm and larger gravel and man-madeobjects.

It is clear from the definition of debristhat there will be an overlap with theproposed hazardous soil requirements.The Agency is following the precedentset in the hazardous debris rule: In theevent of mixtures of soil and debris thatare not readily separable, the Agencyhas decided that the primary category ofa mixture (i.e., soil or debris) based onvisual inspection will determine howthat mixture will be regulated.

5. CERCLA as amended by SARAThis section discusses the

relationship between the proposedtreatment standards for hazardous soiland the Agency's response actionsimplemented under CERCLA(Superfund). We discuss here thecurrent applicability of the LDRprogram to the Superfund program aswell as the impact of today's proposedsoil LDR treatment standards on theSuperfund program. In this section, wediscuss the difference betweenapplicable LDR requirements and theSuperfund program's use of "relevantand appropriate" requirements of otherenvironmental laws to remediatehazardous soil.

The Superfund program's efforts toremediate hazardous soil fall into threecategories: (1) Where LDR requirementsare applicable; (2) where LDRrequirements are found to be relevantand appropriate under thecircumstances of the release; and (3)where LDR requirements are neitherapplicable nor relevant and appropriate.When hazardous soil is excavated,treated in another unit, and replaced onthe land, or excavated and disposed ina unit outside of the area ofcontamination (AOC), the LDRregulations are either applicablerequirements or they may be found to berelevant and appropriate requirementsunder the circumstances of the release.When hazardous soil is not excavatedand placed into another unit as part ofa Superfund response action (e.g.,consolidation within the AOC, in-situtreatment, or no treatment), the LDRtreatment standards do not applybecause there has been no "landdisposal" of a hazardous waste (RCRASection 3004(k), 55 FR 8759-60 (March8, 1990).) Today's proposal would notchange this.If the hazardous soil is contaminated

with a listed hazardous waste or if itfails a RCRA characteristic test, the LDR

regulations are applicable to thehazardous soil (see, e.g. RCRA section3004 (d)(3),(e){3); also see SuperfundLDR Guide #5, Directive 9347.3-06FS,July 1989.) In cases where there is noknown evidence that the soil iscontaminated with a prohibited listedhazardous waste and thus the LDRs arenot legally applicable, but the soil iscontaminated with substances known tobe constituents of a particular listedwaste, EPA evaluates the soil todetermine whether the LDR treatmentstandards are relevant and appropriate.See NCP, 40 CFR 300.400 (g)(2);Superfund LDR Guide #7, Directive9347.3--08FS, December 1989.

In determining the potential relevanceand appropriateness of the LDRtreatment standards in a particularresponse action under the Superfundprogram, EPA makes the followingcomparisons, among pthers, wherepertinent: (1) The actions or activitiesregulated by the requirement ascompared to the remedial actioncontemplated; (2) the purpose of therequirement and the purpose of theCERCLA action; (3) the substancesregulated by the requirement and thesubstances found at the CERCLA site;and (4) the medium regulated oraffected by the requirement and themedium contaminated or affected at theCERCLA site (NCP, 40 CFR 300.400(g)(2).

Currently, as set out in the preambleto the NCP, there is an establishedpresumption that the existing BDATtreatment standards are inappropriatefor hazardous soil and debris, 55 FR8759.62, and thus under RCRAregulations at 40 CFR 268.44(h), atreatability variance is generallyappropriate (unless the presumption isrebutted). Accordingly, much of thehazardous soil from CERCLA actionsnow excavated and disposed of istreated to meet site specific treatabilityvariance standards. (EPA has preparedguidance documents as an aid toimplementation of treatabilityvariances.) See Superfund LDR Guide#6a, Directive 9347.3--6FS, September1990, or Superfund LDR Guide #6b,Directive 9347.3-07FS, December 1989.Given that today's proposed treatmentstandards for hazardous soil are basedon actual soil treatability data fromtechnologies other than incineration,including a number of innovativetechnologies, the Agency anticipatesthat there will be less need to invoke thevariance process when soil treatmentstandards become effective. We note,however, that today's proposed soiltreatment standards would retain thetreatability variance procedures of 40CFR 268.44.

6. Soil Contaminated by UndergroundStorage Tanks

Petroleum contaminated soil removedduring remediation of releases from aRCRA Subtitle I underground storagetank (UST) generally are not subject tothe LDR soil treatment standards. Thesesoils would generally only be defined ashazardous because of the toxicitycharacteristic (TC. Such petroleumcontaminated soil that fails the TC forone or more of the newly identifiedorganic wastes (D018-D043) has beentemporarily deferred from regulation asa hazardous waste (55 FR 26986). Inaddition, the Agency has recentlyproposed to permanently exempt USTpetroleum-contaminated soils from theTC rule (58 FR 8504). However, shoulda Subtitle I petroleum contaminated soilfail the TC using the supersededExtraction Procedure (El ) for toxicitycharacteristics D001 through 0017 (theoriginal EP toxicity characteristics),ignitability (001), corrosivity (002),and reactivity (D003], the soil would notbe subject to the deferral and would besubject to all applicable RCRA landdisposal restriction requirements.

It is notable that there is a pendinglawsuit challenging this deferral.Pending the results of the litigation,these TC soils may become subject totoday's proposed soil treatmentstandards when finalized.

Finally, the Agency reminds theregulated community that any soilcontaminated by a release from ahazardous substance UST (Subtitle I) aswell as from all non-Subtitle I USTs(including petroleum tanks) willcontinue to be subject to applicableRCRA hazardous waste requirements,including the existing land disposalrestrictions and the hazardous soiltreatment standards, when promulgated.

7. Other Petroleum Contaminated SoilIn response to petitions from several

states, the Agency has recently proposedto temporarily suspend from regulationas hazardous waste petroleumcontaminated soils from sources otherthan Subtitle I USTs, such as above-ground tanks and pipelines. Such adeferral has only been proposed,however, until it is finalized, these soilswould continue to be subject to theapplicable RCRA hazardous wasteregulations, including the existing andfuture land disposal restrictions. See 57FR 61542.

8. Radioactive Mixed Wastesa. Definition of mixed wastes.

Radioactive mixed wastes are thosewastes that satisfy the definition ofradioactive waste subject to the Atomic




Energy Act (AEA) that also contain awaste that is either listed as a hazardouswaste in subpart D of 40 CFR part 261,or that exhibits any of the hazardouswaste characteristics identified insubpart C of 40 CFR part 261. On July3, 1986 (51 FR 4504), EPA determinedthat the hazardous portions of mixedwastes are subject to the RCRAregulations.

The majority of mixed wastes can bedivided into three categories based onthe radioactive component of the waste:(1) Low-level wastes, (2) transuranic(TRU) wastes, and (3) high-level wastes.Low-level wastes include radioactivewaste that are not classified as spentfuel from commercial nuclear powerplants, or that is not defense high-levelradioactive waste from weaponsproduction. TRU wastes are those wastecontaining elements with atomicnumbers greater than 92, the atomicnumber of uranium. High-levelradioactive wastes are defined as spentfuel from commercial nuclear powerplants, and wastes from weaponsproduction.

b. RCRA requirements. In the finalrule for the Third Third wastes, EPApromulgated treatment standards forfour treatability groups of mixed waste:(1) Specific high-level wastes, (2) D008radioactive lead solids, (3) mixed wastecontaining elemental mercury, and (4)mercury containing hydraulic fluidcontaminated with radioactivematerials. The Agency further assertedthat "all promulgated treatmentstandards for RCRA listed andcharacteristic wastes apply to the RCRAhazardous portion of mixed radioactive(high-level, TRU and low-level) wastesunless EPA has specifically establisheda treatability group for that specificcategory of mixed waste."

The Agency is today proposing tosubject mixed radioactive hazardoussoil to the proposed treatment standardsfor hazardous soil (in addition to anyregulation of that material under AEA),rather than to the treatment standardsfor the contaminating waste. Thisincludes soil contaminated with mixedwaste for which special treatabilitygroups have been established.Therefore, this soil would be subject tothe proposed soil standards rather thanto the specified treatability groupstandards. The Agency solicitscomments on this approach.

9. Special Provisions for Soil ContainingAsbestos

Asbestos is a naturally occurringfamily of fibrous mineral substances.The typical size range of asbestos fibersis 0.1 to 10 micrometers in length,which is not generally visible to the

human eye. When disturbed, asbestosfibers may become suspended" in the airfor many hours, thus increasing theextent of asbestos exposure forindividuals within the area. EPA andthe Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA) have majorresponsibility for the regulatory controlof exposure to asbestos. EPA controlsemissions of asbestos to the ambient airunder section 112 of the Clean Air Act,through the National EmissionStandards for Hazardous Air Pollutants(NESHAPS) program.

The Agency believes that specialprovisions might be needed forregulation of hazardous soil thatcontains asbestos. The Agencyspecifically requests comment on theneed for such provisions, and on whatspecial provisions might be needed. Oneoption the Agency is considering fordisposal of hazardous soil containingasbestos is to collect and seal asbestoscontaining soil in leak-tight containers(as described in the NESHAPrequirements), followed bymacroencapsulation and disposal in aSubtitle C landfill. This option would bein lieu of treating the soil by destroyingor removing the contaminants subject totreatment.

H. Related EPA Activities onContaminated Media

1. Contaminated Media ClusterThe Agency has undertaken an

initiative designed to improve theoverall quality of its regulatory decision-making by looking at groups or"clusters" of regulations in order todevelop more integrated approaches tovarious environmental problems. One ofthese "clusters" is contaminated media,which includes hazardous soil. The goalof the Contaminated Media Clusterproject is to develop a set of overarchingprinciples to guide the Agency'sapproach to policies and regulationsdealing with remediation.

The Agency has gathered preliminaryinformation on the quantities and typesof media needing remediation, the typesof risks they represent, the currentstatutory and regulatory framework, theelements of an effective cleanupprocess, and the costs and benefits ofcleanup. As part of this effort, theAgency sponsored a forum in January1992 with participants from industry,trade associations, and congressionalstaff; as well as a series of meetings forregional and state participants. Thepurpose of the forum and meetings wasto discuss the issues involved inremediating contaminated media. ThisLDR proposed rule is consistent withthe efforts of the Contaminated Media

Cluster project. The LDR program willcontinue to consider the goals andprinciples of the Cluster as they arefurther developed.

2. Weathered SludgesEPA believes that weathered sludges

may constitute a new category ofcontaminated media, or at least adifferent treatability group. EPAcurrently is attempting to assess thedefinition of weathered sludges, thecomparison of these sludges to newlygenerated sludges, methods available totreat these sludges, and the relationshipof these sludges to sediments. EPA isrequesting data or comments on any ofthe above areas to consider indeveloping a research program whichmay lead to an amendment of the LDRtreatment standards that are currentlyapplicable to weathered sludges.

3. EPA Lead StrategyIn the case of hazardous soil

contaminated with lead, EPA seeks tointegrate the present rulemaking effortwith the Agency's Lead Strategy, whichwas issued on February 21, 1991. Thisstrategy presents a coordinatedapproach addressing the significanthealth and environmental problemsresulting from lead pollution. Lead is amultimedia pollutant with significanttoxic concerns; accordingly, EPA plansto address lead contamination bycoordinating its authorities acrossprograms. EPA solicits comments on theoption of setting a total lead standard(versus the proposed leachate standard),consistent with the goal of the leadstrategy. Copies of the Lead Strategy canbe obtained by calling the TSCA Hotlineat 1-800--835-6700.4. Bioremediation

As a follow-up to the Administrator'sBioremediation Summit held inFebruary, 1990, EPA explicitly issoliciting treatment data on biologicaltechnologies to aid in the developmentof treatment standards for hazardoussoil. EPA is aware of the impact of allLDR rulemakings on the developmentand application of innovative treatmenttechnologies. This notice affirms EPA's'interest in gathering private sector datafor consideration in settifig treatmentstandards.VIII. Compliance Monitoring andNotificationA. Compliance Monitoring

In the May 24, 1993 interim final rule(58 FR 29872), the Agency adopted thesame approach for monitoringunderlying hazardous constituents thatit had used previously (in the ThirdThird rule at 55 FR 22620, 22621) for

48133




multi-source leachate (F039.) Thatapproach allowed generators andfacilities that manage ignitable orcorrosive wastes to monitor forunderlying hazardous constituents"reasonably expected to be present."Generators could base thisdetermination on their knowledge of theraw materials they use, the process theyoperate, and the potential reactionproducts of the process, or upon theresults of a one-time analysis for theentire list of constituents subject totreatment. Treaters and disposers mustperform some testing to demonstratecompliance with the standards. 58 FR29874-875.

In adopting these requirements, theAgency noted that they might bemodified in the future, and that thereare certain potential deficiencies in theprocess, in particular, the lack of afederal requirement to notify the subtitleD treatment (if any are actually treatingdecharacterized prohibited wastes) anddisposal facilities (see furtherdiscussion at preamble section B.3below, and in the interim final rule (58FR 29874, May 24, 1990)). The Agencyis further concerned that generators maynot be able to adequately determine theunderlying hazardous constituentspresent in characteristic wastes, or todetermine, without testing, whetherthese constituents are present at levelsbelow the treatment standards. (In thecase of listed wastes, which arerelatively uniform as to wastecomposition, EPA has identified all thepotential hazardous constituents thatcould be in the waste and specifiedthose that must be treated. EPA isunable to make such a general findingfor characteristic wastes, because theyvary to a great degree. Hence, the use ofgenerator knowledge or sampling andanalysis is necessary for determining thepresence and levels of underlying

azardous constituents in characteristicwastes, although the Agency may beable to develop such information asguidance for specific types ofcharacteristic wastes.)

The Agency solicits comment onwhether generators should be requiredto do some testing of characteristicwastes to determine what hazardousconstituents are present and whetherthey meet treatment standards.Alternatively, the Agency could requiregenerators to certify what underlyinghazardous constituents are in the wasteand whether they meet treatmentstandards, in a manner similar to theexisting certification requirement forgenerators of wastes that meet thetreatment standards as generated (see 40CFR 2687(a)2)(ii)). While a testingrequirement would ensure that there Is

data for each waste, it could pose anunnecessary burden when generatorknowledge would suffice.

If such testing were required, an issuewould exist as to frequency of testingand how this could be determinedwithout the type of interaction thatoccurs for facilities developing wasteanalysis plans as part of the permittingprocess. One possible option is todevelop some type of self-implementingwaste analysis plan analogous to thatrequired for generators who treat theirprohibited wastes in 90-day tanks andcontainers. See § 268.7(b}(4).

The Agency also solicits comment,however, whether such a testingrequirement is necessary based on thefollowing analysis of the existing rules.If a generator does no treatment ofcharacteristic wastes, the wastes mustbe sent to subtitle C treatment facilitiesbefore disposal (since the wastes willstill exhibit a characteristic). In thiscase, the wastes will be accompanied bythe § 268.7(a) notice and certificationtelling the treater what the treatmentstandard for the waste is, includingidentification of the underlyinghazardous constituents requiringtreatment. Although this determinationneed not be based on testing, thetreatment facility must do some actualtesting to determine whether the treatedwaste meets the treatment standards, thefrequency of testing to be determined bythe treatment facility's waste analysisplan. § 268.7(b)(1)-(3) and 58 FR 29874.The treater would then send anotification form to the EPA Region orauthorized state pursuant to § 268.9.

If a generator does some treatment,such as removing the characteristic butnot treating for underlying hazardousconstituents, then it would be a subtitleC treater and would be required toconduct some analysis of the waste, asjust explained. If treatment is conductedin units not requiring permits, thegenerator must prepare a waste analysisplan "based on a detailed chemical andphysicai analysis of a representativesample of the prohibited waste(s)".§ 268.7(b)(4)(i). Consequently, such agenerator is already required to conductsome waste analysis.

EPA consequently solicits commentas to the appropriateness of a further (orperhaps, more explicit) requirement ofgenerator testing.

B. LDR Notification

1. Constituents To Be Included on theLDR Notification

EPA solicited comment on how tolimit the constituents subject totreatment to be monitored In TC wastesand hazardous soil (and thus, the ones

required to be reported on the LDRnotification) (see section VIII.A).Commenters on this issue when it wasraised in regard to ignitable andcorrosive characteristic wastes in theSupplemental Information Reportprepared for the Notice of DoaAvailability on the Third Third Casegenerally said that the regulatedcommunity should only be required toaddress those constituents which are inthe characteristic wastes as generated,prior to any subsequent mixing withother wastes, and the generators shouldmonitor only for those hazardousconstituents reasonably expected to bepresent in the characteristic waste. Thisis the approach being proposed in thisrule. The determination of whichconstituents subject to treatment are inthe waste may be made based on a one-time analysis of the waste to determinewhich of the constituents subject totreatment are present, or it may be madebased on knowledge of whatconstituents are reasonably expected tobe present in the waste. Supportingdocumentation for the determinationshould be kept in the generator's on-sitefiles for five years. (See § 268.7(a)(7).)This approach for determining whichconstituents are present in the waste isnot necessarily the approach that will betaken in future rulemakings.

2. Management in Subtitle C-RegulatedFacilities

The Agency has information thatmany of the TC wastes that are notmanaged in CWA or SDWA systems arebeing treated in hazardous wastemanagement units (primarilyincinerators) subject to RCRA subtitle C.Hazardous soil contaminated with listedhazardous wastes and, perhaps, somecharacteristic wastes, will oftentimes betreated in a subtitle C unit. In such acase, the notification, certification, andrecordkeeping requirements set out in40 CFR 268.7 apply. This means,generally, that a notification would beprepared for each waste shipment sentfrom the generator to the treatmentfacility, in the same manner that suchpaperwork follows a listed waste from"cradle to grave."

For TC wastes and characteristichazardous soils, once the waste is nolonger hazardous, however, the onlyfurther recordkeeping anddocumentation required is set out in 40CFR 268.9. Section 268.9 requires thatthe generator/treater (includinggenerators who treat, see 51 FR at40598, November 7, 1986) prepare aone-time notification which is sent tothe EPA Region or authorized state andalso kept in the generator or treater'sfiles. The notification must include the




name and address of the subtitle Dfacility receiving a waste shipment, adescription of the waste initiallygenerated, and the treatment standard towhich the waste is subject (see§ 268.9(d), as amended at 57 FR 37271(August 18,1992)). For TC wastes andhazardous soils, these would beuniversal treatment standards. Thesetreaters must certify that they arefamiliar with the treatment process usedat their facility and that the process cansuccessfully treat the waste to meet thetreatment standards withoutimpermissible dilution. See§ 268.7(b)(5), which applies to personswho treat formerly characteristic wastes(see § 268.9(d)(2)). The Agency believesthat, normally, at least some wasteanalysis is needed to make a good faithshowing for meeting the treatmentstandards, given the number ofhazardous constituents that could becovered by those standards.

It is important to state that in additionto other waste codes that are currentlyrequired to be included on notificationsunder § 268.7, generators of TC wastesthat are managed in non-CWAtnon-CWA-equivalent/non-Class I SDWAsystems and in hazardous soil mustidentify the constituents subject totreatment along with the correspondingconstituent universal treatmentstandards.'

3. Potential'Management ofDecharacterized Wastes at a Subtitle DWaste Management Facility

EPA is soliciting information oncertain potential waste managementpractices for decharacterized TC wastesand soils to help determine whethernew notification requirements are,needed. The Agency wishes informationon whether generators or treaters, afterremoving the characteristic, send thedecharacterized TC waste or soil off-siteto a subtitle D (nonhazardous waste)treatment facility for further treatmentto address the underlying hazardousconstituents subject to treatment.Although the initial generator of thewaste would have to comply with§ 268.9, there is no current requirementthat the generator notify a subtitle Dnonhazardous waste treater of theconstituents subject to treatment in the

I An important issue that was discussed at theJanuary 13-14,1993, LDR Evaluation ProjectRoundtable meeting was the notification/recordkeeping requirements that are currently inplace. Today's proposed rule would add certainrequirements to the existing notification/recordkeeping system. In response to the concernsexpressed by Roundtable participants and thestreamlining and clarification efforti initiated insection 1U.C.3, however, the Agency will examineall the notification/recordkeeping requirements ofthe program to see if they can be simplified.

waste, or for the subtitle D treater toverify compliance with the treatmentstandards or to notify the ultimatedisposal facility as to the constituents inthe waste. If such waste managementarrangements currently exist or arelikely to occur as a result of today's rulewhen it is finalized, some wastes wouldnot be subject to the LDR notificationrequirements, as was described in theinterim final rule of May 24, 1993 (58FR 29874). Without such recordkeeping,EPA might have difficulty enforcingtreatment standards for the constituentssubject to treatment. However, theserequirements would impose anadditional burden on generators,especially those that have establishedalternative arrangements to provide thisinformation to treaters. EPA solicitscomment as to the potentialenforcement concerns if there is not afederal requirement that generatorsnotify subtitle D treatment and disposalfacilities receiving decharacterizodwastes.

Generators an4 subtitle D facilitiesmay have substantial incentives toexchange and verify compliance withtreatment standards for underlyinghazardous constituents independentlyof regulatory requirements. Generatorsand subtitle D facilities, for example; aresubject toCERCLA liability for theirwaste management practices. Therefore.the Agency solicits comment onwhether it should consider a federally-mandated notification requirement. If anotification gap exists, one optionwould be to require that generators ortreaters that decharacterize TC wastes orhazardous soil provide any subsequenttreaters of that waste with a list of theunderlying hazardous constituentssubject to treatment that the wastecontains, and for the final treater toprovide a one-time notification to EPA.IX. Further Solicitation of CommentRegarding Exclusion of HazardousDebris That Has Been Treated byImmobilization Technologies

A. BackgroundThe final Phase I Land Disposal

Restrictions (LDR) rule promulgated: onJune 30, 1992 (57 FR 37194, August 18,1992), excludes from subtitle C controlhazardous debris that is treated using anextraction or destruction technologyprovided the treated debris meets theperformance standards specified in§ 268.45 Table 1. Our basis for doingthis is that the debris no longer containsthe hazardous waste. On the other hand,hazaidous debris treated by animmobilization technology is stillsubject to the hazardous wasteregulations because the. Agency has

insufficient data or information tosupport that such treated debris wouldnot leach Appendix VIII constituentsover time in a manner that would beprotective to human healtib and theenvironment: In our proposal to thePhase I LDR rule, the Agency solicitedcomment on whether immobilizedhazardous debris should be excludedfrom subtitle C control. While theAgency received favorable comments onexcluding such treated debris from thehazardous waste regulations, noinformation or data was provided tosupport such a position. Therefore, thefinal rule requires that immobilizedhazardous debris continue to bemanaged as a hazardous waste.

The Agency again wants to revisit theissue of whether immobilized hazardousdebris, if treated in certain ways or istreated to meet certain limits, should beexcluded from subtitle C control. As aresult, since the promulgation of thePhase I LDR rule, the Agency hasundertaken a number of activities.

B. Roundtable Discussion

In an attempt to gather information onthe issue, the Agency sponsored aroundtable discussion on August 3,1992. Participants at the meetingincluded persons who commented onthe Phase I LDR rule, debris treatmentvendors, hazardous waste treaters anddisposers, state officials, and officialsfrom the Department of Energy (seeDocket for specific list of attendees).Representatives from the environmentalinterest groups were also invited butwere unable to attend. The purpose ofthe meeting was to gather informationand discuss various regulatoryapproaches that would allow theAgency to exclude immobilizedhazardous debris from subtitle Ccontrol. While no specific information.was gathered, there was a discussion onthe types of standards that could beapplied such as design and operatingstandards, leach test, structural integritytest, permeability test for encapsulatingmaterial, so as to exclude immobilizedhazardous debris from hazardous wastecontrol. Additionally, the followingpoints were also made by one or moreparticipants at the roundtable.

9 A number of the attendeesindicated that even if immobilizedhazardous debris were excluded fromhazardous waste control, it wouldcontinue to be managed as a hazardouswaste due to CERCLA liability concerns.

* There was some question whether aspecific exclusion for immobilizedhazardous debris was necessary orwhether the Hazardous WasteIdentification Rule (HWIR) may be a.

48135



58, No. 176 / Tuesday, 'September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

more appropriate mechanism foraddressing this issue.

* A representative from the glassindustry suggested that glass cullet andvitreous materials should have aseparate treatment standard. Heindicated that the glass matrix wouldnot leach lead at a higher rate thanwould an immobilized product-that is,it made little sense to grind up the glassmaterial and then to stabilize it whenthe original matrix is just as sound.

While no consensus was reached, thefollowing principles were generallyarrived at by most of the participants atthe meeting.

Microencapsulation: Participants atthe meeting seem to believe that usinga leach test may be more appropriate todemonstrate effectivemicroencapsulation immobilizationover an approach of developing designand operating standards. It was notedthat treatment of hazardous debris isvery waste and debris specific; if onecould define design andoperatingstandards that were generallyapplicable, they would likely be tooburdensome in many cases.

Macroencapsul.ation/Sealing: Theparticipants seem to indicate that thegrinding requirement in the TCLP leachtest made it inappropriate for predictingperformance of macroencapsulation/sealing immobilization technologies.These technologies rely on animpermeable coating applied to theoutside of the debris. Rather, theparticipants suggested a structural testto determine whether the given debris/technology combination was sufficientto maintain the coating or apermeability test for the coating media.While the participants conceptuallybelieved that such an approach wasworkable, no one was able to suggest aspecific test or standard. In addition, itwas felt by some of the participants thatthe development of such a test could bedifficult to develop.

The Agency specifically solicitscomments on the general principlesdescribed above. While no data orinformation was provided at themeeting, it was indicated that if suchinformation was submitted to theAgency, the Agency would considersuch information in making its decision.

C. EPA InvestigationsIn addition to the above roundtable

discussions, EPA has also beenreviewing the literature and talking tovendors in an effort to obtain sufficientinformation on how to proposestandards that could allow the exclusionof immobilized hazardous debris. Todate, no useful insights have beengained on how to specify design and

operating standards that would ensurethat immobilized hazardous debris wasnon-hazardous; the reason for this is thepaucity of experience in immobilizinghazardous debris. Nevertheless, theAgency is interested in pursuing thisarea and specifically seeks assistancefrom the regulated community on thisissue.

D. Conclusions

While the Agency has a better senseof the types of standards that may beappropriate for excluding immobilizedhazardous debris from subtitle Ccontrol, the Agency still does not havethe data to propose specific exclusions.In particular, for microencapsulation, ifa leach test is the most appropriatemechanism for determining whethersuch treated debris is non-hazardous,the Agency believes that HWIR may bethe appropriate rulemaking to addressthis issue. The Agency has a series ofstudies underway and is currentlyevaluating comments ancLis not in aposition to determine what such levelsare at this time. With respect tomacroencapsulation/sealing, additionaldata or information will need to begathered before the Agency is in aposition to exclude this type ofimmobilized hazardous debris. To assistthe Agency in this effort, we specificallysolicit comment on the followingquestions:

Microencapsulation: Is the use of aleach test for excluding immobilizedhazardous debris more appropriate thanspecification of design and operatingstandards? Is exclusion of immobilizedhazardous debris using design andoperating standards workable?

Macroencapsulation/Sealing: Whattype of structural or other test could beused? What type of criteria should beapplied in determining whether suchdebris is non-hazardous? The Agency isconsidering allowing stabilization forsoils containing low levels of organicconstituents, and solicits comment onwhether similar stabilization techniquesor tests to ensure the effectiveness ofsuch stabilization would be appropriatefor excluding debris from subtitle Ccontrol.

In addition, the Agency specificallysolicits comment on any data orinformation that is available todemonstrate that immobilizedhazardous debris (if treated properly)would not pose a substantial hazard tohuman health and the environment. Ifsuch information is submitted to theAgency, the Agency will exclude suchdebris from subtitle C control.

X. Modifications to Hazardous Waste'Recycling Regulations

A. Introduction

This proposal also includes changesto the hazardous waste recyclingregulations which amend an exclusion(and related variance) which wouldallow streamlined regulatory decisionsto be made regarding the regulation ofcertain types of recycling activities.These procedures should allowenvironmentally beneficial recycling tooccur more easily. (This part of today'sproposal is, however, not directlyrelated to the proposed rulesestablishing prohibitions and treatmentstandards for hazardous wastes.)

EPA wishes to note that the changesto the definition of solid waste beingproposed today are fairly narrow inscope. The Agency has also initiated apublic dialogue process, administeredby EPA's Definition of Solid Waste TaskForce, which is examining the overallimpacts of the RCRA program onrecycling, and which will ultimatelyconsider broader changes to thedefinition of solid waste.

B. Modification of the Existing "Closed-Loop" Recycling Exclusion and RelatedCase-Specific Variance

1.. Existing "Closed-Loop" RecyclingExclusion and Related Variance

In the January 4, 1985 final rule, theAgency promulgated an exclusion fromthe definition of solid waste at§ 261.2(e)(1)(iii) for secondary materialsthat are recycled in a "closed-loop,"(i.e., returned to the original productionprocess in which the material wasgenerated (see preamble discussion at50 FR 639)). To be considered such a"closed-loop" process, three conditionsmust be met. First, the secondarymaterial must be returned to the originalprocess without undergoing significantalteration or reprocessing (i.e., it mustbe returned without first beingreclaimed). Second, the productionprocess to which the unreclaimedmaterial is returned must be a primaryproduction process (i.e., a process thatuses raw materials as the majority of itsfeedstock, as opposed to a secondaryprocess that uses spent materials orscrap metal as the majority of itsfeedstock). And third, the secondarymaterial must be returned as a feedstockto the original production process andmust be recycled as part of that process(as opposed to an ancillary process suchas degreasing). EPA believes that theseconditions characterize a material that ispart of an on-going production process,and as such, the management of thematerial should not be characterized as

.48136 ,Federal Register / Vol.




waste management (i.e., the material isnot part of the waste managementproblem).'

The Agency is today proposing toreaddress the second conditio--thatthe production process to whichsecondary material is returned must bea primary process. The Agency imposedthis condition due to considerationsregarding jurisdiction, as it wasunderstood in 1985, rather than to an .evaluation of the potential impacts onthe environment from closed-looprecycling involving secondary processes(i.e., this condition was establishedwithout a consideration of whether suchsecondary materials would be part ofthe waste management problem). Bydefinition, a secondary process useswaste materials as its principalfeedstock. Thus, the Agency concludedthat the process residue, which isreturned to the original process as asubstitute for feedstock that is itselfwgste, is no less a waste than the wastematerial originally introduced (see 50FR 639). (The Agency notes that in mostcases this condition has no impact onthe recycling of residues from secondaryprocesses because such residues thatexhibit a characteristic of hazardouswaste (i.e., characteristic by-productsand sludges) are already excluded fromthe definition of solid waste ifreclaimed).

While the Agency continues tobelieve that the jurisdictional logicbehind this condition is sound, theCourt opinions regarding RCRAjurisdiction allow more weight to begiven to environmental considerations.APIv. EPA, 906 F.2d at 740-41; AMCv. EPA, 907 F2d 1179, 1186 (D.C. Cir.1990). EPA has reevaluated thiscondition of the exclusion from thedefinition of solid waste due to itsimpact on the recycling of residues fromsecondary processes, in particularsecondary lead smelters, and hasdetermined that this condition is lessrelevant as an environmentalconsideration, assuming that thesecondary material is well-managedprior to reprocessing. Therefore, theAgency is proposing to remove thiscondition from the "closed-loop"recycling exclusion. By doing this,secondary materials that are recycled insecondary production processes can beexcluded from the definition of solidwaste, provided that the materials arewell-managed prior to recycling. Thediscussion of K069 wastes belowillustrates the need for this amendment.

Following the same reasoning, theAgency is also proposing to amend§ 260.33(b), a related case-by-casevariance for materials that are reclaimedprior to reuse in the original primary

production process from which theywere generated (see 50 FR 652 for adiscussion of the existing variance). Theamendment would similarly expand thevariance to make it available formaterials that are returned to secondaryprocesses, as well as those returned toprimary processes.

2. K069 Wastes Recycled Back into theSecondary Process

In the case of K069 wastes (emissioncontrol dust/sludge from secondary leadsmelting), the Agency identified thermalrecovery of lead in secondary smelters(the same process that generates thewaste) as BDAT in the Land DisposalRestrictions for the First ThirdScheduled Wastes final rule (53 FR31138; August 17, 1988). The treatmentstandard based on BDAT was expressedas "No Land Disposal" because theAgency believed the K069 waste to be"indigenous" to the smelting processand thus was no longer a solid wastewithin RCRA jurisdiction whenintroduced into the secondary smelter(which had been a long-standing policyregarding the reclamation of K069waste, as stated in the November 29,1985 preamble, 50 FR at 49167.)Therefore, the slag residue from therecovery of the K069 waste would notbe derived from a solid waste andwould thus not be a listed waste (butwould be considered hazardous waste ifit exhibited a hazardous characteristic.)(This view is also evident in the June 1,1990 Land Disposal Restrictions forThird Third Scheduled Wastes finalrule. In the preamble discussionregarding BDAT for wastes that exhibitthe characteristic of toxicity for lead, theslag from secondary lead smelters isevaluated as a characteristic wasterather than a derived-from K069 waste(see 55 FR 22566-568; June 1, 1990).)

However, on June 26, 1990, the D.C.Circuit Court held in AmericanPetroleum Institute v. EPA, 906 F.2d 726(D.C. Cir. 1990) that EPA erred indisavowing the statutory authority toestablish treatment standards for a slagresidue of an "indigenous" waste andthat RCRA jurisdiction could, in fact,extend to the slag. As a result of themandate in that case, unless the Agencytakes affirmative steps to otherwiseexclude it, the slag resulting from thereclamation of K069 waste wouldlikewise bea K069 hazardous waste, see56 FR at 41165 (August 19, 1991). aresult the Agency never intended.

The Agency notes that this would notbe the outcome if the emission controldust was generated by a primary leadsmelter and was recycled back ino theoriginal generating process. Such asludge would be excluded fr6m the

definition of solid waste under 40 CFR261.2(e)(1)(iii). The difference.betweenthe regulatory requirements applicableto the residues of primary processes andresidues of secondary processes seemssuperfluous and is difficult to defendfrom an environmental standpointbecause the residues of a secondaryprocess that are recycled back into theprocess are no more of a wastemanagement problem than the residuesof a primary process recycled in asimilar manner.

Therefore, the Agency proposes tomodify the existing exclusion forsecondary materials that are recycledback into the original process withoutprior reclamation to include thosematerials that are recycled back intosecondary processes.

3. Storage Prior to RecyclingThe Agency also proposes to

condition the modification to the"closed-loop" exclusion (and the related260.30(b) variance) such that secondarymaterials recycled back into secondaryprocesses from which they weregenerated cohtinue to be managed in anenvironmentally sound manner. Absentthis condition, one possible outcomecould be that a listed waste that iscurrently required to be managed in aprotective manner (i.e., without landdisposal) would begin to be managed inan unprotective manner because, as anexcluded secondary material, noregulatory requirements would apply.The Agency is requiring soundmanagement (i.e., management that isdesigned to contain the material orotherwise prevent its release to theenvironment) as a condition of thisexclusion in order to keep this form ofrecycling from becoming part of thewaste disposal problem, and to avoid areduction in environmental protectionfrom that currently existing. Inparticular, the Agency wishes to ensurethat no land disposal of any excludedmaterial occurs. EPA believes the APIand AMC H cases discussed abovesupport such an approach.

For example, under the currentregulations, K069 waste is required to bemanaged in an environmentally soundmanner prior to recycling. As a listedwaste, it must be managed in storageunits that meet specified criteria. And.as a waste subject to the land disposalrestrictions, K069 waste may not beplaced on the land, for example in openwaste piles, until the applicabletreatment standard has been met.However, as a secondary material that isexcluded from the definition of solidwaste because it is recycled back intothe process from which it wasgenerated, hazardous waste

M48137




management standards and the, landdisposal restrictions would not apply.(The Agency notes that such recycling isalso the applicable treatment standardfor K069 and that there is noconventional disposal alternative.)

The Agency solicits comment onbroadening the "closed-loop recycling"exclusion and the related 260.30(b)variance to include secondary materialsrecycled into a secondary process. TheAgency also solicits comment regardingthe condition that such secondarymaterials from a secondary process beexcluded only provided that thematerials are managed such that theexcluded material does not become partof the waste management problem, inparticular, that there be no directplacement of materials on the land, andalso solicits comments regardingwhether all exclusions from thedefinition of solid waste should beconditioned on sound managementpractices.

XI. Implementation IssuesDuring the LDR Roundtable on

January 14 and 15, 1993, participantsexpressed a need for more informationto help implement regulations as theyare issued. The Agency is specificallysoliciting comments on possibleimplementation issues regarding theprovisions being proposed today.

XII. Capacity DeterminationsThis section presents the data sources,

methodology, and results of EPA'scapacity analysis for today's rule.Section A summarizes the results of thecapacity analysis for the wastes coveredby this proposal; Section B summarizesthe analysis of available capacity;Section C presents the results of thecapacity analysis for surface disposednewly identified and listed wastes;Section D summarizes the capacityanalysis for wastes mixed withradioactive contaminants; Section Esummarizes the results of the capacityanalysis for high TOC ignitable and TCpesticide wastes and newly listedwastes injected into Class I deep wells;and Section F presents the results of thecapacity analysis for hazardous soil anddebris contaminated with the newlylisted and identified wastes covered inthis proposal and for hazardous soilcontaminated with Phase I wastes.

In general, EPA's capacity analysismethodologies focus on the amount ofwaste currently land disposed that willrequire alternative treatment as a resultof the LDRs. Land-disposed wastes thatdo not require alternative treatment(e.g., those that are currently treatedusing an appropriate treatmenttechnology) are excluded from the

quantity estimates. In addition, wastesmanaged in CWA, SDWA, CWA-equivalent systems are not included inthis rule and will be addressed in anupcoming rulemaking.

EPA's decisions on whether to granta national capacity variance are basedon the demand for commercialtreatment or recovery technologies.Consequently, the methodology focuseson deriving estimates of the quantity ofwastes that will require commercialtreatment as a result of the LDRs-quantities of waste that will be treatedon-site or by facilities owned by thegame company as the generator areomitted from the required commercialcapacity estimates.

The major capacity informationcollection initiative for this proposalwas an EPA survey of all land disposalfacilities that manage newly identified.TC organic wastes (including TC-contaminated soil and debris) in land-based units. The survey, conducted inthe spring of 1992, is a census ofapproximately 140 facilities. EPAidentified the universe primarily basedon those facilities that had submittedpermit modifications or receivedinterim status for managing thesewastes. For each facility, EPA requestedwastestream specific data on newlyidentified TC organic wastes andinformation on on-site land disposalunits and treatment and recoverysystems.

EPA developed a data set of theinformation on the survey results.Specifically, the data set containsinformation on the quantities of newly-identified organic TC wastes that willrequire commercial treatment capacityas a result of the LDRs. The datacollected from the survey to date havebeen used for the required capacityestimates and are part of the docket fortoday's proposed rule. Additionalanalysis may revise the requiredcapacity estimates for the final rule.

A. Capacity Analysis Results SummaryFor the organic TC wastes (DO18-

D043), EPA estimates that 252,000 tonsof newly identified organic TC sludgesand solids will be managed off-site andrequire alternative treatment as a resultof today's proposed rule.

EPA estimates that much smallerquantities of the other listed wastesincluded in today's proposed rule willrequire alternative treatment. Inparticular approximately 4,600 tons ofcoke by-products (K141-K145, K147and K148) nonwastewaters are currentlybeing land disposed. No K141-K145,K147 and K148 wastewatqrs arecurrently being land disposed. Themajority of these nonwastewaters are

likely to be recycled and, therefore,alternative treatment may not berequired. Fewer than 100 tons ofchlorinated toluene (K149-K151)nonwastewaters are currently being landdisposed and will require alternativetreatment due to the LDRs. No K149-K151 wastewaters are currently beingland disposed.. The quantities of radioactive wastes

mixed with wastes included in today'sproposed rule and currently 'eing landdisposed are uncertain.

EPA has very limited informationwhich differentiates high TOC D001ignitable wastes from low TOC D001ignitable wastes, particularly withreference to the type of Class I injectionwell (i.e., nonhazardous versushazardous) the wastes are disposed into.However, the information the Agencydoes have indicates that both D001ignitable wastes and D012-D017 TCpesticide wastes are deep well injectedinto Class I hazardous wells with no-migration petitions. EPA estimates thai,based on management practices, little ifany diluted high'TOC ignitable waste isinjected into Class I nonhazardouswells, and no more than 419 tons ofD012-D017 pesticide wastes are deepwell injected into class I wells withoutno-migration petitions.

EPA estimates that 3 million tons ofhazardous soil contaminated withpreviously regulated wastes arepresently land disposed without priortreatment. 2 The Agency also estimatesthat 234,000 tons of hazardous soil and34,000 tons of hazardous debriscontaminated with the newly identifiedorganic TC wastes are currently beingmanaged off-site and will requirealternative treatment.

In addition, EPA expects a one-timegeneration of hazardous soilcontaminated with F037 and F038petroleum refining wastes ofapproximately 180,000 tons in 1994.This one-time generation is due to thecleanout or closure of surfaceimpoundments at petroleum refineries.The estimation of 180,000 tons wasbased upon information submitted toEPA by petroleum refineries and anassessment of "typical" quantities ofsoil excavated during impoundmentclosures. Absent additional information,EPA expects a proportionate number ofthese surface impoundment closures tobe completed prior to the effective date

2These wastes include soil contaminated withThird Third wastes that were granted a two-yearcapacity variance In the Third Third rule (55 FR22520). This national capacity variance expired onMay 8. 1992. However, the Agency granted anational cae-by-case extension to hazardous soilcontaminated with Third Third wastes whichexpired May 8, 1993.



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

of this rulemaking. Thus, EPA estimatesapproximately 90,000 tons of hazardoussoil contaminated with F037 and F038would require treatment as a result ofthis rulemaking. EPA requestscomments on the timing of the surfaceimpoundment closures and the affectedquantities of wastes.

Table I lists each waste code forwhich EPA is proposing LDR standardstoday. For each code, this tableindicates whether EPA is proposing togrant a national capacity variance forsurface-disposed wastes. EPA is notproposing to grant a national capacityvariance for newly identified organic TCwastes. However, the Agency isproposing to grant two-year nationalcapacity variances for mixed radioactivewastes (i.e., radioactive wastes mixedwith newly identified TC organicconstituents D018-D043), for hazardoussoil and debris contaminated withnewly listed and identified wastescovered under this proposal, andhazardous soil contaminated with PhaseI wastes. EPA is also proposing toextend the effective date for compliancewith treatment standards for all wastecodes covered by this rulemaking bygranting a three-month national capacityvariance. This extension would notapply to wastes with a specified longernational capacity variance. EPA isproposing to delay the effective datebecause the Agency realizes that evenwhere data indicate that sufficient

treatment capacity exists, such capacitymay not be immediately available.Additional time may be required todetermine what compliance entails,redesign tracking documents, possiblyadjust facility operations, and possiblysegregate wastestreams. EPA believesthese legitimate delays can beencompassed within a short-termcapacity variance because the ability toget wastes to the treatment capacity ina lawful manner is an inherent part ofassessing available capacity.

EPA's recently promulgated final ruleaddressing corrective actionmanagement units (CAMUs) andtemporary units (Tus) (publishedFebruary 16, 1993 at 58 FR 8658) islikely to reduce the quantity ofremediation wastes and soil subject tothe land disposal restrictions byreducing the quantity of remediationwaste and soil excavated and also byreducing the volume of materialmanaged off-site. As a result, theCAMU/TU rule is likely to free upcurrent hazardous waste treatment anddisposal capacity and reduce thedemand for future capacity,

In summary, the CAMU/TU rule isdesigned to facilitate RCRA correctiveactions and CERCLA remediations byproviding that remediation wastesmanaged within CAMUs and Tus willnot be subject to the RCRA landdisposal restrictions requirements. TheCAMU rule does not apply to wastes

generated from ongoing productionprocesses or other industrial activities;it applies only to remediation wastesmanaged in implementing remedialactions, For example, under the final.CAMU provisions, remediation wastesmay be excavated from several isolatedareas at a facility, treated in a centrallocation on-site, and disposed in aCAMU without triggering the LDRs orother RCRA land disposal unitrequirements. CAMUs tan be used only

* at' facilities regulated under subtitle C ofRCRA, at CERCLA sites wheredetermined to be applicable or relevantand appropriate requirements (ARARs),and under some state remedial programs(i.e., CAMUs cannot be used at facilitiesthat are not currently remediating underfederal or state authorities) and can beused only with the permission of thepermit writer.

As a result, EPA believes that the,CAMU rule will reduce the volume ofremediation waste requiring treatmentto LDR standards. In particular, ' .incineration and off-site managementare likely to be used less frequently thanthey currently are, while on-sitemanagement of in-situ and excavatedsoil will increase. Although estimates ofthe quantity of remediation waste andhazardous soil that will be affected bythe CAMU is unknown, EPA estimatesthat about 1,500 facilities subject to theRCRA corrective action requirementswill use CAMUs.

TABLE 1-VARIANCES FOR NEWLY LISTED AND IDENTIFIED WASTESrYes" Indicates EPA is Proposing to Grant a Variance]

Disposal UnitWaste Type Landfill Land treat- Surface ir- Waste pile Deepwell

ment poundment

High TOC D001 Wastes ................................................................. No No No No NoD012-D017 Wastes, ...................... I ................................................ No NO No No NoD018-0043 Nonwastewaters ....................................................... No No No No N/AK141-K145 Wastes ................................................................... ... No No No No NoK147-K148 Wastes ........................................................................ No No No No NoK149-K151 Wastes ....................................................................... No No No No NoMixed Radioactive .......................................................................... Yes Yes Yes Yes N/ASoil (Prey. Regulated Wastes)b ..................... No_ No No No N/ASod (Phase I Wastes) .......................................................... Yes Yes Yes Yes N/ASoil (Phase II Wastes)c. ................................................................ Yes Yes Yes Yes N/ADebris (Phase II Wastes)c ............................................................. Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A

NIA means Not applicable.,Newly identified TC wastes that were not previously hazardous by the old EP Leaching Procedure.b EPA has previously granted a two-year national capacity variance to soil contaminated with previously regulated wastes.c EPA is proposing to grant a two-year national capacity vaiance for hazardous soil and debris contaminated with Phase Ii wastes, including

mixed radioactive/Phase II wastes.

B. Analysis of Available Capacity

The analysis of commercial 6apacityfor newly identified wastes is basedprimarily on the TSDR Survey capacitydata set. data received in response to

previous LDR notices and regulations,and data received in voluntary datasubmissions. These data includeestimates of available capacity atcommercial combustion facilities (i.e.,incinerators and boilers and industrial

furnaces (BIFs)), other conventionaltreatment facilities, and innovativetechnology vendors.

Combustion capacity. Combustioncapacity for liquid hazardous wastes hashistorically been more readily available

48139



48140 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 I Proposed Rules

than capacity for sludges and solids.Commercial capacity for combustion ofsludges and solids is available at bothincinerators and industrial furnaces(primarily cement kilns that areauthorized to accept hazardous waste).Because of the new regulations andpolicies regarding the burning ofhazardous wastes in boilers andindustrial furnaces, many commercialcement kiln facilities are currentlychanging their operational practices.The effect of these new combustioncontrols and other changes will beaddressed in future revisions to capacityestimates for wastes regulated in thisfinal rule.

The types of wastes cement kilns areable to burn are limited by air emissionlimits, feed system limitations, andproduct (i.e., cement) qualityconsiderations. For instance, cementquality considerations generally requirethat wastes burned in cement kilns havea heating value of at least 5.000 Btu/lb.In addition, combustion capacity maybe limited by chemical characteristics,constituent levels, and physicalproperties of the waste.

Information available to EPAindicates that at least 192,000 tons/yearof commercial combustion capacity areavailable for all newly identified TCorganic sludges and solids, includingsoil and debris. However, EPA recentlyreceived data from the Hazardous WasteTreatment Council (HWTC) stating thata survey of their members showedapproximately 300,000 tons ofincineration capacity is currentlyavailable for solids. If the availablecapacity for cement kilns is added tothis figure and the additional capacityrequired after the expiration of theF037/38 variance is subtracted, therewould be approximately 334,000 tons ofsludge/solids combustion capacityavailable. This quantity of availablecapacity takes into account capacity thatwill be required for Phase I wastes thatwere granted a national capacityvariance (57 FR 37194, August 18,1992), ignitable and corrosive wasteswhose treatment standards were vacated(58 FR 29860, May 24, 1993), wastecharacteristics that affect the ability fora particular facility(s) to treat thewastes, and other factors that may limitcapacity.

In the comments submitted inresponse to the October 24. 1991Advanced Notice of ProposedRulemaking (ANPRM), severalcommenters raised issues regardingEPA's methodology for determiningavailable capacity. Commentersproposed that EPA should not considerplanned capacity since new facilitiesand facility expansions are commonly

delayed; not include capacity fromfacilities that violate environmentalregulations; account for the expirationof capacity variances granted forcombustion in the Third Third rule; andaccount for actual operating time in itsassessment of a facility's available ,capacity. These factors were taken intoaccount in the capacity analysis whereappropriate.

Three commenters also reportedongoing data collection efforts thatmight provide additional information onavailable capacity in the near future.These efforts include surveys beingconducted by the HWTC to determineits members' sludge and solidcombustion capacity and their capacityto treat soil; the Cement Kiln RecyclingCoalition on cement kiln dust issuesthat may contain information on thewaste~burning practices at cement kilns;and Oak Ridge National Laboratories ofmixed radioactive waste generators toassess mixed radioactive wastetreatment capabilities. EPA has receivedconfirmation that HWTC and the CKRCare planning to survey their members onavailable combustion capacity. Becauseof time constraints, this newinformation will be summarized andincluded in the Docket to today'sproposed rule and will be considered inthe capacity analysis for the final rule.

A few of the comments received onthe ANPRM noted factors that may limitthe applicability of commercialcombustion for certain TC wastes. Onecommenter emphasized that EPA mustconsider certain external factors that canlimit Incineration capacity, includingwaste characteristics, such as heatingvalue and chlorine content, that mightaffect waste acceptability; limitationsimposed on wastes, such as TC wastes,which are often managed as bulk solids;packaging and transportationlimitations; limited temporary storagespace at certain facilities; and regulatoryobstacles to permitting newincinerators. EPA requested informationon these factors in the survey offacilities that manage organic TC wastes,including soil and debris, in land-basedunits. This information has been andwill be re-evaluated and taken intoaccount in the capacity analysis for thefinal rule.

Other potential capacity limitationsnoted in the comments were equipmentproblems at commercial facilities thatcan cause disruption in wasteacceptance, and the Boiler andIndustrial Furnace (BIF) rule which maypotentially limit combustion capacity atcement kilns. One commenter alsonoted that if the cement produced by akiln that bums listed hazardous wastesis subject to LDR standards, then cement

kilns should not be considered inavailable capacity estimates.

EPA is also considering the capacityeffects of recent court decisionsregarding the regulation of hazardousconstituents other than those for whichthe waste fails the TC test. EPA solicitscomments on the treatment capacityeffects of requiring facilities to treat theunderlying hazardous constituents inTC organic hazardous wastes to meetthe proposed universal treatmentstandards.

EPA will analyze the results of thecombustion surveys that will beconducted by the Hazardous WasteTreatment Council and the Cement KilnRecycling Coalition. review recentregulatory developments concerningcombustion facilities, and determinehow much combustion capacity will beavailable for wastes covered by this rulewhen it becomes effective.

Other conventional treatmenttechnologies. There are three primaryconventional commercial treatmenttechnologies for the newly identifiedand listed wastes besides combustion:Stabilization, biological treatment, andchemical precipitation. EPA estimatesthat over 1 million tons of stabilizationcapacity, 187,000 tons of biologicaltreatment capacity, and 813.000 tons ofchemical precipitation capacity arecurrently available. In analyzingalternative treatment capacity for -

stabilization, biological treatment, andchemical precipitation for newlyidentified and listed wastes, the Agencybuilt on the capacity analysis conductedfor the Third Third LDR rule. Thisanalysis was based on data contained inthe TSDR Capacity Data Set whichcontains results from the NationalSurvey of Hazardous Waste Treatment,Storage, Disposal and Recycling Survey(the TSDR Survey).

Innovative technologies. There areseveral innovative technologies for thetreatment of hazardous soil includinghydrolysis, vacuum extraction,photolysis, and oxidation. To the extentthat these technologies can be used totreat hazardous soil on-site, the requiredcapacity for combustion will decrease.EPA has limited information oninnovative technologies with regard toboth available capacity and tolimitations of the technologies orconstraints on the use of thesetechnologies. EPA solicits comments onthe use of innovative technologies forthe treatment of hazardous soil.Specifically, EPA requests informationon constraints on the use of thesetechnologies both on- and off-site,including physical or chemicalcharacteristics of the soils, and logisticalconstraints such as permitting.



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

scheduling, etc. EPA also solicits dataon volumes of hazardous soil currentlybeing treated by these technologies,current available capacity, and estimatesof future capacity.

C. Surface Disposed Newly Identifiedand Listed Wastes

1. Required Capacity for NewlyIdentified TC Organics (D018-D043)

The Agency is proposing to developtreatment standards for TC organicnonwastewaters based primarily onincineration performance data. Newlyidentified organic TC wastewaters thatare managed in systems other than thoseregulated under the CWA, thoseregulated under the SDWA that injectTC wastewaters into Class I injectionwells, and those zero discharge facilitiesthat engage in CWA-equivalenttreatment prior to land disposal are alsoaffected by today's proposed rule.(Organic TC wastewaters managed inCWA, SDWA, or CWA-equivalentsystems will be addressed in futurerulemakings, and EPA will makevariance determinations at that time.)The Agency does not have dataindicating that facilities managingorganic TC wastewaters would beimpacted. EPA solicits comments on thequantities of newly identified organicTC wastewaters affected by today'sproposed rule.

EPA developed estimates of thequantities of newly identified TCorganic wastes based on currentmanagement options to comply with theLDR requirements. The Agency alsodeveloped estimates of available on-sitetreatment and recovery capacity. Table2 summarizes available capacity foreach alternative treatment or recoverytechnology required for the newlyidentified Toxicity Characteristicnonwastewaters. The table alsosummarizes the required capacity foreach technology. A comparison ofrequired and available treatmentcapacity indicates that adequatetreatment capacity exists for new TCnonwastewaters. Therefore, EPA is notproposing to grant a national capacityvariance for D018 through D043nonwastewaters. EPA is requestingcomments and any additional data onits assessment that there is adequatetreatment capacity for these wastes.

Table 3 presents the 1993 quantitiesof TC nonwastewaters requiring off-sitetreatment by waste code.

TABLE 2.-REQUIRED AND AVAILABLECAPACITY FOR NEWLY IDENTIFIEDORGANIC TC WASTES'

(All quantities are in tons]

Treatment Available ca- Required ca-technology pacity pacity

Chemical pre-cipitation .... 2813,000 10,000

Liquid com-bustion ...... 541,000 311,000

Sludgelsolidcombustion 334,000 253,000

Stabilization .. 41,127,000 41,250

1Does not Include hazardous soil anddebris, mixed radioactive wastes, or deepwellinjected wastes.

2Capacity analysis for the Third Third rule.3 These are liquid nonwastewaters.4 Capacity analysis for the proposed Phase I

Newly Listed and Newly Identified Waste rule.

Table 3.-1993 QUANTITIES OF TCNONWASTEWATERS REQUIRING OFF-SITE TREATMENT

[Surface Disposed Wastes in Tons]

Code Non-wastewaters

0018 ........................................ 152,990D019 ............ 8,510D020 ........................................ 6,319D021 .................. ................. 8,484D022 ......................................... 8,3430023 ...................... 3,897D024 ......................................... 5150025 ......................................... 3080026 ......................................... 1,518D027 ...................... 1,1420028 ......................................... 14,1970029 ......................................... 3,8590030 ......................................... 511D031 ......................................... 203D032 ...................................... 3,1090033 ......................................... 4500034 ........................................ 412D035 ......................................... 4,216D036 ......................................... 262D037 ......................................... 612D038 ......................................... 2,2970039 ......................................... 69 0D040 ......................................... 6,583D041 ......................................... 108D042 ......................................... 120D043 ......................................... 16,482

Total ..................................... .252,347

The quantities presented in Table 2do not include used oil because in theMay 1, final listing determination theAgency determined that the TCcharacteristic adequately defines thoseused oils which should be regulated ashazardous waste. Because of the TCregulation and other environmentalregulation, the Agency determined thatit is unnecessary to list used oil beingdisposed as hazardous. Thus, used oilthat is not recycled and that exhibits thetoxicity characteristic would be subject

to the land disposal restrictions. 3 EPAhas not separately quantified theamounts of used oil subject to the LDRs.The Agency requests comments on thequantities and management of the usedoil that exhibits the toxicitycharacteristic and that is subject to theLDRs.2. Required Capacity for Other NewlyListed Organic Wastes

This section presents EPA's analysisof required capacity for other listedorganic wastes including coe by-product wastes and chlorinated tolueneproduction wastes.a. Surface Disposed Coke By-ProductWastesK141 Process residues from the recovery'of

coal tar, including, but not limited to, tarcollecting sump residues from theproduction of coke from coal or therecovery of coke by-products producedfrom coal. This listing does not includeK087 (decanter tank tar sludge fromcoking operations).

K142 Tar storage tank residues from theproduction of coke from coal or therecovery of coke by-products producedfrom coal.

K143 Process residues from the recovery oflight oil, including, but not limited to,those generated in stills, decanters, andwash oil units from the recovery of cokeby-products produced from coal.

K144 Wastewater sump residues from lightoil refining, including, but not limited to,Intercepting or contamination sumpsludges from the recovery of coke by-products produced from coal.

K145 Residues from naphthalene collectionand recovery operations from therecovery of coke by-products producedfrom coal.

K147 Tar storage tank residues from coal tarrefining.

K148 Residues from coal tar distillation,including but not limited to stillbottoms.

For coke by-product nonwastewaters,EPA is proposing to establishconcentration standards based onIncineration. Under the authority ofsection 3007 of RCRA, EPA collectedgeneration and management informationconcerning coke by-product wastes; thisinformation was collected in 1985 and1987. The Agency identified thefollowing annualized quantities ofwastes: 49 tons of K141nonwastewaters, 2,750 tons of K142nonwastewaters, 10 tons of K143nonwastewaters, 304 tons of K144nonwastewaters, 1,408 tons of K147nonwastewaters, and less than 100 tonsof K148 nonwastewaters. EPA identifiedno K145 nonwastewaters that werebeing land disposed. The majority of

"Used oil that is recycled is not subject to theland disposal restrictions. (40 CFR 261.6 (a) and (b))

48141




K141 to K145 nonwastewaters generatedduring that timeframe were recycled orused or energy recovery. Tar storagetank and tar distillation bottoms may beremoved periodically. The Agency issoliciting comments for the aboveestimated quantities which may requirealternative treatment as a result of theLDRs.

Current management practicesindicate that the majority of the newlylisted coke by-product wastes areamenable to recycling, and therefore.alternative treatment may not berequired as a result of today's proposedrule. Thus, EPA believes that adequatecapacity exists to treat the small amountof wastes, if any, that require alternativetreatment.

EPA does not have any informationthat coke by-product wastewaters arecurrently generated. The quantity ofthese wastewaters is assumed to be zero.EPA is soliciting comments on changesof management practices or generationdata on these wastes.

As a result of this analysis. EPA isproposing not to grant a nationalcapacity variance to K141, K142, K143,K144. K145, K147. and K148nonwastewaters and wastewaters.

b. Surface Disposed ChlorinatedToluene WastesK149 Distillation bottoms from the

production of alpha (methyl) chlorinatedtoluene, ring-chlorinated toluene.benzoyl chlorides, and compound withmixtures of these functional groups.(This waste does not include stillbottoms from the distillation of benzylchloride.)

K150 Organic residuals, excluding spentcarbon adsorbent, from the spentchlorine gas and hydrochloric acidrecovery processes associated with theproduction of alpha (methyl) chlorinatedtoluene, ring-chlorinated toluene,benzoyl chlorides and compounds withmixtures of these functional goups.

K151 Wastewater treatment sludges.excluding neutralization and biologicalsludges, generated during the treatmentof wastewaters from the production ofalpha (methyl) chlorinated toluene, ring,chlorinated toluene, benzoyl chloridesand compounds with mixtures of thesefunctional groups.

For wastes generated during theproduction of chlorinated toluene, EPAis proposing to establish concentration-based treatment standards based onincineration for nonwastewaters. EPAcollected generation and managementinformation on wastes generated fromthe production of chlorinated toluene.EPA collected this information underthe authority of section 3007 of RCRAduring engineering site visits in 1988.This capacity analysis incorporates datafrom the section 3007 information

request and engineering site visits. EPA'identified four facilities that producechlorinated toluene wastes.

The Agency has identified no K149nonwastewaters, no K1 50nonwastewaters, and les* than 100 tonsof K151 nonwastewaters that were beingland disposed. For the capacity analysis,EPA assumes that these quantities arecurrently being land disposed and willrequire further treatment as a result oftoday's proposed rule.

EPA does not have any informationthat chlorinated toluene wastewaters arecurrently generated. The quantity ofthese wastewaters is assumed to be zero.EPA is soliciting comments on changesof management practices or generationdata on these wastes.

Because adequate capacity exists totreat these wastes, EPA is not proposingto grant a national capacity variance forK149, K150, and K151 nonwastewatersand wastewaters.

3. Newly Identified TC Wastes ThatWere Not Previously Hazardous by theOld EP Leaching Procedure

In the Third LDR rule (55 FR 22520.June 1, 1990), EPA promulgatedtreatment standards for D012 throughD017 wastes, but only for those wastesthat were previously hazardous by theold EP leaching procedure and remainhazardous under the new TCLP. D012through D017 wastes that were nothazardous by the old EP leachingprocedure but are now hazardous usingthe new TCLP are considered newly-identified D012 through D017 wastes.

In response to the ANPRM (56 FR55160, October 24, 1991), EPA did notreceive any estimates for additionalwaste quantities (or newly-identifiedwastes) due to the use of TCLP ratherthan the EP leaching procedure. EPAbelieves that the quantities of the newly-identified D012 through D017 wastesdue to the use of the TCLP rather thanthe EP leaching procedure are small, ifany, and, hence, expects little or noadditional demand for commercialtreatment capacity as a result of theLDRs. Because sufficient capacity existsto treat these wastes, EPA is proposingnot to grant the newly-identified D012through D017 wastes a national capacityvariance.

D. Required and Available Capacity forNewly Identified Wastes Mixed withRadioactive Components

EPA has defined a mixed RCRA/radioactive waste as any matrixcontaining a RCRA hazardous waste anda radioactive waste subject to theAtomic Energy Act (53 FR 37045, 37046,September 23, 1988). These mixedwastes are subject to the RCRA

hazardous waste regulations, includingthe land disposal restrictions, regardlessof the type of radioactive constituentsthat these wastes contain.

Radioactive wastes that are mixedwith spent solvents, dioxins, Californialist wastes, or First Third, Second Third,or Third Third wastes are subject to theland disposal restrictions alreadypromulgated for these hazardous wastes.EPA granted national capacity variancesfor all of these mixed wastes because ofa lack of national treatment capacity.Today's rule addresses the radioactivewastes that contain newly listedhazardous wastes being restricted intoday's proposed rulemaking.

Based on comments received by EPAin response to the ANPRM (56 FR55160) and previous rulemakings, theU.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is theprimary generator of mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes. A variety of non-DOE facilities also generate mixedwastes, including nuclear power plants,academic and medical institutions, andindustrial facilities.

In response to the ANPRM, DOEdeveloped and submitted data on itsgeneration of mixed RCRA/radioactivewastes and its capacity available to treatsuch wastes. To update and refine itsdata, DOE requested 37 DOE FieldOrganizations to identify andcharacterize their mixed waste streams,including developing profiles of thenewly regulated TC organic wastestreams. Twenty DOE FieldOrganizations responded to the datarequest and provided waste stream-specific data, including annualgeneration rates and the inventory ofsuch wastes expected by May 1993. InApril, 1993, this Interim Mixed WasteInventory Report was prepared andincluded a national inventory of allmixed wastes that are currently storedor will be generated over the next fiveyears, and a national inventory of mixedwaste treatment capacities andtechnologies. The report provides wastestream-specific and treatment facility-specific information for each DOE sitein each state. EPA has not completed itsreview of the data contained in thisreport, and consequently, the data werenot available for use in this proposedrule. Additionally, the six-month publiccomment period for the Interim Reporthas not yet expired. EPA will update theresults of the capacity analysis for thefinal rule with the results from the FinalMixed Waste Inventory Report.

Data on some of the other DOEfacilities were derived from other datasources. DOE also submitted datagathered from its Field Organizations onthe availability of its existing and




planned capacity to treat mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes, including TC wastes.

While DOE has provided its bestavailable data on mixed wastegeneration, uncertainty remains aboutmixed waste generation at DOE (andnon-DOE) facilities. For example, not allDOE Field Organizations responded toDOE's request for information. Inaddition, DOE recently completed anInterim Mixed Waste Inventory Report(April 1993). This information will beincorporated into the final capacityanalysis. In addition, the data submittedto EPA generally did not include DOEenvironmental restoration wasteswhich, when generated, will increasethe quantity of newly identified mixedwastes that require treatment.

Although DOE is in the process ofincreasing its capacity to manage mixedRCRAlradioactive wastes, informationsupplied by DOE indicates that asignificant capacity shortfall currentlyexists for the treatment of mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes, much of which is instorage facilities awaiting treatment.DOE has indicated that it will generallygive treatment priority to mixed wastesthat are already restricted underprevious LDR rules (e.g., radioactivewastes mixed with solvents, dioxins,California list wastes, or First Third,Second Third, or Third Third wastes.)DOE is also concerned about theavailability of treatment capacity formixed wastes that will be generated asa result of site remediation activities.EPA's review of non-DOE data sourcesalso showed a significant lack ofcommercial treatment capacity.

Despite the uncertainty aboutquantities of mixed radioactive wastescontaining newly listed and identifiedwastes that will require treatment as aresult of today's proposed rule, any newcommercial capacity that becomesavailable will be needed for mixedradioactive wastes that were regulatedin previous LDR rulemakings and whosevariances have already expired. Thus,EPA has determined that sufficientalternative treatment capacity is notavailable, and is proposing to grant atwo-year national capacity variance formixed RCRAIradioactive wastewatersand nonwastewaters contaminated withnewly listed and identified wasteswhose standards are being proposedtoday.

E. Required and Available Capacity forHigh TOC Ignitable, TC Pesticide, andNewly Listed Wastes Injected into ClassI Deep Wells

As explained in previous rulesconcerning land disposal restrictions(see e.g., 52 FR 32450, August 27, 1987;53 FR 30912, August 16, 1988; 55 FR

22520, June 1, 1990), EPA is allocatingavailable capacity first to those wastesdisposed in surface units, second towastes resulting from CERCLA andRCRA clean ups, and finally tounderground injected wastes. Based onthis hierarchical approach, the Agencyis proposing the following effectivedates for injected wastes.

EPA has very limited informationwhich differentiates high TOC DO01ignitable wastes from low TOC D001ignitable wastes, particularly withreference to the type of Class ! injectionwell (i.e. nonhazardous versushazardous) the wastes are disposed into.However, the information the Agencydoes have indicates that both Dooignitable wastes and D012-D017 TCpesticide wastes are deep well injectedinto Class I hazardous wells with no-migration petitions. EPA estimates that,based on management practices, little ifany diluted high TOC ignitable waste isinjected into Class I nonhazardouswells, and no more than 419 tons ofD012-D017 pesticide wastes are deepwell injected into Class I wells withoutno-migration petitions.

The following wastes are the newlylisted wastes for which numericalstandards are being proposed, andwhich current data indicate are notbeing underground injected:Coke Production Wastes: K141, K142, K143,

K144, K145, K147, K148Chlorotoluene Production Wastes: K149,

K150. K151

Therefore, EPA is proposing that thesewastes be prohibited from undergroundinjection upon the date of finalpromulgation of this rule. EPA is notproposing to grant a national capacityvariance for any of these waste types.The Agency requests further commenton whether any of these wastes arebeing injected. Comment is alsorequested on what quantities of wastesare being injected, and on thecharacteristics of these wastes.

F. Required and Available Capacity forHazardous Soil and DebrisContaminated With Newly Listed andIdentified Wastes

This capacity analysis focuses onhazardous soil and debris contaminatedwith wastes whose treatment standardsare proposed in this rule as well ashazardous soils contaminated withPhase I wastes.

Based on data currently available,EPA estimates that 3 million tons ofhazardous soil contaminated withpreviously regulated wastes arepresently disposed in hazardous wastelandfills without prior treatment. Thesewastes were granted a two-year national

capacity variance in the Third Thirdrule (55 FR 22520) which expired inMay 1992. However, EPA granted a one-year national case-by-case extension forhazardous soil contaminated withpreviously regulated wastes requiringtreatment by incineration, retorting, orvitrification. This variance expiredinMay 1993. Consequently, these wastesmay undergo treatment prior to landdisposal. In order to determine thecapacity available to treat newly listedand identified hazardous soil, EPA mustconsider the impact that the treatmentof hazardous soil contaminated withwastes regulated in previous LDRrulemakings will have on availablecommercial capacity EPA used severaldata sources to estimate the totalquantity of land-disposed hazardoussoil and debris. These sources include:responses to the Advance Notice to theProposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for thenewly identified wastes (56 FR 55160);the newly developed TC data setdiscussed earlier, information providedduring a series of roundtable meetingsheld by the Agency in May and June of1991 with representatives of companiesinvolved in the management anddisposal of hazardous debris and soil;the Biennial Reporting System (BRS);Records of Decision (RODs) ofSuperfund sites; the National Survey ofTreatment, Storage, Disposal andRecycling Facilities (TSDR Survey); andthe National Survey of Hazardous WasteGenerators.4

In general, EPA found severelimitations in estimating the totalquantity of hazardous soil because theavailable data are incomplete andpoorly defined. The reason for this lackof comprehensive data is several-fold:

First, the regulated community reportedthat their data generally are notclassified by soil but rather by wastecode and waste description; second, thedata from the TSDR and GeneratorSurveys were not collected andcategorized specifically for soil, and soilwas often mixed with debris 5 and wasfrequently contaminated with more thanone waste, thereby making thehazardous soil quantity determinationsdifficult; third, TSDR and GeneratorSurveys do not include data onhazardous soil contaminated with

4EPA conducted the surveys during 1987 and1988 to obtain comprehensive data on the nation'scapacity for managing hazardous waste and thevolumes of hazardous waste being land disposed aswell as data on waste generation, wastecharacterization, and hazardous waste treatmentcapacity in units exempt from RCRA permitting.

5Data submitted by TSDFs in roundtablemeetings sometimes combine contaminated debriswith soil. Furthermore. TSDFs have stated thathistorical waste data are generally not kept by soilclassifications.

48143



48144 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September i4, 1993 / Proposed Rules ,

newly identified wastes because theywere not considered hazardous wastesin 1986; and fourth, the BRS only coversactive generators of hazardous wasteand therefore may not capture soilvolumes generated at inactive sites.

1. Waste Generationa. Hazardous soil. The hazardous soil

covered by this proposal includes soilcontaminated with D018-D043 organicTC wastes, soils contaminated withcoke-by product wastes and chlorinatedtoluene wastes, mixed radioactive soilscontaminated with Phase II wastes, andsoils contaminated with Phase I wastes.The largest quantity of hazardous soil inthis proposal is from hazardous soilcontaminated with D018-D043 organicTC wastes. Based on the results of theTC survey, EPA's current estimate forthis quantity that will require off-sitetreatment is 234,000 tons per year. Table4 presents the estimated 1993 quantities*of soil and debris contaminated withnewly identified TC wastes requiringoff-site treatment, by waste code andtype. The results of the newlydeveloped TC data set discussed in theintroductory section of this chapter havebeen used for these demand estimatesand are part of the docket for today'srule. Additional analysis of the surveydata will be incorporated in the capacityanalysis for the final rule.6

One commenter to the ANPRMindicated that as many as 3,000manufactured gas plants (MGP) may begenerating TC-contaminated soil anddebris. Most of the soil and debrisgenerated at these plants is expected tobe contaminated with benzene. WhileEPA acknowledges that the quantities ofTC-contaminated soil from MGP arepotentially large, the Agency expectsthat most of this quantity will bemanaged on-site and will not requireoff-site or commercial treatmentcapacity. EPA requests updatedinformation on the generation andmanagement of these wastes and onwhether there will be sufficientcommercial treatment services to treatthese wastes on-site.

TABLE 4.-1993 QUANTITIES OF TC-CONTAMINATED SOIL AND DEBRISREQUIRING OFF-SITE TREATMENT

[Surface Disposed Wastes in Tons)

Code Soil Debris

0018 .............13019 ................D020 ...

161,1661

32

27,574,195

16

6The total quantity of all TC hazardous soilsimpacted by LDR regulations may increase asfurther regulations are developed for TC wasteswhich are deferred to future rulemakings.

TABLE 4.-1993 QUANTITIES OF TC-CONTAMINATED SOIL AND DEBRISREQUIRING OFF-SITE TREATMENT-Continued

[Surface Disposed Wastes in Tons]

Code Soil Debris

D021 ......................... 29,760 212D022 ......................... 139 71D023 ......................... 31 57D024 ......................... 30 500025 ......................... 30 60D026 ......................... 111 1,270D027 ......................... 1,795 244D028 ......................... 976 314D029 .................... 1,831 324D030 ........................ 28,938 90D031 ......................... 17 13D032 ......................... 59 68D033 ......................... 60 1030034 ......................... 60 29D035 ......................... 461 293D036 ......................... 113 65D037 ......................... 336 227D038 ......................... 567 538D039 ......................... 2,789 961D040 ....................... 3,967 878D041 .......................... 17 220042 ......................... 17 22D043 ....................... 66 85

Total ....... ............ 233,845 33,781

EPA believes mixed radioactive soilscontaminated with Phase II wastes arecurrently generated. For example, DOEinformed EPA that mixed radioactivesoil contaminated with newly identifiedTC organic wastes are generated at a rateof 1.5 m 3 per year. Additionally, 23.7 m 3

of TC organic mixed radioactive soilsare being stored awaiting treatment.Therefore EPA does not believe there issufficient treatment capacity for the TCorganic mixed radioactive soilsgenerated annually.

Soils for Phase I wastes are beingregulated under this rulemaking. Thelargest source of hazardous soilcontaminated with Phase I wastes areF037 and F038 wastes generated atpetroleum refining facilities. EPAbelieves that the quantities of hazardoussoil contaminated with other Phase Iwastes are relatively small. EPA hasreceived information from petroleumrefineries indicating that most facilitiesthat were managing F037 and F038wastes in surface impoundments aremodifying their operations in some way.To the extent that a proportion ofsurface impoundments will be closedwith waste removal, hazardous soil willbe generated.

Information submitted to EPA bysome petroleum refining facilitiesindicates that many surfaceimpoundments managing F037 andF038 wastes will be closed with wasteremoval and that a significant number of

these closures will occur during 1994.Closures with waste removal mayinvolve the generation of hazardous soil.Based on assessments of the "typical"quantities of soil excavated duringsurface impoundment closures, EPAestimates that as much as 90,000 tons ofF037- and F038-hazardous soil may beimpacted by this rule. EPA stresses thatthese quantities represent a one-timegeneration of soil and are not expectedto recur after 1994. EPA requestscomments on this estimate and thetiming.

EPA estimates that approximately 3million tons of hazardous soilcontaminated with previously regulatedwastes are land disposed per year. EPAbelieves these quantities will initiallyhave a significant impact on thecapacity available to treat newly listedand identified hazardous soil. EPAsolicits comment on this quantityestimate. Comments from theroundtable meetings indicate thatdecommissioning of large chemicalplants and increasing remediationactivities can significantly increase theestimated quantity of hazardous soil.

Several commenters to the ANPRMindicated that EPA may haveunderestimated the annual quantities ofhazardous soil generated. Somecommenters provided site specific dataon the quantities of soil generatedduring remedial actions. The Agency isincorporating these data in its analysisof the required capacity for hazardoussoil. Other commenters indicated thatvery large quantities of hazardous soilcontaminated with wood preservingwastes and with former Bevill wasteswill be generated in the near future. TheAgency acknowledges these comments.However, hazardous soil contaminatedwith wood preserving wastes and withformer Bevill wastes will be addressedin a future rulemaking.

EPA notes that the promulgation ofnew soil standards may encourage thedevelopment of on-site treatmenttechnologies or the increased use ofinnovative technologies. EPA requestscomments on the use of innovativetechnologies for hazardous soil.Specifically, EPA requests informationon constraints to the use of thesetechnologies both on- and off-site,including physical or chemicalcharacteristics of the wastes, andlogistical constraints such as permitting,scheduling, etc.

b. Hazardous debris. This rule coversdebris contaminated with the newlylisted and identified wastes covered inthis proposal. An examination of thedata from the TC survey indicates thatapproximately 34,000 tons of debris




contaminated with D018-D043 wastesmay be currently land disposed.

SA believes mixed radioactive debriscontaminated with Phase II wastes arecurrently generated. For example, DOEinformed EPA that mixed radioactivedebris contaminated with newlyidentified TC organic wastes aregenerated at a rate of 46.36 m3 per year.Additionally, 957.42 m3 of TC organicmixed radioactive debris is being storedawaiting treatment. Therefore EPA doesnot believe there is sufficient treatmentcapacity for the TC organic mixedradioactive debris generated annually.

2. Current Management PracticesWaste generators and TSDFs report

that most of the soils contaminated withD018-DO43 newly identified organic TCwastes are currently landfilled withoutprior treatment. Incineration is thecommercial off-site treatmenttechnology reportedly available forthese wastes.

Other than incineration for treatingorganic TC-contaminated soil, EPA hasno information on the commercial off-site availability of other treatmenttechnologies (e.g., low temperaturethermal desorption, bioremediation,solvent extraction.) Although severalcommenters to the ANPRM mentionedbioremediation as an alternative toincineration for the treatment of TC-contaminated soils, no commenterprovided facility specific information oncommercially available off-sitetreatment capacity for bioremediation.The lack of off-site commercial capacityfor technologies other than incinerationwas confirmed by responses to EPA'srequest for voluntary information fromvendors of innovative technologiesprovided in the Vendor InformationSystem for Innovative TreatmentTechnologies (VISITT). Although EPAhas received no information thatspecial-handling problems may limit thequantity of hazardous soil that currentlycan be treated by incineration, EPA isrequesting information on special-handling concerns with managing thesewastes.

3. Available Capacity and CapacityImplications

a. Hazardous soil. EPA is proposingthat hazardous soil be treated prior toland disposal using one or more of thefollowing general methods of soiltreatment: Biological treatment,chemical extraction, soil washing.dechlorination, low-temperaturethermal desorption, high-temperaturedistillation, thermal destruction,stabilization, and vitrification. EPA hasdetermined that available'destruction(e.g., incineration) capacity is

inadequate, although adequateimmobilization (e.g.. stabilization)capacity exists. Inadequate capacity alsoexists for many of the proposed ;technologies in the extraction family(e.g., soil washing, chemical extraction).Much of the capacity of extractiontechnologies currently used todecontaminate soils, such-as soilwashing, may not be permitted prior tothe effective date of this rule, althoughEPA is exploring options to expedite thepermitting of these technologies. Inconclusion, EPA anticipates that the off-site commercial capacity available totreat hazardous soils at the time thisrule becomes effective will be limited toincineration and stabilization. EPArecognizes that innovative technologiesare also available to treat hazardous soil.EPA requests comments on thepracticality and current availability ofthese technologies.

EPA is proposing to grant a two-yearnational capacity variance for soilscontaminated with newly identified TCorganic wastes (D018-D043) and K141-K145, K147, K148, K149, K150, andK151 wastes. The variance is necessarybecause of the general lack of capacityto treat soil contaminated with organics,and the large quantity of soilcontaminated with previously regulatedorganic wastes, for which the varianceshave expired. EPA is also proposing togrant a two-year national capacityvariance to soils contaminated withnewly listed wastes covered in thePhase I rule (i.e.. F037 and F038petroleum refining wastes; U328, U352,and U359; K107-K110; Kill and K112;K117, K118, and K136; and K123-K136.) The quantities of soilcontaminated with F037 and F038generated as a result of surfaceimpoundment closures are estimated tobe approximately 90,004 tons. EPAexpects the quantities of soilcontaminated with other Phase I wastesto be relatively small.

As discussed above, EPA estimatesthat as much as 3 million tons ofhazardous soil contaminated withpreviously regulated wastes are landdisposed per year. Any newly proposedcommercial capacity will be needed forsoil that is contaminated with wastesregulated in previous LDR rulemakings.The proposed variance may allowsufficient time for the installation andpermitting of the treatment systemsnecessary to handle the quantities ofsoils contaminated with newly listedwastes covered in the Phase I rule.. The Agency's qualitative argument is

based on this need and the lack of solidincineration as well as other capacity formanaging hazardous soils. The Agencysolicits comments on this approach and

on estimates of available treatmentcapacity.

b. Hazardous debris. EPA. estimatesthat approximately 34,000 tons of debriscontaminated with newly identifiedorganic TC wastes are currently landdisposed and require off-sitecommercial treatment capacity. Thecapacity analysis conducted for debriscontaminated with Phase I wastesindicates that insufficient capacityexists to treat debris contaminated withorganics.

EPA is proposing to grant a two-yearcapacity variance for debriscontaminated with newly listed andidentified wastes covered under thisproposal (i.e., newly identified organicTC wastes (D018-D043), K141-K145,and K147-K151 wastes.) The Agency isconcerned that there will be insufficienttime for facilities generating these debrisand for potential treaters to plan for themanagement of such debris after theexpiration of the one-year renewal, of thehazardous debris case-by-case capacityvariance in May 1994. EPA also realizesthat there may be logistical problemsassociated with the management ofhazardous debris cogenerated withhazardous soils contaminated withwastes covered in this proposal. Inexamining the generation of hazardousdebris, EPA has learned that debris andsoil are usually cogenerated; therefore,EPA is proposing to grant a two-yearnational capacity variance to debriscontaminated with wastes covered bythis proposal. EPA requests commentson this approach.

EPA notes that if soil and debris arecontaminated with newly identifiedorganic wastes covered in this rule andalso with newly identified inorganicwastes whose treatment standard isbased on an available technology, thesoil and debris would remain eligiblefor the national capacity variance. Thisis because the hazardous soil and debriswould still have to be treated by sometechnologies that EPA has evaluated asbeing unavailable at present.

XmI. State Authority

A. Applicability of Rules in AuthorizedStates

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPAmay authorize qualified States toadminister and enforce the RCRAprogram within the State. Followingauthorization, EPA retains enforcementauthority under sections 3008, 3013,and 7003 of RCRA, although authorizedStates have primary enforcementresponsibility. The standards andrequirements for authorization arefound in 40 CFR part 271.

48145




Prior to the Hazardous and SolidWaste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), aState with final authorizationadministered its hazardous wasteprogram in lieu of EPA administeringthe Federal program in that State. TheFederal requirements no longer appliedin the authorized State, and EPA couldnot issue permits for any facilities thatthe State was authorized to permit.When new, more stringent Federalrequirements were promulgated orenacted, the State was obliged to enactequivalent authority within specifiedtime frames. New Federal requirementsdid not take effect in an authorized Stateuntil the State adopted the requirementsas State law.

In contrast, under RCRA section3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), newrequirements and prohibitions imposedby HSWA take effect in authorizedStates at the same time that they takeeffect in nonauthorized States. EPA isdirected to carry out these requirementsand prohibitions in authorized States,including the issuance of permits, untilthe State is granted authorization to doso. While States must still adopt HSWA-related provisions as State law to retainfinal authorization, HSWA isimplemented Federally in authorizedStates in the interim.

Certain portions of today's rule arebeing proposed pursuant to sections3004(d) through (k), and (in), of RCRA(42 U.S.C. 6924(d) through (k), and (in)).It is proposed that these be added toTable 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), whichidentifies the Federal programrequirements that are promulgatedpursuant to HSWA and that take effectin all States, regardless of theirauthorization status. States may applyfor either interim or final authorizationfor the HSWA provisions in Table 1, asdiscussed in the following section ofthis preamble. Table 2 in 40 CFR271.1(j) is also proposed to be modifiedto indicate that this rule is a self-implementing provision of HSWA.

B. Effect on State Authorization

As noted above, EPA is todayproposing a rule that in part, when final,will be implemented in authorizedStates until their programs are modifiedto adopt these rules and themodification is approved by EPA.Because the rule is proposed pursuantto HSWA, a State submitting a programmodification may apply to receive eitherinterim or final authorization underRCRA section 3006(g)(2)or 3006(b),respectively, on the basis of'requirements that are substantiallyequivalent or equivalent to EPA's. Theprocedures and schedule for Stateprogram modifications for either interim

or final authorization are described in40 CFR 271.21. It should be noted thatHSWA interim authorization expired onJanuary 1, 1993 (see 40 CFR 271.24(c)),although EPA is currently developing a.rule which would extend this date.

Section 271.21(e)(2) requires thatStates that have final authorization mustmodify their programs to reflect Federalprogram changes and must subsequentlysubmit the modification to EPA forapproval. The deadline by which theState would have to modify its programto adopt these regulations is specified insection 271.21(e). Once EPA approvesthe modification, the State requirementsbecome Subtitle C RCRA requirements.

States with authorized RCRAprograms may already haverequirements similar to those in today'sproposed rule. These State regulationshave not been assessed against theFederal regulations being proposedtoday to determine whether they meetthe tests for authorization. Thus, a Stateis not authorized to implement theserequirements in lieu of EPA until the.State program modifications areapproved. Of course, states with existingstandards could continue to administerand enforce their standards as a matterof State law. In implementing theFederal program, EPA will work withStates under agreements to minimizeduplication of efforts. In many cases,EPA will be able to defer to the Statesin their efforts to implement theirprograms rather than take separateactions under Federal authority.

States that submit official applicationsfor final authorization less than 12months after the effective date of theseregulations are not required to includestandards equivalent to theseregulations in their application.However, the State must modify itsprogram by the deadline set forth in§ 271.21(e). States that submit officialapplications for final authorization 12months after the effective date of theseregulations must include standardsequivalent to these regulations in theirapplication. The requirements a statemust meet when submitting its inalauthorization application are set forth in40 CFR 271.3.

The regulations being proposed todayneed not affect the State's UndergroundInjection Control (UIC) primacy status.A State currently authorized toadminister the UIC program under theSafe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) couldcontinue to do so without seekingauthority to administer the amendmerptsthat will be promulgated at a futuredate. However, a State which wished toimplement part 148 and receiveauthorization to grant exemptions fromthe land disposal restrictions would

have to demonstrate that it-had therequisite authority to administersections 3004(f) and (g) of RCRA. Theconditions under which such an.authorization may take place aresummarized below and are discussed ina July 15, 1985 final rule (50 FR 28728).

XIV. Regulatory Requirements

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuantto Executive Order 12291

Executive Order No. 12291 requiresthat a regulatory agency consider foreach regulation the potential benefits ascompared to the potential costs tosociety. To this end, for all major rules,a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)must be conducted. An RIA consists in'a quantification of the potential benefits,costs and economic impacts of a rule. Amajor rule is defined as a regulationestimated to result in: (1) An annualeffect on the economy of $100 millionor more; (2) A major increase in costs orprices for consumers, individuals,industries, Federal, State, and localgovernment agencies, or geographicregions; or (3) Significant adverse effectson competition, employment,investment, productivity, innovation, oron the ability of United States-basedenterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or exportmarkets.

The Agency estimated the costs oftoday's proposed rule to determine if itis a "major" regulation as defined by theExecutive Order. Today's rule isestimated to have total annualincremental costs of $330 million;therefore, today's proposed rule isconsidered a major rule. Because today'sproposed rule is a major rule, theAgency has performed an RegulatoryImpact Analysis, analyzing the benefits,.costs, and economic impacts of today'sproposed rule.

More detailed discussions of themethodology and results sections maybe found in the background document,"Regulatory Impact Analysis of theLand Disposal Restrictions for the Phase2 Newly Listed and Identified Wastesand Contaminated Soils," which hasbeen placed in the docket for today'sproposed rule.

1. Methodology Sectiona. Cost methodology. In today's

notice, the Agency-is proposingtreatment standards for newly identifiedwastes, consolidating waste stream LDRrequirements into a "universal" set ofLDR standards, as well as establishingstandards for treatment of hazardoussoil. The newly identified wastescovered under today's rule includewastes displaying the organic toxicity



Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules / 48147

characteristic (TC), and pesticide wastesthat were not previously hazardous bythe EP leaching procedure (see sectionIV of today's preamble for TC organicand pesticide wastes), as well as CokeProduction wastes and Chlorotoluenes(see section V of today's preamble.)

The Agency has not estimated thepotential changes in compliance costsfor the proposal to adopt the universalLDR requirements. In general, theAgency believes that many standardswould not change significantly, and.thus not significantly alter currentcompliance costs. However, the Agencyrequests comment on the economicimpacts of the universal treatmentstandards proposal. Of the newlyregulated hazardous soil in today's rule,the only newly identified wastescontaminating soil are TC wastes. Thereare some volumes of F037 and F038listed waste which has been found tocontaminate soils, however thesevolumes are only generated on a non-routine basis, and are believed to benegligible. The volumes of soils whichare under existing LDR regulations willreceive a potential relief from regulationas the Agency is reducing the treatmentstandards to which these soils mustcomply. Finally, the Agency isproposing some new testing andrecordkeeping requirements, as well asreducing other recordkeepingrequirements.

The cost analysis seeks to estimate theincremental costs which will beincurred as a result of the proposedrequirements. The incremental costs areestimated as the costs incurred formanagement under the post-regulatoryrequirements minus the costs currentlyincurred under the baseline practices ofmanagement. All dollar estimates are in1992 dollars (unless otherwise noted.)The potential cost savings estimated forpreviously regulated hazardous soils hasnot been subtracted out of.the incurredcosts to obtain a total, but are presentedas a separate cost savings estimate.

The effects of waste minimizationhave not been thoroughly accounted forin the Phase II RIA. There are two areasof concern.

The first issue is how to account forwaste minimization in the future, due tothe Phase II rule. To comply with LDRrequirements, generators will choose theleast costly means to comply: Either payfor treatment and subtitle C disposalcosts, or reduce their waste volumes.EPA has not considered wasteminimization as a low cost complianceapproach in the RIA. To the degree thatwaste minimization will be employed tocomply with the Phase H rule, the costsof the-rule would be lower than areestimatedin the RIA. However, the costs

of the waste minimization activitieswould then be a part of the compliancecosts of this rule.

The second question is how much ofthe waste minimization indicated in the1992 TC Census is attributable to the TCRule and how much is attributable tothe Phase II proposed rule. The volumesassigned to waste minimization in the1992 TC Census database have beenremoved from those volumes for whichcompliance costs were estimated in thePhase i RIA. If these wasteminimization plans were in anticipationof the TC and the Phase II rule, then atleast a portion of the costs for thesewaste minimization activities should beincluded in the costs for the rule. Ifthese plans were due to the TC rule,then the costs of the TC rule may havebeen overestimated, and there would benot waste minimization costs incurredto the Phase II rule.

These waste minimization timing andaccounting issues are difficult toevaluate given the data andunderstanding of facilities compliancepractices which currently exist. Theuncertainty noted, the EPA requestscomment on ways to account for thesecosts in this rule and in futurerulemakins.

i. Organic toxicity characteristicwastes (DO18-DO43). The treatmentstandards for the organic TC wastesrequire the regulation of all underlyinghazardous constituents. The TC wastescovered in this analysis can be dividedInto three groups: TC nonwastewaters,TC soils and TC debris; while TCwastewaters are being regulated intoday's rule, EPA believes any affectedvolumes to be negligible. EPA relied onexisting unit costs which have beenused in past regulatory analyses toperform the cost analysis of today's rule.EPA describes below the method ofestimating the costs incurred incomplying with the TC standardsproposed in today's notice.

The volumes employed for the TCwastes, taken from the 1992 TC CensusDatabase, differ from those in thecapacity section. For the purposes ofdeveloping *the cost estimates for today'srule, EPA used a different accounting ofthe reduction in volume due to wasteminimization plans, which plans wereIndicated in the TC Census. Thisaccounting approach used for the costestimation allowed more wasteminimization plans to be includedinthe long term volumes requiringtreatment under today's rule.Approximately 90% of the TCnonwastewaters are estimated to requirethermal treatment, either incineration orthermal des6rption. The unit cost.estimates range from $1850 per ton for

off-site incineration, to $213 per ton foron-site thermal desorption.

Organic Toxicity CharacteristicNonwastewaters (DO18-D043)

EPA employed the 1992 TC CensusDatabase for the analysis of the TCnonwastewater volumes underregulation in today's proposed rule. Asthere is no proposed variance for thesewastes, the Agency determined costs onan annual basis from the proposal dateof the rule.

In establishing a baseline for the TCnonwastewaters, the Agency assumedsubtitle C landfilling on-site, fornoncommercial (company captive)facilities, and off-site, for commercialfacilities. For the post-regulatory case,EPA developed technology assignmentsfor the wastestreams at each facilitybased on the standards beingestablished in today's rule.

Organic Toxicity CharacteristicHazardous Soil

EPA employed the 1992 TC CensusDatabase, for the cost analysis of the TChazardous soil volumes underregulation in today's proposed rule. TheAgency applied an adjustment factorfrom the "Regulatory Impact Analysisfor the Final Rulemaking on CorrectiveAction Management Units andTemporary Units" (January 11, 1993,CAMU RIA) to soil volumes fromremediation to account for the effects ofthe CAMU rule on these volumes. Inaddition, the Agency is proposing a twoyear national capacity variance for thesesoils, therefore, costs incurred fromthese requirements do not begin untiltwo years after the proposal date of therule.

In establishing a baseline for the TChazardous soils the Agency assumedsubtitle C landfilling on-site, fornoncommercial (company captive)facilities, and off-site, for commercialfacilities. The Agency presents threeoptions for the post-regulatory case intoday's rule: (a) Universal Standards 10,(b) Universal Standards 10, with 90%Removal, and (c) 90% Removal (takingcomment on a possible cap for option(c).) EPA modeled the costs for the soilstandards under two approaches:Options (a) and (b) as roughlyequivalent options, and (c) separately.For each approach, the Agencydeveloped technology assignments forthe soils at each facility based on thestandards being established in t6day'srule. In all three options, EPA assumedthat thermal desorption and soil vaporextraction (SVE) would be usedapproximately 90% at a cost between$515 to $213 per ton. The assignmentsinclude a treatment technology




residuals management, subsequentdisposal, and transportation as needed.The Agency requests comment on themethodology and unit cost estimate.Organic Toxicity CharacteristicHazardous Debris

EPA employed the 1992 TC CensusDatabase, for the cost analysis of the TChazardous debris volumes underregulation in today's proposed rule. Asfor the TC soil, the Agency applied anadjustment factor from the CAMU RIAto debris volumes from remediation, aswas done for the soils volumes, toaccount for the effects of the CAMU ruleon these volumes. The CAMU rule isexpected to reduce volumes byapproximately 54%. In addition, theAgency is proposing a two year nationalcapacity variance for TC debris,therefore, costs incurred from theserequirements do not begin until twoyears after the proposal date of the rule.

In establishing a baseline for the TChazardous debris the Agency assumedsubtitle C landfilling on-site, fornoncommercial (company captive)facilities, and off-site, for commercialfacilities. For the post-regulatory case,EPA developed technology assignmentsfor the wastestreams at each facilitybased on the standards beingestablished in today's rule. Theassignments include a treatmenttechnology (treatment train whererequired), subsequent disposal, andtransportation as needed.

ii. Remaining wastes. In addition toorganic TC wastes, the wastes affectedby today's proposed rule include cokeby-product wastes and chlorotoluenes.Based on an economic analysis of cokeby-product waste management, EPAassumes that generators of these wasteswill, for the most part, be recyclingthese wastes rather than disposing ofthem in subtitle C landfills. Therefore,EPA estimates that negligible coke by-product wastes will be affected by thisrule. For the chlorotoluene wastevolumes, EPA conducted a detailed costanalysis using site specific data.

iii. Previously regulated hazardoussoil. The hazardous soil regulated undertoday's rule can be broken into twogroups: Hazardous soil which is underexisting regulations, and newlyregulated hazardous soil. The newlyregulated hazardous soil iscontaminated with TC wastes, and were

'described above. The previouslyregulated hazardous soil represents soilcontaminated with listed or ExtractionPotential Leaching Procedure (EP)toxicity wastes. Treatment standardswere placed on these soils during thescheduled waste rules (First Third LDR,Second Third LDR, etc.) These soils,

having existing standards establishedfor their treatment, are being placedunder new proposed standards, whichare specifically developed for soiltreatment. To the degree that thesestandards are less stringent, there willbe an incremental cost savingscalculated for the impact from today'srule.

The Agency estimated a volume ofpreviously regulated soil of 2.1 milliontons per year which would incur costsunder today's rule. This estimate isderived from the capacity analysis workperformed for today's rule, applying anadjustment factor to account for areduction in the volumes being treateddue to the recently promulgated CAMUrule. As the Agency is unable to granta national capacity variance forpreviously regulated soils, the costssavings is assumed incurred from thedate of proposal of today's rule.

The standards being established intoday's rule for previously regulated soilare the same three as those beingestablished for newly regulated soil (i.e.:TC soil): (a) Universal Standards x 10,(b) Universal Standards x 10, with 90%Removal, and (c) 90% Removal(comment is taken on a possible cap forthis option). The Agency did not havefacility specific data to develop a post-regulatory scenario for these volumes.Therefore, for the baseline and post-regulatory alternatives, EPA usedprofessional judgment in interpretingthe available data to estimatepercentages of treatment for the post-regulatory scenario. To determine thesepercentages of treatment, the Agencycompared existing soil concentrationdata (1991) from the CERCLA Record ofDecision (ROD) database with theuniversal treatment standards. Fromthese data, the Agency was able todetermine baseline and post-regulatorytechnology percentages for the soilvolumes.

iv. Testing and recordkeeping costs. Inaddition to the costs for treatment ofwastes, EPA estimated the incrementalcosts for the now testing andrecordkeeping requirements in today'srule. Testing and recordkeeping costswere developed for organic TC wastesonly, using the facility specific dataavailable for these wastes in the 1992TC Survey.

The Agency employed baseline andpost-regulatory scenarios appropriate tothe testing requirements for each wasteto develop cost estimates for the testingrequirements in the rule. The Agencymade several assumptions as to howfrequent a generator would need to testtheir wastes, and for how manyconstituents to test. The "RegulatoryImpact Analysis of the Land Disposal

Restrictions for the Phase 2 NewlyListed and Identified Wastes andContaminated Soils," which has beenplaced in the docket for today's rule,presents these approaches in full.

The Information Collection Request(ICR) for today's rule, being prepared byEPA, estimates that the recordkeepingcost is $41 per wastestream. For therequirements in today's rule, it isestimated to take one hour to developand submit the required notification andone quarter of an hour to retain copiesof the documentation and notification.The Agency requests comment on thisestimate.

b. Economic impact methodology. Theeconomic effects of today's proposedrule are defined as the differencebetween the projections of the likelyeconomic impacts on facilities thatresult from regulatory compliance andthe industrial activity likely in theabsence of regulation (i.e., baselineconditions).

The Agency has evaluated theeconomic impacts for facilitiesmanaging organic TC wastes on afacility-specific basis, limited only bythe extent that data were available. EPAestimated the economic effects bycomparing incremental annualcompliance costs to a number ofcompany financial measures, such asrevenues, cost of operations, operatingincome, and net income. Financial datawere obtained from Standard & Poor'sCorporation Descriptions for the lastfiscal year reported.

Since EPAbelieves that no costs willbe associated with the treatmentstandards for coke by-products in theproposed rule, no economic impactswill be associated with regulation ofthese wastes. Economic impacts ofcompliance for facilities currently landdisposing chlorotoluenes were

evaluated on a facility-specific basis.c. Benefits methodology. The Agency

evaluated three types of benefits fortoday's standards for newly identifiedTC wastes: reduction in human healthrisks via the ground-water pathway,reduction in human health risks via theair pathway, and positive effects on thevalue of properties adjacent to wastemanagement facilities. EPA's analysis ofthe benefits of today's rule covers TCwastes only. These wastes dominate theother wastestreams covered by today'srule in terms of volume and costs.Moreover, the Agency had better dataavailable for the TC wastes, in terms ofattributes such as constituentconcentrations and volumes which arerequired in an analysis of benefits. TheAgency did not conduct a quantitativebenefits estimate of the universal LDRproposal or the previously regulated soil



FederA! Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

standards. EPA believes that theseproposals could potentially greatly-reduce compliance costs, withnegligible change in protection ofhuman health and the environment.However, the Agency requests commenton this finding. If commenters believethe Agency should perform a quantifiedestimate of the change in benefits of thisproposal, commenters should suggestappropriate methods and approaches.

i. Human health risk reduction-ground water pathway. Thefundamental concept underlying EPA'sapproach for assessing ground-waterrisk reduction is that subtitle Ccontainment is completely effective inthe short-term, i.e., over a period ofabout 30 years. However, the Agencyassumes that over the longer term,containment systems and monitoringwill fail. The benefits analysisperformed for today's rule captures thislong-term risk which could be avoidedunder today's rule. EPA analyzed thebaseline risks, i.e., risks posed by TCwastes in the absence of today's rule, aswell as post-regulatory risks under twooptions. In the baseline, TC wastes areuntreated, shipped off-site, and placedin subtitle C landfills. In the post-regulatory scenario, TC wastes aretreated and placed in subtitle Dlandfills. The difference in risks fromthe baseline to the post-regulatorycondition is a measure of the benefit ofan option.

The basic approach involves thefollowing steps (which are elaborated onin the RIA background document,which has been placed in the docket fortoday's rule):

(1) The Agency employed wasteconcentration data from the 1992 TCsurvey to represent wasteconcentrations.

(2) Where surveys reported total wasteconcentrations, rather than TCLPconcentrations, the Agency used theOrganic Leaching Model (OLM) toestimate leachate concentrations.

(3) EPA calculated the meanconcentration of each constituent ateach facility, weighted across thevolume of all TC wastes managed at thatfacility.

(4) EPA calculated the risk that wouldbe posed by consumption of leachate,for both cancer and non-cancer effects,at each facility.

(5) EPA developed a set of dilution/attenuation factors (DAF) to representthe effect of fate and transport processesin a ground-water system. For eachfacility, the Agency divided the risk

posed by the consumption of leachateby the DAF (expressed as a probabilitydistribution) to yield predictedconcentration at an exposure well.

(6) EPA then summed the 1800predicted risks across all facilities (i.e.,36 facility leachate risks times 50 DAFs)to develop an estimate of thedistribution of risk at facilities managinguntreated TC wastes. The Agencysummed the risks across the distributionto obtain a total population riskestimate. The Agency employedstandard assumptions of a 70 kg persondrinking 2 liters of water per day over70 years.

(7) To simulate the regulatory options,the Agency reset the leachateconcentrations in Steps 2 through 4with the universal standardconcentrations. EPA then replaced theDAF distribution for subtitle C facilities(from Step 5) with a DAF distributionfor subtitle D facilities, because thetreated TC residues will not need to bemanaged as hazardous wastes.

ii. Human health risk reduction-Airpathway. Constituents contained in TCwaste, soil, and debris may be emittedto air through volatilization and dustentrainment. Reducing theconcentrations of TC constituentsthrough the treatment standards set intoday's rule significantly reduces thepotential for air emissions, and the risksposed by those air emissions. The goalof the air pathway risk analysis was tocharacterize baseline (pre-LDR) risk andthe reduction in baseline risk resultingfrom regulatory options.

In the baseline, untreated TC wastesare placed in subtitle C landfills. In thepost-regulatory scenario, treated wastesare placed in subtitle C or D landfills.In this analysis, EPA assumed that anyair emissions due to additionaltransportation, storage or treatment inthe post-regulatory scenario arenegligible.

The Agency's basic approach involvesthe following steps (which areelaborated on in the RIA backgrounddocument, which has been placed in thedocket for today's rule):

(1) EPA used bulk wasteconcentration data from the TC surveyto represent waste concentrations.

(2) In cases where respondentsreported TCLP concentrations, ratherthan bulk concentrations, the OrganicLeaching Model (OLM was used to"back-calculate" bulk concentrations.

(3) The Agency calculated the meanconcentration of each constituent ateach facility, weighted across the

volume of all TC wastes managed at thatfacility.

(4) EPA calculated the unit areamanaging TC wastes.

(5) EPA estimated annual averageemissions due to volatilization and dustentrainment for each constituent at eachfacility.

(6) Using the same meteorologicconditions assumed for the CorrectiveAction RIA (CARIA),7 atmospherictransport for each constituent wasevaluated. EPA then calculateconcentrations at several downwindpoints corresponding to potentialexposure locations.

(7) The Agency calculated individualcancer risk and non-cancer risk, usingexposure assumptions from the CARlA.

(8) EPA calculated population risk forexposed populations.

(9) The Agency simulated theregulatory options.

2. Results Section

a. Cost results. In total, today'sproposed rule would have anincremental annual cost of $330 million.Seventy percent of this cost would befor the treatment of organic TCnonwastewaters, and 18 percent and 12percent would be for the treatment oforganic TC contaminated soil anddebris, respectively. In a separateanalysis, EPA estimates that theregulatory options proposed for allpreviously regulated contaminated soilcould represent a potential annualsavings of approximately $250 millionto $560 million.

i. Organic TC wastes and other newlyregulated wastes. As described above,EPA conducted a facility-specific costanalysis for those facilities managingorganic TC waste.

Since EPA believes no coke by-product wastes will be landfilled as aresult of the coke by-product listing rule(August 18,1992, at 57 FR 37284), EPAestimates that no cost impact will beassociated with the treatment standardsfor coke production wastes. Theincremental cost for chlorinatedtoluenes is estimated to be less than$0.1 million annually.

ii. Previously regulated hazardoussoil. As described above, EPA relied onavailable soil concentration data andprofessional judgment to determine theeffect of the proposed rule on previouslyregulated hazardous soil. Exhibit XIV-1presents the percentages estimated byEPA for the post-regulatory scenario forthe previously regulated soil.

48149



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

EXHIBIT XIV-1 .- BREAKDOWN OF PERCENTAGES OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE PREVIOUSLY REGULATEDSOILS POST-REGULATORY SCENARIO

90 percent UTS only UTS+90only percent

Incineration ....................................................... 0%-10% 5%-15% 5%-15%Stabilization ........................................................................................................................................... 10% 10% 10%Soil W ashing .......................................................................................................................................... 80% 55% 70%Thermal Desorption ................................................................................................................................ 100/-20% 15%-25% 15 % -25%

Total ............................................................................................................................................... 110% 95% 110%

-For the UTS Only option, the total sums to 95% because 15% of the soil requires no treatment at all under this option.-Techno"y assignments assume a small amount of treatment trains are required.-Soil washing is assigned as a low cost technology where minimum treatment is required.

Both the data and the methodologiesused for the cost analysis havelimitations. The main limitations areaddressed in the background RIAdocument which has been placed in thedocket for today's rule. The Agency haslimited unit cost data for thesetreatment technologies. The Agencyrequests additional data and commenton the assumptions in this analysis.

b. Economic Impact Results. For non-commercial companies (companycaptives) in the TC capacity database,only one company would have a ratio ofincremental compliance cost to cost ofoperations greater than one-half percent.Looking at the ratio of net income (i.e..after tax) to the incremental compliancecost, five companies would have a ratioless than 20; four of these fivecompanies, however, reported a net lossin the last fiscal year. Of these fivecompanies, only one would have a ratioof operating income to the incrementalcompliance cost less than 20.

For the commercial companies in theTC capacity database, only one has aratio of incremental annual cost to costof operations greater than five percent.

Since no costs are associated with thetreatment standards for coke by-products, no economic impacts areexpected. Economic impacts forfacilities that generatd chlorinatedtoluene wastes are calculated based onthe before-tax annualized incrementalcosts. The results of the analysis,however, are aggregated since the dataused in the analysis are propriety. Basedon a ratio analysis of incremental costto total sales, none of the facilities thatgenerate these wastes is expected toexperience significant impacts as aresult of the proposed rule.

Both the data used for the economicimpact analysis and the methodologiesdeveloped have limitations. The mainlimitations are addressed in thebackground RIA document which hasbeen placed in the docket for today'srule.

c. Benefit Estimate-i. Results-Groundwater Pathway. This section

presents results for the baseline risksand two regulatory approaches. For eachcase, results for individual cancer andnon-cancer risk are presented for bothhigh end and central tendencyapproaches. The section concludes withpopulation risk estimates for cancerrisks.

The results, presented in full in theRIA background document which isincluded in the docket for today's rule,show about eight percent of thepopulation having an individuallifetime excess cancer risk above 10-6in the high end baseline, and fourpercent between 10-6 and 10- 4 , andapproximately four percent above 10- 4

in the high end baseline. For the centraltendency baseline, the individual excesslifetime cancer risk is approximately sixpercent above 10-6, five percentbetween 10-6 and 10-4, and twopercent above 10 -4. For both regulatoryoptions, EPA assumed that allconstituents would be directly (option1) or indirectly (option 2) treated touniversal standards. For the post-regulatory cases, about five percent ofthe population has an individuallifetime excess cancer risk level above10-6.

Using the distribution of individualrisks, the Agency calculated baselinecancer population risk. EPA used datafrom the Corrective Action RIA on theproportion of subtitle C facilities withpotentially exposed populationsthrough ground water (23 percent), andthe mean size of the potentially exposedpopulation (6,870 people per facility).Using the facility/risk distribution of1800 points (i.e., 36 facilities times 50DAFs) the Agency multiplied theindividual risk for a certain percentile ofthe distribution by the number of peoplerepresented by each percentile (i.e.,6,870 people per facility divided by thepercentile represented by a singlefacility. A single facility represents 100percent divided by 48 facilities, or 2.08percent per facility. Therefore, there areabout 3,300 people per percentile.) Thepopulation risks were then converted to

annual values by assuming an averagelife span of 70 years. Based on theseassumptions, EPA estimates the baselinepopulation cancer risk to be 0.33 casesper year for the central tendencybaseline. The post-regulatory populationcancer risk is about 0.031 cases per yearin the central tendency. In other words,the regulatory option reduces 0.30 casesper year in the central tendency.

An approach which would render thesame result would be to compute themean individual risk across thedistribution and multiply it by the totalnumber of people potentially exposedacross all facilities (i.e., 6,870 peopleper facility times 48 facilities times 23percent with down gradient wellsequals 75,800 people).

The analysis shows that the 99thpercentile baseline exposure level is lessthan the reference dose. Because theriskiest facility has an expected valuefor non-cancer exposure that is belowthe reference dose, the Agency isassuming no significant non-cancer riskin the baseline. Post-regulatory non-cancer risk is also insignificant for bothregulatory options.

Assumptions for the secondregulatory option produced cancer risksidentical to those of the first option. Fornon-cancer risks, however, the twooptions produced somewhat differentresults.

ii. Results-Air Pathway. This sectionprovides results for the air pathway, forthe baseline and post-regulatoryoptions. The Agency used two methodsto calculate potential emissions. Method1 for limiting mass flux fromvolatilization was never triggered;Method 2 limited emissions for 30 of the141 constituent/facility combinationsmodeled for the baseline, whichaccounts for the difference between thebaseline risks in the two approaches.For both post-regulatory options, thetwo methods produced virtuallyidentical results.

Using Method 1. approximately 27 (75percent) of the 36 facilities modeledhave individual cancer risk exceeding




10-6 at the 140 m distance in thebaseline, 16 facilities (45 percentl arebetween 10-6 and 10-4, and 11facilities (30 percent) have individualcancer risk exceeding 10-4 at the 140 m,with the peak value at 2 times 10--. Inthe post-regulatory scenario, theindividual cancer risk is reduced so thatapproximately 5 facilities (15 percent)have individual cancer risk over 10-6.

At the 600 m distance, using Method1, approximately 18 facilities (50percent) of the 36 facilities haveindividual cancer risk exceeding 10-6in the baseline. 16 facilities (45 percent)are between 10-6 and 10-4, and about2 facilities (5 percent) have individualcancer risk exceeding 10- 4. In the post-regulatory scenario, the individualcarrcer risk is reduced so that nofacilities have an individual cancer riskover 10-6.. Using Method 2, approximately 27facilities (75 percent) of the 36 facilitiesmodeled have individual cancer risksexceeding 10-6 at the 140 m distance inthe baseline. 22 facilities (60 percent arebetween 10-6 and 10-4. and 5 facilities(15 percent) have individual cancer riskexceeding 10-4 at the 140 m, with thepeak value at 2 times 10- 4. In the post-regulatory scenario, the individualcancer risk is reduced so thatapproximately 5 facilities (15 percent)have individual cancer risk over 10-6.

At the 600 m distance, using Method2, approximately 14 facilities (40percent) have individual cancer risksexceeding 10-6, and no facilities haveindividual cancer risk exceeding 10-4with the peak value at 2 times 10-s. Inthe post-regulatory scenario, theindividual cancer risk is reduced so thatapproximately no facilities haveindividual cancer risk over 10-6.

Using both sets of emission rates, non-cancer dose exceeds the reference doseat only one facility; this occurs at bothdistances with Method 1, and only at140 m using Method 2. For the post-regulatory scenario, for both options, thehighest individual risk is six times10-6. Doses of all non-carcinogens arewell below reference doses under bothoptions.

For the population risk estimates, theAgency determined that the centraltendency incremental benefits are 0.033(Method 1) and 0.0065 (Method 2).

3. Regulatory Impact Analysis-Underground Injected Wastes

The Agency has completed a separateregulatory impact analysis forunderground injected wastes affected bythe Phase 11 proposed rule.

This analysis describes and evaluatesthe regulatory impacts only to the ClassI injection well universe. The Agency

does not believe that many Class Vinjection well owners and operators willbe affected by the proposed Phase IIrequirements. The Agency believes that.the new proposed Phase II LDRs forinjected wastes cover either listedwastes or distinctly industrial wastesthat would be injected by owners andoperators of only Class I injection wells.EPA has no data which definitivelyindicates that any volumes of Phase IIwastes are being injected in Class Vwells, but reiterates that we aresoliciting any and all comments andinformation which will affect theregulatory impact analysis.

According to the available data, theRIA indicates that up to 43 Class Iinjection facilities will be potentiallyaffected by the new Phase II Land Banrequirements. These Class I injectionfacilities will now be required to eithertreat wastes, or file "no migration"petitions as outlined in 40 part CFR 148(See 53 FR 28118 preamble for a morethorough discussion of the no migrationpetition review process). Up to 21formerly non-hazardous Class I facilitiesmay become newly hazardous due tothe additional restrictions, whereas 22facilities already have no migrationexemptions approved by EPA, but mayface additional requirements requiringsome modification of their petitions dueto the proposed Phase II rule.

The additional facilities affected byPhase II rulemaking contributes tooverall compliance costs alreadyincurred by Class I injection wellowners and operators managinghazardous wastes regulated by previousrulemaking. The Agency analyzed costsand benefits for today's rule by usingthe same approach and methodologydeveloped in the Regulatory ImpactAnalysis of the Underground InjectionControl Program: Proposed HazardousWaste Disposal Injection Restrictionsused for the July 26, 1988, final rule (53FR 28118) and subsequent rulemaking.An analysis was performed to assess theeconomic effect of associatedcompliance costs for the additionalvolumes of injected wastes attributableto this proposed rule.

In general, Class I Injection facilitiesaffected by the Phase 11 rule will haveseveral options. Some facilities willmodify existing no migration petitionsalready approved by the Agency, otherfacilities may submit entirely newpetitions, and still others may accept theprohibitions and either continue toinject wastes after treatment or ceaseinjection operations all together.

The total annual no migration petitioncosts for facilities affected by the newPhase I prohibitions is estimated to be$858,000. The annual cost for affected

facilities employing alternativetreatment is estimated to range from$3.9 million to $58 million annually.The range of costs for alternativetreatment is ihe result of applying asensitivity analysis. Only theincremental treatment costs for the newwaste listings are calculated in this RIA.

The total cost to industry of petitionsand alternative treatment arising fromthe proposed Phase II revisions for deepwell injection is estimated to range from$4.8 million. to $58.9 million annually.All of these costs will be incurred byClass I injection well owners andoperators.

The Agency did not perform aquantified risk assessment for thisproposal. However, the benefits tohuman health and the environment inthe RIA are generally defined as reducedhuman health risk resulting from fewerinstances of ground watercontamination. In general, potentialhealth risks from Class I injection wellsare extremely low. However, injection isnot without risks. In isolated cases,potential risks to human health and theenvironment may be greater due toabandoned, unplugged wells near theinjection well site. Other cases involvepossible grout seal failure around theprotective casing of an injection well.but cancer risks from such a failure areinsignificant. Of studies conducted todescribe Class I well problems, only sixwells, or less than two percent of allClass I wells, were reported to haveexperienced malfunctions thatcontributed to any contamination of thesurface or of an underground source ofdrinking water. No health-relatedproblems attributed to Class I injectionwere reported in the same study.

The economic analysis estimates thatnone of the twenty-six publicly tradedcompanies affected by the rule will besignificantly economically impacted.The limited data available for the 17privately held companies suggests.however, that they may face significantimpacts. Overall, the RIA assumes thatnone of the companies affected willclose as a result of the proposed PhaseII rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility AnalysisPursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.. whenan agency publishes a notice ofrulemaking, for a rule that will have asignificant effect on a substantialnumber of small entities, the agencymust prepare and make available forpublic comment a regulatory flexibilityanalysis that considers the effect of therule on small entities (i.e.: Smallbusinesses, small organizations, andsmall governmental jurisdictions).

48151




Under the Agency's Revised Guidelinesfor Implementing the RegulatoryFlexibility Act, dated May 4,1992, theAgency committed to consideringregulatory alternatives in rulemakingswhen there were any economic impactsestimated on any small entities.Previous guidance required regulatoryalternatives to be examined only whensignificant economic effects wereestimated on a substantiAl number ofsmall entities.

In assessing the regulatory approachfor dealing with small entities in today'srule, for both surface disposal of wastesand underground injection control, theAgency considered two factors. First,data on potentially affected smallentities are unavailable. And second,due to the statutory requirements of theRCRA LDR program, no legal avenuesexist for the Agency to provide relieffrom the LDR's for small entities. Theonly relief available for small entities isthe existing small quantity generatorsand conditionally exempt smallquantity generator exemptions found in40 CFR 262.11-12, and 261.5,.respectively. These exemptionsbasically prescribe 100 kilograms (kg)per calendar month generation ofhazardous waste as the limit belowwhich one is exempted from complyingwith the RCRA standards.

Given these two factors, the Agencywas unable to frame a series of smallentity options from which to select thelowest cost approach; rather, the Agencywas legally bound to regulate the landdisposal of the hazardous wastescovered in today's rule without regardto the size of the entity being regulated.

C. Paperwork Reduction ActThe information collection

requirements in today's proposed rulehave been submitted for approval to theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) under the Paperwork ReductionAct, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. AnInformation Collection Request (ICR)document has been prepared by EPA(ICR No. 1442.06) and a copy may beobtained from SandyFarmer,Information Policy Branch (PM-223Y);U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;401 M St., SW.; Washington, DC 20406or by calling (202) 260-2740.

The annual public reporting burdenfor this collection of information isestimated to average 2 hours pertreatment facility and I to 52 hours pergenerator, including time for reviewinginstructions, searching existing datasources, gathering and maintaining therequired data, and completing andreviewing the collection of information.The annual recordkeeping burden forgenerators and treatment facilities is

estimated to be 15 minutes perrespondent.

Send comments regarding the burdenestimate or any other aspect of thiscollection of information, includingsuggestions for reducing this burden toChief, Information Policy Branch (PM-223Y); U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency; 401 M St., SW.; Washington,DC 20406; and to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Office of Management and Budget,Washington DC 20503, marked"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA." Thefinal rule will respond to any OMB orpublic comments on the informationcollection requirements contained inthis proposal.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 148Administrative practice and

procedure, H ous waste, Reportingand recordkeeping requirements, Watersupply.40 CFR Part 260

Administrative practice andprocedure, Hazardous waste.

40 CFR Part 261Hazardous waste, Recycling,

Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

40 CFR Port 268Hazardous waste, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 271Administrative practice and

procedure, Hazardous materialstransportation, Hazardous waste,Penalties, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

Dated: August 31, 1993.

Carol M. Browner,Administrator.

Appendix A to the Preamble:Description of Hazardous SoilTreatment Technologies andPerformance Standards

1. Biological TreatmentBiological treatment is a destruction

technology that uses microorganisms todegrade and transform hazardousorganic compounds into compounds ofreduced toxicity. Bacteria, fungi, andyeasts are the microorganisms mostfrequently employed for biodegradationof hazardous compounds. Under aerobicconditions (in the presence of oxygen),microorganisms biodegrade organiccontaminants to carbon dioxide, water,nitrate, sulfate, and cell protein. Underanaerobic conditions (in the absence ofoxygen), microorganisms can

biodegrade organic contaminants intomethane, carbon dioxide, and cellprotein.

Aerobic bioslurry treatment involvesmixing contaminated material withwater to form a slurry in an enclosedcontainer. Nutrients and oxygen areadded to the water to providemicroorganisms with the properenvironment to facilitatebiodegradation, and the slurry is mixedto keep the solids in suspension.Bioslurry treatment has the advantage ofproviding for careful process control,and increased contact betweenmicroorganisms and contaminants inthe slurry.

Aerobic biological treatment may alsobe conducted in the solid-phase. Solid-phase treatment activities includecomposting and prepared bed treatment.Optimized conditions for solid-phasetreatment are maintained by tilling thesoil regularly for aeration andcontaminant mixing, addition ofrequired nutrients for microbialmetabolism, and supplementalirrigation for moisture control.

Anaerobic biological treatment maybe conducted in either a solid- or aslurry-phase, using equipment similar tothat used for aerobic treatment.Anaerobic treatment typically requiresmore time than aerobic treatment, dueto the slow growth rate of themethanogenic (methane producing)bacteria. Anaerobic treatment is mosteffective on soils with a moderate tohigh Ph, containing contaminants thatare nonhalogenated hydrocarbons, andsoils with low biochemical oxygendemand.2. Chemical Extraction

Extraction technologies are used totreat wastes containing a variety oforganic constituents and a broad rangeof total organic content. This method oftreatment is accomplished using anorganic solvent in the liquid phase tosolubilize contaminants for removal andcan be used on many solvent-solublecontaminants. The effectiveness of thistechnology depends on the solvent-contaminant match. Two generalextraction technologies are leaching andimmersion extraction.

In its most typical form, leaching is abatch extraction operation in which anorganic solvent is sprayed onto soil ina tank, causing the contaminant to leachfrom the soil. The solvent, containingthe contaminant(s), is collected at thebottom of the tank after percolatingthrough the soil. In the absence ofagitation, the liquid-solid extraction is aslow and inefficient process.Channeling of the liquid solventthrough the soil can result in untreated



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

portions of soil in the tank, furtherlowering thaefficiency. Further, thepresence of fines can stop thepercolation process while the presenceof coarse. agglomerates with well-imbedded contaminants often can onlybe treated at the surface.

In immersion extraction, soil issuspended and thoroughly mixed insolvent baths operated at elevated orambient temperatures to optimizetreatment. Secondary treatment (e.g.,distillation) is performed to separate thesolvent from the contaminant. Aftertreatment, it is sometimes possible toreuse the solvent in the treatmentsystem.

A wide variety of organic solvents arecommonly used, depending on the soilcontaminant being treated. The choiceof suitable solvent depends primarily onchemical structures of the contaminant,solubility of contaminants in thesolvent, soil type, and equilibriumcharacteristics. Chemical extractiontreatment systems rely on differencesbetween the boiling points of thecontaminant and the solvent to facilitatepost-treatment separation (distillation).

A primary advantage of chemicalextraction is the wide range ofapplicability for treating hazardous soil.If the proper solvent is selected,treatment of many soil contaminants ispossible. Typical treatment times canrange from several hours to several'days.

3. DechlorinationDechlorination is a soil treatment

process whereby contaminants in thesoil are chemically reacted to form lesstoxic compounds. The soil is mixedwith a chemical reagent and agitated toincrease the contact of reagent with thesoil contaminant. The reaction thattakes place in the soil is a substitutionreaction, in which chlorine is removedfrom the contaminant and substituted1

with a less toxic element (usuallyhydrogen). The contaminant andresidual reagents that remain in the soilfollowing the substitution reaction canbe removed in a subsequent step usingan extraction process.

Another type of dechlorinationtreatment technology that is available(although not commonly used) todechlorinate chlorinated organiccompounds in soil is photochemicaldegradation. This type of treatmenttechnology uses photochemical energyin the form of ultraviolet (UV) radiation,usually artificial, to degradehalogenated contaminants such aspolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), andpolychlorinated dibenzodioxins(PCDDs), and polychlorinateddibenzofurans (PCDFs). Thesecompounds are quite reactive in the

presence of UV radiation. Thephotoreduction mechanism involves thesubstitution of hydrogen for chlorine,leading to the formation of detoxifiedsubstances.

4. High-Temperature Metals RecoveryHigh temperature metals recovery

(HTMR) is a technology applicable tomaterials containing substantiveamounts of metal oxides and metal salts(including cadmium, chromium, lead,nickel, and zinc compounds) atconcentrations ranging up to 70 percentwith low levels (i.e., below 5 percent) oforganics and water in the wastes. Thereare a number of different types of HTMRsystems, which generally differ fromone another in source of energy usedand the method of recovery. TheseHTMR systems include the rotary kilnprocess, the plasma arc reactor, therotary hearth electric furnace system,the molten slag reactor, and the flamereactor.

The basic principle of operation forHTMR is that metal oxides and salts areseparated from a waste through a hightemperature thermal reduction processthat uses carbon, limestone, and silicaas raw materials. The carbon acts as areducing agent and reacts with metaloxides to generate carbon dioxide andfree metal. The silica and limestoneserve as fluxing agents. This processyields a metal product for reuse andreduces the concentration of metals inthe residuals. The HTMR processconsists of a mixing unit, a hightemperature processing unit (kiln,furnace, etc.), a product collectionsystem, and a residual treatment system.

5. Soil WashingSoil washing is used to describe a

number of techniques wherecontaminants are either separated orremoved from soil with an aqueousprocess. Soil washing has the potentialto be applicable to many different typesof contamination, including bothorganic and metallic contaminants.

In soil washing, soil is mixed withwater and the resulting solution isaugmented with a basic or surfactantagent that increases the solubility of thecontaminant(s) in water. This is usuallydone to remove organics. Soil washingmay be done with an acidic solution ora chelating agent that chemically reactswith metal ions and promotes theirsolubility.6. SolidificationlStabitization

Solidification/stabilization is used toconvert soil into a matrix that preventscontaminants from leaching.Stabilization techniques are mostcommonly used for hazardous wastes

with treatment standards expressed as aconcentration of constituents in anextract of the waste. (Stabilization ofwastes (or hazardous soil) that havetreatment standards expressed solely asspecific concentrations of constituentsin the entire waste stream is notappropriate.)Three types of solidification/

stabilization processes are used fortreatment of soil. The first involvesmixing the soil with cement, lime, flyash, kiln dust, silicates, or otherpozzolanic-type materials, and water;,the mixture then goes through a curingprocess. The second process involvesmixing the soil with asphalt and/orplastic. In this process, the mixture isheated to slightly above the meltingpoint of the plastic or asphalt, whichcauses the soil to be covered with apolymeric or asphalt coating. Themixture is then cooled and allowed tocure prior to disposal. The third type ofsolidification/stabilization technologiesuse proprietary additives. Theseprocesses are fixtion technologies thatinvolve the addition of chemicals(reagents) to the contaminated matrixchanging the form of the contaminant sothat it is no longer soluble in water.Solidification/stabilization processesincrease the volume of treated material,but leave no additional residuals.

To obtain a uniform stabilizedmaterial, the particle size of the soilbeing stabilized should be kept fairlysmall. Vendors of various solidification/stabilization processes have differentsize requirements, but the particularsizes generally range in diameter from6.35 to 1,00 mm. Sizing equipment, suchas ball mills or hammer mills, iscommercially available to size most soilparticles to meet the requirements formicroencapsulation processes.Currently, shredding equipment may heused to process debris-like materialssuch as large stones or rocks that maybe found in the soil.

7. Thermal DesorptionThermal desorption systems employ

either a direct or an indirectly-firedoven or heating chamber to volatilizeorganic contaminants. Usually soil isplaced into the system and heated byconvection using heating fuel or anelectric heating element, or heated byradiation using infrared radiation ormicrowaves. For continuous operations,screw augers or rotary kilns are used tomix the soil while moving thehazardous soil through the system. Totransfer heat to the soil in an augersystem, a heating fluid is passedthrough the center of the auger. Heattransferred to the soil volatilizes thecontaminants from the soil. Treatment

48153



48154 - Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules

systems have an oxygen deficientatmosphere in order to preventcontaminants and soil from combustingor exploding. Volatilized contaminantscan be separated from the gaseouseffluent by scrubbing or absorption, orit may be incinerated. Thermaldesorption systems can be designed tobe run in either a batch or continuousmode.

8. Thermal DestructionThermal destruction includes

treatment in an incinerator operated inaccordance with the technical operatingrequirements of 40 CFR part 264 subpartO and 40 CFR part 265 subpart 0, inboilers or industrial furnaces operatingunder either interim status or a RCRApermit in accordance with therequirements of 40 CFR part 266,subpart H, or in other RCRA permittedthermal treatment devices, such aspyrolysis units operating under interimstatus in accordance With the.requirements of 40 CFR part 265,subpart P.

Thermal destruction uses heat tocause contaminants to chemically reactto form nonhazardous chemicals.Thermal destruction units may useeither an oxidizing or a nonoxidizingatmosphere. Units in which anoxidizing atmosphere is employed causecombustible contaminants'to oxidize tocarbon dioxide and water. Units thatemploy a non-oxidizing atmospherefrequently employ a nitrogenatmosphere in the combustion chamber.In these units, contaminants are reactedto form carbon monoxide and methanegas.

Many incinerators require size-reduction of soil or soil agitation duringincineration'in order to ensure that allof the soil being treated reaches theoperating 'temperature of the unit. Unitscan be run under a slightly negativepressure to prevent emissions ofvolatilized or incompletely combustedcontaminants. Thermal destructionunits must also employ emission controldevices to prevent emissions of a varietyof combustion products includingparticulate matter, oxides of sulfur andnitrogen (SOx and NOx), and productsof incomplete combustion.

Treatment residuals from thermaldestruction units include effluent gas,wastewater and.sludges from airpollution scrubbers, and residual ash,which consists of the noncombustibleportion-of soil and contaminants.

9. VitrificationThis technology, uses heat to

transform wastes into a glass andcrystalline mass. The heat causes soil tobe broken down into its mineral

components and oxides, which then donot reform upon cooling. At the hightemperatures associated withvitrification, most inorganicconstituents fuse and becomechemically incorporated into the moltenmass or simply become immobilized inthe mass without chemically changingform. The exceptions include the morevolatile heavy metals (e.g., Hg) wvhichmay not enter the molten liquid, butmay be removed with the other off-gases. The organics are generallypyrolyzed or oxidized and come out ofthe process in the off-gases. Vitrificationcan be performed in a treatment reactorat temperatures of up to 2000°C. Thistreatment is effective for soil containingmost RCRA hazardous constituents.

The temperatures required forvitrification (up to 2000°C) can begenerated a number of ways. Theseinclude: Joule heating by passing anelectric current through the waste;heating in an electric furnace; heatingby introduction of a plasma torch to thewaste reactor; and heating in anincinerator operating in a slaggingmode. With each of these methods, thewaste stream (and additives, ifnecessary) is heated until a moltenliquid is formed. Additional wastes maybe introduced to the molten mass andtreated with the heat transferred fromthe liquid. The molten glass can beeither quenched or allowed to cool moreslowly. In either case, an obsidian-likeglass is generated which can be in theform of a large monolith or any numberof smaller sizes down to small granules.Off-gases from vitrification may requirefurther treatment.

For the reasons set out in thepreamble, title 40, chapter I of the Codeof Federal Regulations is proposed to beamended as follows:

PART 148-HAZARDOUS WASTEINJECTION RESTRICTIONS

1. The authority citation for part 148continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 3004, ResourceConservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.6901, et seq.

2. Section 148.17 is amended byredesignating paragraphs (b)'and (c) as(c) and (d) and by adding paragraph (b)to read as follows:

§ 148.17 Waste specific prohibitions-Newly Listed Wastes.

(b) Effective [Insert date. three monthsfrom date of publication), the wastesspecified in 40 CFR 261.24 as EPAHazardous waste numbers D012, D013,D014, D015,Do16, D017 thai areToxicity Characteristic toxic

halogenated pesticide wastes, and thewastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 asEPA Hazardous waste numbers K141,K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, K148,K149, K150, and K151, are prohibitedfrom underground injection.

PART 260--HAZARDOUS WASTEMANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL


Authority: 42 U.SC. 6905,6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6939, and6974.

4. In § 260.30, the introductory textand paragraph (b) are revised to read asfollows:

§ 260.30 Variances from classification as asolid waste.

In accordance with the standards andcriteria in § 260.31 and the proceduresin § 260.33, the Administrator maydetermine on a case-by-case basis thatthe following recycled materials are notsolid wastes:

(b) Materials that are reclaimed andthen reused within the originalproduction process in which they weregenerated; and

5. In § 260.31, paragraph (a)introductory text, and paragraph (b) isrevised to read as follows:

§ 260.31 Standards and criteria forvariances from classification as a solidwaste.

(a) The Administrator may grantrequests for a variance from classifyingas a solid waste those materials that areaccumulated speculatively withoutsufficient amounts being recycled if theapplicant demonstrates that sufficientamounts of the material will be-recycled.or transferred for recycling in thefollowing year. If a variance is granted,it is valid only for the following year,.but can be renewed, on an annual basis,by filing a new application. TheAdministrator's decision will be basedon the following criteria:

(b) The Administrator may grantrequests for a variance from classifyingas a solid waste those materials that arereclaimed and then reused as feedstockwithin the original production processin which the materials were generated ifthe reclamation operation is an essentialpart of the production process. Thisdetermination will be based on thefollowing criteria:

(1) How economically viable[the -production process would be if it were




to use virgin materials, rather thanreclaimed materials;

(2) The prevalence of the practice, onan industry-wide basis;

(3) The extent to which the materialis handled before reclamation tominimize loss;

(4) The time periods betweengenerating the material and itsreclamation, and between reclamationand return to the original productionprocess-

(5) The location of the reclamationoperation in relation to the productionprocess;

(6) Whether the reclaimed material isused for the purpose for which it wasoriginally produced when it is returnedto the original process, and whether itis returned to the process insubstantially its original form;

(7) Whether the person who generatesthe material also reclaims it;

(8) In cases where the original processto which the material is returned is asecondary process, the extent to whichmaterials are managed before return ina protective manner such that there willbe little potential for release of thematerial or its hazardous constituents tothe environment (e.g., storage in tanks,containers, and indoors such ascontainment buildings); and

(9) Other relevant factors.

6. In § 260.32, the introductory text isrevised to read as follows:

§ 260.32 Variance to be classified as aboiler.

In accordance with the standards andcriteria in § 260.10 (definition of"boiler"), and the procedures in§ 260.33, the Administrator maydetermine on a case-by-case basis thatcertain enclosed devices usingcontrolled flame combustion are boilers,even though they do.not otherwise meetthe definition of boiler contained in§ 260.10, after considering the following-criteria:* * * * *

7. Section 260.33 is revised to read asfollows:

§ 260.33 Procedures for variances fromclassification as a solid waste or to beclassified as a boiler.

The Administrator will use thefollowing procedures in evaluatingapplications for variances fromclassification as a solid waste orapplications to classify particularenclosed controlled flame combustiondevices as boilers:

(a) The applicant must apply to theAdministrator for the variance. Theapplication must address the relevantcriteria contained in § 260.31 or§ 260.32.

(b) The Administrator will evaluatethe application and issue a draft noticetentatively granting or denying theapplication. Notification of thistentative decision will be provided bynewspaper advertisement or radiobroadcast in the locality where therecycler is located. The Administratorwill accept comment on the tentativedecision for 30 days, and may also holda public hearing upon request or at hisdiscretion. The Administrator will issuea final decision after receipt ofcomments and after the hearing (if any).

8. Section 260.42 is added to read asfollows:

§ 260.42 Procedures for contained-indeterminations for hazardous debris,hazardous soil and other environmentalmedia.

(a) Any person may petition theRegional Administrator to exclude,under § 261.3(f)(2) or § 261.3(g) of thischapter, hazardous debris andhazardous soil or other environmentalmedia, including but not limited. to,ground water, surface water, andsediments, from regulation as hazardouswaste. (Such a petition is not necessaryfor remedial actions conducted pursuantto RCRA or CERCLA authoritiesprovided that a similar determination ismade by the Regional Administratorbased on information substantiallyequivalent to the information listedbelow including public notice andcomment requirements.) The petitionfor a contained-in determination mustinclude information sufficient todemonstrate that specific constituentconcentrations in the hazardous debris,hazardous soil, or other environmentalmedia to be excluded do not pose ahazard to human health and theenvironment at that site. Each petitionmust be submitted to the RegionalAdministrator and must include:

(1) The petitioner's name and address.(2) An explanation, to the extent

possible, of the circumstances by whichthe affected debris, soil, or other mediabecame contaminated with hazardouswastes.

(3) Information on waste and sitecharacteristics and conditions, toinclude at a minimum, the type ofinformation listed in paragraph (c) ofthis section.

(4) After receiving a petition, theRegional Administrator may requestadditional information which may berequired in making a determination.

The Regional Administrator willmake a tentative decision to grant ordeny a petition for a contained-indetermination after receipt of acomplete petition, and will publish anewspaper notice of such tentative

decision, and provide the opportunityfor the petitioner and the public tosubmit written comments within 30days of the publication of the notice.After consideration of the.comments,the Regional Administrator will issue afinal determination denying orapproving-the petition.

(c) The Regional Administrator willconsider waste- and site-specificinformation in making suchdeterminations. Such information mayinclude, but is not limited to:

(1) Characteristics of the debris, soil,or other media;

(2) Waste constituent characteristics,such as solubility, mobility, toxicity,and interactive effects of constituentspresent in the contaminated debris, soil,or other media that may affect thoseproperties;

(3) All possible exposure pathways,such as potential for direct humancontact with the contaminated medium,and potential adverse ecologicalimpacts;

(4) An "acceptable" risk range of 10-4to 10-6;

(5) Surface and subsurfacecharacteristics such as topography,hydraulic conductivity, permeabilityand porosity of soil, aquifer thickness,and other geologic and hydrogeologiccharacteristics that may influenceconstituent mobility and migrationpotential at the surface and in theunsaturated and saturated zones.

(6) Climatic conditions; and(7) Other site or waste-specific

characteristics or conditions that mayaffect the potential for constituentspresent in the contaminated medium tomigrate and/or pose a hazard to humanhealth or.the environment.

PART 261-IDENTIFICATION ANDLISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,6922, and .6938.

10. Section 261.2 is amended byrevising paragraph (e)(1)(iii) to read asfollows:

§ 261.2 Definition of solid waste.* * * * *

(e) * * *(1) * * *

(iii) Returned to the original processfrom which they are generated, withoutfirst being reclaimed. The material mustbe returned as a substitute for feedstockmaterials. In cases where the originalprocess to which the material isreturned is a secondary process, thematerials must be managed beforereturn in a protective manner (e.g.,

48155



48156 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed RulesAuhrt:4 ... 9561() 92

storage in tanks, containers, and indoorssuch as containment buildings) suchthat there will be little potential forrelease of the material or its hazardousconstituents to the environment.* * * * *

11. Section 261.3 is amended byrevising paragraph (f)(2) and addingparagraph (g) to read as follows:

§ 261.3 Definition of hazardous waste.* * * * *

(2) Debris as defined in part 266 ofthis chapter that the RegionalAdministrator determines under§ 260.42 of this chapter is no longercontaminated with hazardous waste.

(g) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)through (d) of this section, soil andother environmental media including,but not limited to, ground water, surfacewater, and sediments, that iscontaminated or mixed with one ormore wastes listed in subpart D of thispart, or that exhibits a hazardous wastecharacteristic in subpart C of this part,are not subject to regulation under 40CFR parts 260, 261 to 266, or 270provided that:

(1) The Regional Administratordetermines under § 260.42 of thischapter that the soil or otherenvironmental media is no longercontaminated with hazardous waste;,and

(2) The soil or other environmentalmedia does not exhibit a hazardouswaste characteristic in subpart C of thispart.

12. In § 261.4, paragraph (a)(13) isadded to read as follows:

§261.4 Exclusions.(a) * * *(13) Environmental media, including,

but not limited to soils, ground water,surface water, and sediments, thatexhibit a hazardous waste characteristicin subpart C of this part, or that iscontaminated or mixed with one ormore wastes listed in subpart D of thispart, or with residuals derived from thetreatment, storage, or disposal of a wastelisted in subpart D of this part withconstituent concentrations below thosethat are determined by the RegionalAdministrator to represent minimizedthreats to human health and theenvironment. Such determinations willbe made in accordance with § 260.42 ofthis chapter.* * * * *t

PART 268--LAND DISPOSALRESTRICTIONS

13. The authority citation for part 268continues to read as fbllows

Authority' 42 U.S.C 6905, 6912(a), 6921,and 6924.

Subpart A-General

14. In § 268.1, paragraphs (c)(3)(ii),(e)(4) and (e)(5) are revised andparagraph (c)(3)(iii) is added to read asfollows:

§268.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.*f * * * *

(c)* * *(3) * * *

(ii) Do not exhibit any prohibitedcharacteristic of hazardous waste at thepoint of injection; and

(iii) If the injected wastes are D001High TOC subcategory wastes or D012-D017 pesticide wastes, they have beentreated to meet the treatment standardsof § 268.40 before the point of injection,or they are disposed in an approved no-migration injection well asdemonstrated pursuant to § 148.20 ofthis chapter.

(e) * * *(4) De minimis losses to wastewater

treatment systems of commercialchemical product or chemicalintermediates that are ignitable (D001),corrosive (13002), or are organicconstituents that exhibit thecharacteristic of toxicity (D012-D043)and that contain underlying hazardousconstituents as defined in § 268.2, arenot considered to be prohibited wastes.De minimis is defined as losses fromnormal material handling operations(e.g. spills from the unloading ortransfer of materials from bins or othercontainers, leaks from pipes, valves orother devices used to transfer materials);minor leaks of process equipment,storage tanks or containers; leaks from.well-maintained pump packings andseals; sample purgings; and relief devicedischarges.

(5) Land disposal prohibitions do notapply to laboratory wastes displayingthe characteristic of ignitability (13001),corrosivity (D002), or are organicconstituents that exhibit thecharacteristic of toxicity (D3012-D043),that are commingled with other plantwastewaters under designatedcircumstances: ignitable, corrosive, andTC organic laboratory wastes containingunderlying hazardous constituents fromlaboratory operations, that are mixedwith other plant wastewaters at facilitieswhose ultimate discharge is subject toregulation under the CWA (includingwastewaters at facilities which haveeliminated the discharge of wastewater),r rovided that the annualized flow ofaboratory wastewater into the facility's

headwork does not exceed one percent,

or provided that the laboratory wastes'combined annualized averageconcentration does not exceed one partper million in the facility's headwork.

15. Section 268.2 is amended byredesignating paragraphs (i) as (j), (e) asi), (h) as (e), Cd) as (h), (b) as (d), (g) as

(b), (c) as (g), (a) as (c) and (f) as (k) andby adding paragraphs (a) and (i) to readas follows:

§ 268.2 Definitions applicable In this part.i* * * * *

(a) Constituents subject to regulationmeans those constituents for whichtreatment standards are established in§ 268.48 at levels above the universaltreatment standards.* * *t *

(0 Hazardous soil means soil thatcontains RCRA hazardous waste(s)listed in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D, orthat exhibits one or more of thecharacteristics of a hazardous waste asdefined in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C.

16. In § 268.7, paragraphs (a)introductory text, (a)(1)(ii), and (a)(8) arerevised, paragraph (a)(9) is removed,paragraph (a)(10) is redesignated asparagraph (a)(9), paragraphs (a)(10) and(a)(11) are added, paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)and (d) introductory text are revised,and paragraph (e) is added to read asfollows:

§ 268.7 Waste analysis and recordkeepng.(a) Except as specified in § 268.32, if

a generator's waste is listed in 40 CFRpart 261, subpart D, the generator musttest his waste, or test an extract usingtest method 1311, the ToxicityCharacteristic Leaching Procedure,described in "'Test Methods forEvaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods," EPA PublicationSW 846 as incorporated by reference in§ 260.11, or use knowledge of the waste,to determine if the waste is restrictedfrom land disposal under this part.Except as specified in § 268.32, if agenerator's waste exhibits one or moreof the characteristics set out at 40 CFRpart 261, subpart C, the generator musttest an extract using test method 1311,the Toxicity Characteristic LeachingProcedure, described in "Test Methodsfor Evaluating Solid Waste, PhysicaliChemical Methods" (SW-846), or useknowledge of the waste, to determine ifthe waste is restricted from landdisposal under this part. If the generatordetermines that his waste exhibits:

(1) The characteristic of ignitability(D001) (and is not in the High TOCIgnitable Liquids Subcategory or is nottreated by INCIN, FSUBS, or RORGS of§ 268.42, Table 1), or the characteristic




of corrosivity (D002), and is prohibitedunder S 268.37; and/or

(2) The characteristic of toxicity, andis prohibited under § 268.38, thegenerator must determine whatunderlying- hazardous constituents (asde'fined in § 268.2), are reasonablyexpected to be present in the D001,D002, or TC waste.* * * * *

(1) * * *(ii) The waste constituents for wastes

F001-F005, F039, wastes prohibitedpursuant to § 268.32 or RCRA section3004(d), and for underlying hazardousconstituents (as defined in § 268.2), inD001 and D002 wastes if those wastesare prohibited under § 268.37, andconstituents subject to treatment in TCwastes that are prohibited under§ 268.38. Also included must be theapplicable wastewater (as defined in§ 268.2(f)) or nonwastewater (as definedin § 268.2(d)) form and the applicablesubcategories made within a waste codebased on waste-specific criteria (such asD003 reactive cyanides).

(8) If a generator is managing a labpack that contains prohibited wastes,and does not include any wastes foundat § 268.42(c)(2), and wishes to use thealternative treatment standard under§ 268.42, with each shipment of wastethe generator must submit a notice tothe treatment facility in accordance withparagraph (a)(1) of this section. Thegenerator must also comply with therequirements in paragraphs (a)(5)through (a)(7) of this section, and mustsubmit the following certification,which must be signed by an authorizedrepresentative:

I certify under penalty of law that Ipersonally have examined and am familiarwith the waste and that the lab pack does notcontain any waste found at § 268.42(c)(2). Iam aware that there are significant penaltiesfor submitting a false certification, includingthe possibility of fine or imprisonment.

(10) If a generator determines that heis managing hazardous soil that does nolmeet the treatment standardsestablished in § 268.47, then with eachshipment of hazardous soil, thegenerator must notify the treatment orstorage facility in writing of theconstituents subject to treatment and theappropriate treatment standards asdescribed in §§ 268.47. If the treatmentstandards specified on the notificationindicate that 90% treatment of theinitial concentrations of the constituentssubject to treatment has been performed,the generator must maintaindocumentation, in the facility operatingrecord, supporting the treatment '

standard by documenting the initialconcentrations and the treatedconcentrations of constituents subject totreatment.

(11) If a generator determines that heis managing hazardous soil that isrestricted under this part, anddetermines that the hazardous soil canbe land disposed without furthertreatment, then, with each shipment ofhazardous soil, the generator mustcertify and notify the treatment, storage,or land disposal facility in writing asdescribed in paragraph (a)(2) of thissection. To meet the requirements ofparagraph (a)(2)(i)(B) of this section, thegenerator must specify the appropriatetreatment standard for the hazardoussoil. If the universal treatment standardsare not specified as the appropriatetreatment standards, the generator mustmaintain documentation, in their files,supporting the treatment standardspecified to the treatment facility. Inlieu of the certification in paragraph(a)(2)(ii) of this section, the followingcertification must be signed by anauthorized representative:

I certify under penalty of law that Ipersonally have examined and am familiarwith the hazardous soil through analysis andtesting or through knowledge of thehazardous soil to support this certificationthat the waste complies with the regulationsand requirements that apply to hazardoussoil as specified in 40 CFR parts 260 through268. I am aware that there are significantpenalties for submitting a false certification,including the possibility of a fine andimprisonment.

(b) * * *

(4) * * *

(ii) The waste constituents for wastesF001-F005, F039, wastes prohibitedpursuant to § 268.32 or RCRA section3004(d), and for underlying hazardousconstituents (as defined in § 268.2), inD001 and D002 wastes if those wastesare prohibited under § 268.37, andconstituents subject to treatment in TCwastes that are prohibited under§ 268.38. Also included must be theapplicable wastewater (as defined in§ 268.2(0) or nonwastewater (as definedin § 268.2(d)) form and the applicablesubcategories made within a waste codebased on waste-specific-criteria (such asD003 reactive cyanides).

(d) Generators or treaters whodetermine that hazardous debris isexcluded from the definition ofhazardous waste under § 261.3(f)(1) ofthis chapter (i.e., debris treated by anextraction or destruction technologyprovided by Table 1, § 268.45) are

subject to the following notification andcertification requirement:

(e) Generators or treaters who firstclaim that hazardous debris orhazardous media is excluded from thedefinition of hazardous waste under§ 261.3(f)(2) or § 261.3(g) of this chapter,must place a one-time notice stating theapplicable exclusion and the dispositionof the waste in the facility's files, andmust retain such notices for at least fiveyears.

17. In § 268.9, paragraphs (a), (d)(1)introductory text, (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii)are revised and (d)(1)(iii) is removed toread as follows:

§ 268.9 Special rules regarding wastes thatexhibit a characteristic..

(a) The initial generator of a solidwaste must determine each EPAHazardous Waste Number (waste code)applicable to the waste in order todetermine the applicable treatmentstandards under subpart D of this part.For purposes of part 268, the waste willcarry the waste code for any applicablelisting under 40 CFR part 261, subpartD. In addition, the waste will carry oneor more of the waste codes under 40CFR part 261, subpart C, where thewaste exhibits a characteristic, except inthe case when the treatment standardfor the waste code listed in 40 CFR part261, subpart D operates in lieu of thestandard for the waste code under 40CFR part 261, subpart C, as specified inparagraph (b) of this section. If thegenerator determines that his wastedisplays the characteristic of ignitability(DO01) (and is not in the High TOCIgnitable Liquids Subcategory or is nottreated by IN(IN, FSUBS, or RORGS of§ 268.42, Table 1), or the characteristicof corrosivity (D002), and is prohibitedunder § 268.37; or if the generatordetermines that his waste displays thecharacteristic of toxicity (D011-D043),and is prohibitedunder § 268.38; or ifthe generator has characteristichazardous soil prohibited under§ 268.39, the generator must determinewhat underlying hazardous constituents(as defined in § 268.2), are reasonablyexpected to be present in the D001,D002, or TC waste.

(d) * * (1) The notification must include the

following information:(i) Name and address of the Subtitle

D facility receiving the waste shipment;and

(ii) A description of the waste asinitially generated, including theapplicable EPA Hazardous WasteNumber(s), treatability group(s), and

48157




underlying hazardous constituents inD001, D002, TC wastes, or characteristichazardous soil (it applicable).

Subpart C--Prohibitions on LandDisposal

18. In Subpart C, § 268.38 is added toread as follows:

§ 268.38 Waste specific prohlbillons-newly listed and Identified wastes.

(a) Effective [insert date 90 days fromdate of publicationi, the followingwastes specified in 40 CFR 261.24,Table I as EPA Hazardous Wastenumbers D012, D013, D014, D015,D016, D017, D018, and D019, D020,D021, 13022, 1023, D024, 13025,D026,D027, D028, D029, D030, 13031, D032,D033, D034, 13035, 13036, D037, 13038,D039, D040,13041, 13042,13043nonwastewaters; and the wastesspecified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPAHazardous Waste numbers K141, K142,K143, K144,K145,K147,1K148,1K149,K150, and K151 are prohibited fromland disposal.

(b) Effective [insert date two yearsfrom date of publication), radioactivewastes that are mixed with D018-D043nonwastewaters, D012-D017 wastes thatpass the EP toxicity test but fail theTCLP test, K141-K145, and K147-K151are prohibited from land disposal.

(c) Between [insert date ofpublication) and [insert date two yearsfrom date of publication], the wastesincluded in paragraph (c) of this sectionmay be disposed of in a landfill orsurface impoundment, only if such unitis in compliance with the requirementsspecified in § 268.5(h)(2).

(d) The requirements of paragraphs(a), (b), and (c) of this section do notapply if:

(1) The wastes meet the applicablestandards specified in subpart D of thispart;

(2) Persons have been granted anexemption from a prohibition pursuantto a petition under § 268.6, with respectto those wastes and units covered by thepetition;

(3) The wastes meet the applicablealternate standards established pursuantto a petition granted under § 268.44;

(4) Persons have been granted anextension to the effective date of aprohibition pursuant to § 268.5, withrespect to these wastes covered by theextension.

(e) To determine whether a hazardouswaste identified in this section exceedsthe applicable treatment standardsspecified in § 268.40, the initialgenerator must test a representativesamvle of the waste extract or the entire

waste, depending on whether thetreatment standards are expressed asconcentrations in the waste extract orthe waste, or the generator may useknowledge of the waste. If the wastecontains constituents in excess of theapplicable subpart D of this part levels,the waste is prohibited from landdisposal, and all requirements of 40 CFRpart 268 are applicable, except asotherwise specified.

19. Section 268.39 is added to read asfollows:

§268.39 Waste specifc prohibitions.-Hazardous soil, and debris contaminatedwith certain newly listed wastes.

(a) Effective [insert date two yearsfrom date of publication], soils that arecontaminated with F037, F038, K107-Kl12, K117, K118, K123-K126, K131,K132, K136, U328, U353, U359, D018-D043, K141-145 and K147-151 wastes,soils that are contaminated with D012-D017 that pass the EP toxicity test butfail the TCLP test are prohibited fromland disposal.

(b) Effective [insert date two yearsfrom date of publication, debris that arecontaminated with D018-D043, K141-K145, or K147-K151 wastes, and debristhat are contaminated with D012-)017wastes that pass the EP toxicity test butfail the TCLP test are prohibited fromland'disposal.

(c) Between [insert date ofpublication] and [insert date two yearsfrom date of publication], the wastesincluded in paragraphs (a) and (b) ofthis section may be disposed of in alandfill or surface impoundment only ifsuch unit is in compliance with therequirements specified in § 268.5(h)(2).

(d) The requirements of paragraphs (a)and (b) of this section do not apply if:

(1) The wastes meet the applicablestandards specified in subpart D of thispart;

(2) Persons have been granted anexemption from a prohibition pursuantto a petition under § 268.6, with respectto those wastes and units covered by thepetition;

(3) The wastes meet the applicablealternate standards established pursuantto a petition granted under § 268.44;

(4) Persons have been granted anextension to the effective date of aprohibition pursuant to § 268.5, withrespect to those wastes covered by theextension.

(e) To determine whether a hazardouswaste identified in this section exceedsthe applicable treatment standardsspecified in §§ 268.40 and 268.48, theinitial generator must test arepresentative sample of the wasteextract or the entire waste, dependingon whether the treatment standards are

expressed as concentrations in the wasteextract or the waste, or the generatormay use knowledge of the waste. If thewaste contains constituents in excess ofthe applicable subpart D of this partlevels, the waste is prohibited from landdisposal, and all requirements of 40 CFRpart 268 are applicable, except asotherwise specified.

Subpart D-Treatment Standards

20. Section 268.40 is revised to readas follows:

§ 268.40 Applicability of treatmentstandards.

(a) A waste identified in the TableTreatment Standards for HazardousWastes in this section may be landdisposed only if it meets therequirements found in the table. Foreach waste, the table identifies one ofthree types of requirements ("treatmentstandards"):

(1) All hazardous constituents in thewaste or in the treatment residue mustbe at or below the values found in thetable for that waste ("total wastestandards"); or

(2) The hazardous constituents in theextract of the waste or in the extract ofthe treatment residue must be at orbelow the values found in the table("waste extract standards"); or

(3) The waste must be treated usingthe technology specified in the table("technology standard").

(b) For waste covered by the totalwaste standards and waste extractstandards, compliance is based upongrab samples, unless otherwise noted inthe table. For wastes covered by thewaste extract standards, the test Method1311, the Toxicity CharacteristicLeaching Procedure, must be used. Anexception is made for D004, 13008,K031, K084, K101, K102, P010, Poll,P012, P036, P038, and U136 , for whicheither of two test methods may be used:Method 1311, or Method 1310, theExtraction Procedure Toxicity Test, bothfound in "Test Methods for EvaluatingSolid Waste, Physical/ChemicalMethods", EPA Publication SW 846 asincorporated by reference in § 260.11 ofthis chapter. For wastes covered by atechnology standard, the wastes may beland disposed after it is treated usingthat specified technology or anequivalent treatment technologyapproved by the Administrator underthe procedures set forth in § 268.42(b).

(c) When wastes with differingtreatment standards for a constituent ofconcern are combined for purposes oftreatment, the treatment residue mustmeet the lowest treatment standard forthe constituent of concern.




(d) Notwithstanding the prohibitionsspecified in paragraph (a) of thissection. treatment and disposal facilitiesmay demonstrate (and certify pursuantto § 268.7(b)(5)) compliance with thetreatment standards for organicconstituents specified by a footnote inthe Table Treatment Standards forHazardous Wastes in this section,provided the following conditions aresatisfied:

(1) The treatment standards for theorganic constituents were establishedbased on incineration in units operatedin accordance with the technicalrequirements of 40 CFR part 264,subpart 0. or 40 CFR part 265, subpart0, or based on combustion in fuelsubstitution units operating inaccordance with applicable technicalrequirements;

(2) The treatment or disposal facilityhas used the methoa1s referenced inparagraph (c)(1) of this section to treatthe organic constituents; and

(3) The treatment or disposal facilityhas been unable to detect the organicconstituents despite using its best good-faith efforts as defined by applicableAgency guidance or standards. Untilsuch guidance or standards aredeveloped, the treatment or disposalfacility may demonstrate such good-faith efforts by achieving detectionlimits for the regulated organicconstituents that do not exceed thetreatment standards specified in thissection by an order of magnitude.

(el If a treatment standard has beenestablished in the Table TreatmentStandards for Hazardous Wastes for ahazardous waste that is itself hazardous

debris, the waste is subject to thosestandards rather than the standards forhazardous debris under § 268.45.

(M Hazardous soil may be landdisposed in a subtitle C unit only if allconstituents subject to treatment in thehazardous soil are equal to or less thanapplicable total (for organics) orleachate (for metals) concentrationsfound in § 268.47.

(g) Soils that are hazardous solelybecause they exhibit the characteristicsof ignitability. corrosivity, or reactivity.must be treated by deactivationtechnologies which eliminate thesecharacteristics. If other constituentssubject to treatment are also present,they must be treated to achieve thetechnology-based treatment standardsfound in §268.48.

48159




cco

E

4: 4: z z

i E

- aLL

w wa a

4:4z z z z z z

.0 .4: LO~ 4

z z aD aD C

E

0

Q Z 0 ccz 2-

z z z

N' %

Z Z Z L to A

Z E

"E "E C: -,(D D

4:~~ ~ 5: 4 : 4 . -' e~4: CZ Z Z ZZ 0 0 <: z t

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

-0c 4 COcAj =h .. _- U 60C-0.C- C- I-- Cor ED2z- - C4 C4 020'r 0 T 0E 0 a, OWE)C. :S C 0p E cc

008 0 C O D 4:) ca.g, C IDg0 Cl ~ :.-.. 0 -*0? '2 1. 12'j 3: C %I < ED EDED'oD.. '0 -a c 2 -aC a&' -- C" 36

CD'D C a) C Cra, .5 C-,00 0 (n

-1- -0 to =__ _ W, V( r- 0: 0 4

o oo 0

oN00o oQ .a

0 0 a 0 0

E(<-Z

A2

CD

f

oi

Ez

0

0

4:

(D

I



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

0.

4: -J . -

z t-zz

x >

Z "Z " C'z Dz z

< <:z Z

>. c

z i

-

D Z

OZ

.z

* o

0m0 ao : o

EZ E 0Z0:00 W0D

z z ~ z z

31 Ka 0 Ka

04) a

.2. e o

C 008§8 8 00C000 c0 OD

0 0

0 0

0 0 .00 0.0

48161

-z

Dz

7 7cl 0,

:c

LL

i.OC

z

i:

:.0

g0

z z

0:.00

ww

z z

z z

co 0)

.4:z

w

z4

z




Ma

E Er= E, E~ r: E E E E

C- 0-- ., . -

0 .

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

o cue :

Co E " 0DD LDI'00 00 00 EO EDE00 E0

-0 . . . *. * * * . :*

. 10 E .q c. -u

C0 ..

* . i . zz zz- zz .a

*O r C 33 D co 00

ct 1 . 15o z

c :! " - - - -• - : "

: i a : " -:

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

z 0

"C z - -z oo 8 b

• ----- io r- .. Nr-CO 0 :: .. o)" .. .. * * * * -*- -

-00

0 0

M c r S 000

LU z t o oc co Fa o

cc CC O0) '"0

-1a cuca 0 0ITa)

' z 4 L 0 0

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

, C. C * .~ . C

z~ '2

E > 0 0. >~az CcO,~O~.. C a

00 0 0N



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

0 ) ) )0D0 C" ( Mcm ( mc 0)0 0) D)0m 0)CM:

o 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0

-0 -0-6- - -6 6 06 -06- -0

z0 00 00 00 00S 00 00 00 M) 0- M 0. d z - V - Z? z aWO 0 E)V5 ( E 0) E0 EO W 0 E

0 z Z; E EU o 0U 0 a) )0 ' )0 4 )U

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

.0

o 0 0

N"CD

C') 0 0

0

0 0

Cl -CI

C)

0 o

0 0

:9 .5o o

- C'

0 X(D 0

U) 0

O. N

"*- .C

a 0

")

q 0q

C -

0 Q.

0

.0 ,,0 .0

L O 11

2 2

0 0

<C (1) CO 4:4 <c < C U) C C I < U) ? UC CC CC ) CI< CC U

o o 0 0 0 , 2 o 0 0 0 0

9 S - : - - I"- a Y - 2- .. ..

c c~2~~ 2 2 02 2- 2 2 2?~ cc 0? 0? 02 - COE 02.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

.Gc a c C 0~ C c ~ a .s C 0- r c c

EE - EZ 2Z ' g -" = Z = "= . = E = ." = Z "=a) 0 C. ) g .8 -8 g I g , ,

0 0 9 0. 0 00 W "

M1 v5

LO P- c M 0 r- CD 0) ~~0~~ ~ E E 010~j M> 8>M 2 v~.

CN . 40 N U U No . .1 a l o.0 o a a a a a 0,

.0

- 0

0) -)

0)

o

0 .

0

L~e

0 0

0 00 a

6C A



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

0+ 0; 0 0.--- 04-.oo .0oo .b~ . .o..o....o..o..<

~- II -- -• ,. --J 1-Z I- --Z I- --I-

+ .. . .. 2 O "+ O :+"' " -

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

0 0 9+ r { 0 0 0 (00000000 0.000 ( < 009r Z

,o Z . o .

z0z3.0.

j ° • . . . . . . . .2 . . . . . . ..........

N do (0-

f- OD LO N .0 'T to W) (0. C14 C + + + + + + + +

C£4 N 0 0 8r. o.o o o. wZo o.o.ooo o .... o

z . . . . . * . .

0 C

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

C

0

8 o o0 0

I- I-

,,. ,'-" .S

3: 0 .

i .1

•O

- g --o " a2- 2

GL U.

(I)

CDE

-t

00

0



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

:214.

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

~!V U V

121 j2 -9 U

ii i i i i i ii i! i i i... i ii~ i ~l( -. .

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

2 0 Q

6 zz o-dLo 64 6 )zdLb zVo)oo0 z0 Uzz) Zo v W) v v v

<: 000

0 I 0 D 0

Cc? N?

0

w

CY

NI 11 O < <

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

0o .L/. IU- U.-

A of 1 .0

48165



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

Z Za - 40- IL0_j . i §

I- I - -- Z -912 +0 +0- -4~+- k+- 0-- 2j- ;

........ ........ ......

o000 O 5 00000

- ........ . . .. . . . . ... .

(vvv CO .C!,q ---- 0~ (DIR~1 CR 4q 4R qtI1 C4 IC)E CtJN cN"O

............................. ...... = = .~ .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .

V) W (4) () a 0 U c 0 co ca)Q 0 co U CO 0 0co to wto 0

HEIM E&aE Caa E& Epa.a E8aaaa.a E a 8 " E E'tozOO~O~~~o o&0'101811IsIG 8Bi 0is1;)i S'0S is~3o. to O 1

~ ~ ~~~~ ... .. ... .... . .. .. .. .. . .... .. . .ca ., L. .E

z: 0

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

" ,oD:I _ "

-- N :2:

" ""o m~ l- '- '' -- t O- ZI ,C Fa.;,- -D a ;

z ) ( 2 Z5z:

co

+

W)

CU

El,

- -.

6.0)

C

-4-,

01)

ID

C Il

0

caCc .2

VU




. . . . . . . . . . . . .

50<Ooooooo-o 00oo Q0

Z Z0-0-4.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*cUCUM D"H M EE ~ 0UUCU( UC UCU( UC U(<0-------- 0--0000000000-0--(

00000000

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

OD <C4. y IL) q < j ( W C q- O - ': :~ - - :(

MM.,N000 V,', Z 0 000)0 08 0000000-00(0030008CO0008 Nf. . . . .. . . . . . . ° . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

to~~ to ........) a'a................. .

c(0000 e000000 00000000000000 000000000 000

OD y)0)0)CDr-0 0 , ; ) ) ) C)' , Mv (D------------0 N O M O(D)Ln C.U t -co04 O O O O O~O ~ O J O O 0 O*OOO**Oooc.-oooco.Ocoo

ozooooooooo66 zooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooouoo

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . < 0,qq~ . . . I , . ,q c . ., . °. . . . q q q q ° , , q.. . . . .

LO I c? I ~ N ~ C'IO OO O) 'J*N N- N----------O O

E0

......................................................... :: : :..... . .... C 0 • 'O. !•

0 ::.: . * E .. ............~00 * ... ......

t5. . 5.i

. . . . . . .~~r v., ° . , ° , . . . . . . . . .. . ., . . . . . .f E. . . ,

G)U1DO0 01-I O g

g Zfl c0Ou.O Zg.N cm oanw

48167




CD

CLE(n

0.

0&C

MA

CL

E. ccc

(o

EEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEE(44* * .( 4C((4 C( ((

0000 000000D00

o.oo0Z . , mM------o C J

0 .2

r

O002.

J 0 < 0 (b* 5 'TLOr oZ ,C

. .* . . . ..

.c' CMc.JN

04 4 iti c cIc < C, 40II100NNO 0 - N -N

cc . . . . ..... .. .. ... . (D4) (D0:4):

0) : : I : : 0 . P . • R 2)"

0) G ::)- t- : >, -6 : m :o .2 26 CM :) a) : a 0 a ""' " .(4 4) C:

4) (D r- 4)4-" E) . 0 -~ c r-. . . . .. ,4) "x

)

" o. 4 . . .. . . . . .. . -)C C)k ' " " -- : CC 4 ) ' .. : • • : , , ,- - -

E0 0) - 0 CM t N N (a "0

cr 4 4 ) a0)~ 4 ) 0 E 0 0 0 2 .) 00022.

tr 0 0000o 0 E 9 ~ . 2.20 G) *z-z 0Z0,,cc.r 0 8 a . 0. "- E Eo . M " 00oo 0oo, o 9 6 o- .o O8 (D .... E . . . .So - .W ,'=>

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

S . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .x

.EEEEEEEEEEEEE EE EE

5zz 5UU6,5ggO~z~g00gz Og-- _F F- -

•nz wO100

EEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEE EE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE000000000000000000000000 00 8000000000000000 00000100UL000 0000 00 000 0000 000000000 00

.' ' ' ' . . .. . . . .

1:1; 0 -N jr N O-OOO O o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . ..0 in 0 (0C'J0C'JJCOf4"00

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 00 OOO~OOOOOOOOO~OOOOOOOO




ooooo-coo.° . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ..

88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888.,........... . ,, ..... : .O ........:,.,,,,,.

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

-rraz ro aAZZU) ) U )0 o0-

000008880000800000 00 000 0000000 000 000000 00

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

.~~~~~~~.°..... .......o... ... o...........o.0 . .. . .. . . o.. .cM0E;OR2wNCD*mw~.0 0 0)0

CM 0? "j2 O OCX,

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

0 C 4 00 00 00

00 C) 00 00 0 00 .0 0 000 0 0 0 000 C 0 0 0 0 0CD00 0 00

.... .... .~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ... . . .. . . . : . . ..." ...: : .: : :

r-- cj 7-N

=®®® !Cgm No



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

.... ...... ..........................

oo-cZo o0 o oo o oo -- a 0 M - - ) '

ca0 co0 0<0 fl C 0

0 00 0 0 0 0

< Go i 00, a 0.* i i i i I ' D i I < U i C q ' C')e : ) 04C::: :CDCO •.. ........ ...........:

C -CJCUOOOOyyv~o.- o.*U)O )C% ,CO - C U)OU)U)U')rCVOU) tocMNC4Z0Y Z

to E EEEEEEEE EEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEE

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

I-.w.080000800 000 0000O0000 00000 0000000 0000

d . . . . C

........... ................ . ... .................. .....

o0 ............................................................... ........... ! " "..... .............. : :

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

... ...... ..... ........ . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

U i i i i ! i i c! "t I "t I 1 . q q q q q q ! qi ci clc

CO.

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

i .o . . . .. •4,, --

4)a

00

zc E= 4c) u ... . .. '. .. ..

CU 1

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




~<OOO< O~OOO O~~ o 000 OOOOOO O < OOO Oooooo oooo

.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . .4. D: -L :C:, -Z -4 .. ,-L-: 4 - 4

222 ta E 2EE 22Ek 22 f2 ffEE 2E E F E E x

. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-j _• _j _j _j •J 4 ' •i -i i -i j -i i -i -i -i -i -i - - _j _

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

. . . . . . .. . . . . . .

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

. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c o .r

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

0080 8000 088 0 880 8 00 000000 88 ( 80 00 0 (D0a0DO0 0 a CO

: : : : : : : : 00 I:: := = = 0 r-- CO Ln LO 2 a) r M = = = = C\8 =D =y== =' = = = = (D= =y

U q-? Rr', R R p-.qst " " "o .,' ,- C , , (9, ,"9 "D.. . .•"c') l /@ - - - -l /Il l/Il i

0 ~:0 02* b2~

E . :.2 '

(D = -2 c:: : : : : : : : : : : :: :0 : ::g-?: : : : : : : :Q : :*: E ,

'C :O : : : ::=:=:E: : : : : : : : : : : :0 Rr:: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

A?- 0E E E : 'E :E-0.2 i.2 OuR O 0): ' - E

8 i ?32 i '

00>.0 00

E .)

wii~ 0 c4

0 C, 0 C 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Y .- x" x Y x x x x, 000oooc




EO EEE EEH ~ -- -- ~1-------------------------- --- - - - -

w co 00 0oo 0 0 0

0-0..................................................................................

If.

...................... ...... . ..................................

C40 - ftC DqqG*qDD~ qOPG Q ~ q <W q ~ q'P P ~ O N N qM< < N___ (0c )C YL Y0C W DZC YL nZW W00( D0C - -

MA . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .

.................................... .... .... .... ..... .... .... ....

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

.............................................................................................................

..................................................................................................

C 0 020Y n 0 n t . 00 L U t f C ~ - '~0- 9 0 c n t oci4 i nL ,6 0 U 3 ) O O ~ t l 1 0 -T ~ '( f

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

OR -) - . O r c

co Oo

cN

C~~ca ccC

o< ;( N N 0 ~ 6U. - '20o'j0

z ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sa 9? :) :0 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

cc 0 5 - 0

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

ca E Z 0 3

Z, 0. 2~0 00 2~ ez '7 - '2 rE r -.-. wOO..-zzO.- & 0. 60 0-2

d- C : IP .3 ' 6 X X4DC y : ELn caC42 4 ) c0. t2C4:

(D

0N

C)0 0 0> 0 0 0C



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

: E

0 z Z.

O. C Z ZCO O N - -

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

ZZI--Z - --

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :C : : : : : : : :

. .(6 CO Ny W) CO) U) to (0 zoo 0 0 D 0 D (0w00 Z Z 0 N - N 0. W. -. N 00.0 N N M n M M M . . n

22 to ee,,,mEEEEEEE'E:E'i

• . • .. •5 • • • • .. "- • .- O." • " . • .- O " .(3 ®4< T oooooo0(<<oS< O< <0009( (9 z z z r 0( . o , , , r9 r9r z z z z , 0( ( z z z0 zz

ac 0

C~~~t: C) :~CL . ,CN O 0) 0CD

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

"n N- (D 8 p K a: S O C U i S , 0 0 0 i 9 N i i O i 8 i i S CD 0CLD in CO '(D"0 z 6 66 o,: Z:00. C ct,:,o : " ".C o " 0 0 : : :0,Za0 0, : c 0 0o 0 00004404 004,do o -w Z 0 oooo~ooooo, o oeooooo6do6ZZooodd6ooooZoZ 6Zo6_Z_

C11

99 ,N -71 U r,

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

N N co CZ z Z Z IZD f. 0NCN NNr- N N NNNNNMD-DCO0CDa)- NNCON- kNOD-CU O CoC-

.o o : : : .. : . .

: 0: : :cc : N : : • : " : ! ! " " ! .

: : : : : . . . : . .

"0) - : : • 0 0) . 0 0- 0T

o 0. (a = a0 ) 0...2 _ :

c.--055 - CL rO ) 0-Ez 5-- ")' 4)60 ~o =c -, o ..5 - - ,5 :oo o-__ d

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

E.0 2,.1 2C-6 L0

2 ..2 ~ o' : 0z'.'S '!~ -

0N r-C0.a E E Mw22 u

.8 o--Bi. o~ore

tv) V U)CC4 ," k.

48173

,1,.-" . vv'v'




0a,

-4

-4. -. Z *- 04 -Z. 0

- < ~ g 000 ----- Et000O-----

Z

Zc~c'~a~ocsjUZ

..... - -O d 0 ° 6.. . .

c! to- c ' y q co

0 2 2 : 2: ° : : : : : ::c:

. . .0 .0. . . .. ................

8gEE E E E ' 8 c 3c38 E8 8 88 8 8 8z ooooooo0000o00o00Oo30z z z 0 , o888o08

:2 .Z ::::::::::::::: : : : :::::

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

.o:2o q< q : : cq

0 00 06 6 0c;60 odddooddoodacic Zo ooo D o 0 0 0o0oooooo CDP o

ceC ......

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

2..

r-:20-o . . .,

8v0 ..

:. 0. 22

. 0

•4 0 = .

r, Z 1 ICO O

I : ° -"0, . . .

0> c ::-

. . . . . y 0 . . . D

> .0

8 a

-~8

r : i0 i

n §1 Egg

- EEEE O

I- -Ri 1-Zl-- 2 --

CLE

-4

.II

-- i - --. - - -




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

. . . . . . 0~ • - O)O . . . . 0 0 . . . . . . ° O O . . . . . sO.. . . . O • 0 • 1 . . . . . . • • •~

.... .. ... . ... . . . . .....

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

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

oo z. z

UO !. "m- ", ~oew . o ".U :x :.. o) Uo)Z c a"oO O)il.z.o) o o ) "co j a " a V" k A

05 05 V< o- 0 (3 o o o 5o

0 8 6 c . . . . . . . .a . . . . . . . . . . ..80 0 2 8 0 0 2 8 8 . . . .0 . . . . . . . . ..,8 8 8 . .

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

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

0' *, i i .: :.. -a : .) * -c ." - -. ,g .c , -o . ,® s?( ""N ,

.01- .0 . ." =, .. . ED, re- ..v- Z r , u, ,,r

a) 0 -

0 000



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

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

EE- M EME-EEEEEEnn~ EEa

='- ( C .c c La a. a. a . ..0.0.0a . 0Lc . 0 .M EE E E-EE~EE------ t. --E

Ca u - -- -a . ',',00000B

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

N .. .. . 0-"C'Iso CD :IT' -

Zoo 6oo~oooo6uoooZoo 0DoC'CDD(vZZ-0

- It Z 0 L) .4'

...u ......... ....... . . . . . . . . .. . . . ,. ...... ~~u~ C:::: :

a ::::::: ::: :: ::: :::: ::::: : : : : : : : : : :: : :C

8 ~~T 0 0 0 0 c0 (308< 0"-"00O

: :8 0 0 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 0 0 0 0 : U : : U : :9 :9 :D : :

: : : C : : " " " " o . ... . . . . .. .... .. : :: : :.. . .. . ... .:

...z z, . . . . o U1ooooo ooo.0040<-00~(01 CCl3 < <Ciq P 'J0 q

: . : . : c C : : : , : . . . . . . . . .2 " :7: : : : : ::%: :Z ? ,

NO C\,. . ,

C, ,

-' ~~~CDN~~sNN cD CC N Ns'l---rI.N N N Z u)DD NDLJ Z

to co) (0 r, 0) LOU

0000'~~00

666666O

0)0.)

:

C , .- N

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

.......................................................................

........................................................... ::E C:: : :........................: .. . ............. . ... .. ...

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

0 * § : - , E : •" :0 " "0 " :" 0

L.' - 0.0~ - -, E E- E E .= E -' •0 " " C --*0

. cu- ) _ u. '- .- ., , ® )_ ,. - . < _ - >,. >-. .- - . ,_00E a0E o

0 00 . . . . . . .c

4)c * _0~~~ 6 f 6: E .2 2 .

e-Cu <2-0Nu -0 .2 01

_)t.04) ~ ~ ~ ~ . Co=*~ 20 Hxr- 0 4) aow

- CM 0) 0) C'G (D co to Iz(s0 0 0 0 O0

Mo

DC:

U)

- .. I-- - -

-I-I.

.0

CL

E(aco



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

. . .. . . . . . . . . . . -. .. 1 . ° 4 4 4 . . .

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

2 0 0000

. . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . .

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

EE EEEE EEEEEE E E EEE EEE2EEEEEEE EEEEEEEEr 0 -Q

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

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

LCCo

:CMN 6===E 1 0 N

(Um . co" ::: ::::::: : :: : !O® w

., .. .. . C e,. " a " E :C (UN" " . 0 (U (U

.2.r0 42 c.0~ 00,11-%ai ,. t --- .- t

I W O : - .2 .

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




M O M - - - F - - -- F i - - - - -•

- -- - -- - - C- C- L 0. L h- - - H -F - - - - - - - -

0 0

z

CDDC C3 0 %00(~~~~~~~i~~~~~~( 0 00 00 U) 0.D U) Z Z ZD 0 U)ZZZU D )UD)U C ) 0 0 0 a

0

00

wn in N f, to a U1 (0 U) LO CF) C, C) N 00 0~iii0 : 4 M Q C , . . . q (. " : " " r:" " "

.... .... .... .... .... .... .. ... ............. ...............

z .... .. . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

P-- Z IT C) ) -T 04 ,) C - U -)

®o <: J J J "o J J......................... ®® 4 U

(A 0

cr V)~0

........................................... "- ....... :.......... .. ..

0 ) -~( _=0 _ lC • -DO .... :~ , ........................U)U.U o)U) U) 0..® 000 . :- . : . :,, : , ., _

Z - ,,2 q )C0 0 2C-JO) 1C?

U Icoo',1.-_ i oU m cr-. o '- ZZ'Z'ZN --,oc.-C = ) DU I'.-CD.li' . O, i-

: - D i l ..66 6 S

CA 0220

" U

(D E: -2 22 D-28i ii '

099 0 2 ,68 E :F r 4 : : .:

& q t: ...i5.2 F-0 '

o o

tog v: ,-4 q ,., ,, ca'-2

Z-, VO-O I 629= DV 04!

o ~00o

0 CD. 0 CA c L

0)>. C) 00'

0~~ C' . . ..

Ii; x x. . .




0 . 0.0

z z i0000 00 0: 4

q:: z z z z z M m0 CY 0

z oz z 00 Z3 13(1) (j)N LL L c;. O- IL

SC) 0 Z Z Z Z Z D 0Z Z Z 0 Z

o a a aa zz z.. . .. . ... _. 0. _

zz Mz Z() a) .6jcai C (M U Q co a0 < ca0~ 9o 06 0o6 c

a~~ a a.C~roc a~-c .zsgc2 2 :F z Zto4:3*~4 Iq4: a) 040 M0 10 M0

:-04:

CC 4 cc : -

Z~ ~ Z Z ZA cjcj 6M Z ZZ

05 .g ' - .® " "

U) C< ts < - I ..<

- C% .,T oU

48179

iO LO

Y.- -



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

00000 '

M -- D-M-cm----

ez z z

."z

000000

I-- ': I-% I-4 - .-in 0) 0) in0)0

te t-l

0~00000~

Boo 00F- o 1oo - o

(CO 0 c, (0 'I -4'I

Cx.

:00 0

~~3~2 ~366Z

- , ( N.

• ,,, 0e

I e :00 .L00

C '- -

az

z

a00

z oZ

z~gIa

z z

6.. c; 6c;~.00-0

AinN

2'0 2

CoE00*0OM2(x.UMC

0) ) " to! !n

0 6660 60 C

a)-1N

C'S ® (D•6:-6 : .

S (DS 414o ocg ) cas-

E- co : &"

a S - .

0.G

e-arL._. f

E' F0- =500,, ,,

Sn4T

CL

E c

.H

-t

00

jig-I-.,

-4

C

E(3

-p

0

E..

o-B

toJ coa ;; C') (D

<

Z' z




00000 OOM00000 00 000000n 0000 0M30 M 0 0c

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

0 ) . ) G *0U S 0) 0D 0)- *0 0M - * 0)0 LO 0 LO -W(0 --3 0 OU)DL (D.--) c

c;dooSooo;6 00000c;0 0000000 000000 0 0000 C00D 0 0 00 00

0 C0

__ 5

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

3 064 )W W 0 0N S 6-

IC4 N -ff

v-v.



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

000000o

400 c m00

ff fif000000a -

00 0 v00ZZ v:

0O

9O oov qcN.0q o 0 ovq

: ::6: : ::O:

LO . t .....

• - -n, W....SC Co MC3 > C -C0 0o . 80 0

C >CCC>

• : a!!Ne : = :-: : :0

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

= 2

0-.

-020'



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

:z z z O

ZW Z Z 0 c

zO z ::

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

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

Z z OOZOOZ z 0 00~

ww

at~ am: a bc~~QZ.~~~OZ 0o ;siz oi

Z~

0*b - a - . a :-

8 E z

.i c; 4 C

C S Q 0~.~E

0 .0

c .2 .2 2

CL CLa.O-NM ft U~ CD




MI)

-d

.1z i-z

'zz

z z i- 1

0 0

X~z

'-0- Z

C-a CLlii z3iz

Z

D• )

U)

z

u,. "

z

z zz

C)~ ~ 4 a4:0

0i

(D00 Dzz z

:0 0

:)CJ - 0: 0 Z rum<

'-0 o0 0) oo

z z

z 0 c z

0 t - o•cc x, = k< 0 - ,

cJC%j C C

'LI, 'NI W N

201 .

M

3) 3§ E .2 f

4- C 0

0

* * U.

0: 0: 0 ! : *~ L9

~Cg. CO .5 C10 CL

____ g O O~oOLi_ 05

z z- 4-

-4.-.

z zz

z

;5 0_6'X o, .0 0 X Xzzoo" r

< )3 . -)

-I

E8

0 LL

0 ~

• . E ." 0F

L0

I




E EE E E E E Er C)C L

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

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

: :Z : : :Z! o : :z :z :z w c, z ,0 , oO to ,0-- i 5 3- C;- oo o -z z < z _z ooou. z CoZ o

0:o oz ooaoz :~ oooz : z : .,_ io :.0o >: S :,.co : ,CO - o :

0< 0 DW( a )4

xZ " " a D .CZ 0 "

OXmZ :z U U -Z zz zz " :O- :

r C-c c. .. 0.- : -r :, : -r - :oL o o o z ) g " oo o0.- . o 6D

1- --; -7OI<J , ~ 8 a-- . <C

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

E

, , C ; - : . . o o ,_,m - : ,

E & 6 E-- - • : .* --oo :>.c, . L" ,

E : :¢) .012 IL WM 0

0~~~ O~-.' 4 0

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

Z

E - :

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

0 C00 0

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




a. a00<z z z z z z Z -- Z _ <, 7zz z:- z

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

0._ _J Z Z n &W ••-

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

cz z z z z z Zz O z z czz

w 0- CZxz6 5 MC

cr

O 5X5Wz -z zX z

0 L

0 0 -0 Z

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

.Y .I(" :x :X i i : : : : : : :I:

. : i c . . . ;. .. co 0 .- - 0

cc 0M5xM 0 0 cc 0c ) << 0c0 < < oE co

00 'I- z Lz, 0 x0EDC,, -, , . -°

0 0 0S 6-6 < 0

4 0Z &Z Z

z:

co2

z zz

~? (0

cc 000 75 :5




CP) C) 0) 0) -C S -, D0O

E E - EE E-EEE0. a. CL a. .

0 000Z 2 z Oo- O ZFZ r ,: : : : : : zOI

",ni, :0 : Z::: 0 "00n -zl X -- : : :0e00

0 0:, .,- . .t 0 ,. .9 0r 6 c ) 6 c c

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

.OZ. : : : :.Z,

< 0 0~*-0

Xxzz X z 0 l 9 z z z C.9 z : : : (9 z

..x< 0o : .,xZ<LJ U.--,<L -J:• :o v- -, :• ,, 0-

-oo o < <.~0 06 : :0 z .-. .. '0

) . . . . . ..

c 0 a: 0 a: x L 0 c _ • CC 0 C

r~ r o t) 0 < U)=W ~ ~ ~ ~ L CYw5 zc 00zUI L

LU 0 0

I-~~~~ L? I I YN Y .1C 00 A> .L. %V

o 1 0Y N 0 0 co O OC W C000C12C0 00

LU,. o ~ . .. ...... . .

mt* D D L y U O f- t W ) i ) :

•0: . LU : . : :

~c.iLU.C LU LUI E• • • •:•0 "

,LUC V LUN ~ L : : ® gC : : LU

0m UW . - -- V..

... nJ.-r,- o . :. •0.....

LU .. E D E=.. 2

LU.-- t: t - > LU- L U O 0 - U C .

C 0 0 Uo

Q _. . . . cc 0. k cc cc

-- E CD "'-0--., .CLt . . L ., . ) W ,L -U,) • CD

C' a x E C -v -° 2-, ---=d -0, - ®0)'- W ID 3 <0 r (D 0lO OX =

c~~~~~ Z -. r - =to. ', .q o -z . 0- ,,.CAo u

0) C-4 NY N C-CD 0) 0) a) 0)0 0 0 0 00.0. 0.. 0.

CD N CD 0)0) 0)0) 0)0 00 0o- a.0a. 0.

00 0 0 C'a . C- at,- COro coo 00. 0.




.- Zz 1-E

nz Z

(U . U

to ccz z z z z1

M : -.P I :n < -

za uizZEm LZEm :

: O : :0:

" .

E EZ

z~z =a °o z,z

X: i: 04:I-4:i; - i 7(Z(ZU)U) 0)0 -u

Q) :0 : : : :

0 : : : 0

2 2OZ : :oo4:4: .4 ,40Z0Z013" 00 c •

.o o (oz z

* .. .ir Z

Oz 0(a 00 cco__

<4.- oZ

(D IT 01Cl) P' U)

U).

0.

O :2CL

E.2

CD)0

0. -o .-..0 0 0

0 ZuZ cr o 3Z -Q01 cr 0 o o 0 DZ

066, XKR. 0

C' ''T NCD L)LI

04ca

-0 e(U

2x EE' 0E 0

no a)o

.C.C a.-. .2t-I-- -WI-- I-

c ) 00

:-c --c:O

:>

.C.><>>OON Oca c ( > >><> 0 0 F44<

0 0

2~ .2) CD

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

.0 E :2 Z - (U (D 0 CL C4) 0. > (D : c E 0.C.C~ 0 a) C U 2CDUr .

M M 0 E E E 2o C = ==oM ,(D 0 0 ' -C -a'

co(U 0 0 cc E CC 0-0-0 (D (a= U) :2 cc .5'@a~~~ .2 8 a 2 6- -4 !

U) I-ii - <:> N N F-4 < < < < & <

0) 0 N9 , rP --

0. ( a.

0) 04M CI C)- C' c) ItLO CO N-Sc2 V -2O 00000 0

0 0.0000 0a. 0.. a. a. M = )

MO

0="D

CL)

-t

OCC.8

-t

ca0.

CL

E(/)

-t

Zdo :xT

o io

LL U..

( U4:.04:

-t t

1~

E0)

EE00

(D r- ) -

:0

:0)0

:(coC c. z - •

cE o

ooo -

z z!z zi




0)M 4)0 0)0)

0. -. ---

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

Un C.) 5 . NU

Z Z N z :::::::

-- . -- < < <OO9

• r -

0 0

S.. . . . . .

6 E Ey 06i0

z uz z czlaz zz z oz . .c .. z

R 0 cc - :00CCC)P~~~cra 0 .r F. 0 .cC-R0c U Im ZT LJXz 0 0UzFO mz zx m z zxz xmMz ><z O : :000C :- 0 00 -00o0u- . .o o0 QU0M . o0 "C q q" 3:0UZ

d 0 0 0 ci 00 oI -- o 0 -- 0o 0 0-

in CY 0):.

o6 -- :'U:0)

-0-

(D 0) 00D "0 0 f :E 0 -S?

4)Mc )a 0 0 ~ 0'5 "c_ w. ._ m. 0

02 .0- c :33

0 00: :

E N) 4) _) 0) 0~ a) U.nM A )0 o=c

• -- 20 0'-0 0) 00 o

< < << < m Mammm m mm Mo (mmmDoo

(0 -(0) -? CI0 000 0

cli co I LO CO If=(00o-C'JcC~j CYJ (N 04JCJ C~j N c) n )00 0 0 9000000

D 00D

0) 00-00 0

D CD00 0



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

a,Co0)0).0

C0) ~C

= .0)0. cECUCU

1 -- Z-Z

zz

Z

z C; Uz

0u0:

EEEE2< 0 O0<Z 0 U ()Z

*0) ) C

z

EEE000<

I0M0t

-.E"

aTa

EE00<00z

0.L :-a 0 '- 0 00 os. o0 .sy 0 S CoZ. I .. . E . . . .ia~ 0 6: 0 Ei iz-.:: :: : X Xoz.:Q2Q : :.Dz : z . : : : : : . _ : :

xi QiZxc 2 2

C4 C Q 0 ::,W66- Qu- zC; OOiO 6OO 6O 6 0 OOOOOOOOO

0))')

.0

C 0

00CL ) .

999N m I

0))

CO)

E0. . . . . . .

:0.) :: : :00

0) ° .. b...).0

WZ 0 4) q 4)0 :3jC..

w -=cw• ",e• "0

.ZCX 0) 2 - ) §0Ma~. x 6 ( 0

E

0

00

0 0

ZU

CorSaW). ml4lrow r, M 0 G00000 0000 000> 00C

LO L O0 0 0D D 0

z

OD- - - C14 V) 0 L CI) LA-

0) (D )

0000000~O000z

(38

O

CUs

C.C0 4)

Ec2CfU

z z

-1.-C

-C

LO -o.- o

0,2CUCC02200

> . . 0

Z5: 4) (D::

0000

>0003

E E

(D

>. 0 0

OO.>_"00

0)

. *0

C 0m

200

999N- N 'r

1 to ° •



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

fffff I IH

ZZZ Z0z: !: . :: i : i0 ii Xz , z

Z . .. ..

cnc Z tCO :t ttt Q : :: :1 2 2: : :: : : :: 'T{) DbiDZ b 1 o -" . a

CDDCC CD Z. . U)

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

.. .. " . . ... . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..: " I "

(::0OOo0 0 0 0 00000000000000

az 080~88 o'z 88 8 ae8 8 ( 8 ~88 00 8 8 8 8

. 0z

::i XX::D2: XX02 9 : - .

-OM 0'0 o - 0TC- (

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

. . . ... .

CY 'o o oo o o ooo 0

N~~ A 0) 0)N < ' _ -

0_

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

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

-a 0 0I. d . T

c i. ... . . . .

.. . . _h- ,

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

-9.29

C) X 0 0, -

00 0000000 l0 D 0 ,. CD 0 " .0o 0>D, *:

N§2 - 8LaC C C:)D:D :3




z z zz

jZ

(0z'0

LWL

CE

0i

x x xo o .00. 00. 00 00.

0 0_ F , zo- a:a cu-CU. U. LL -tcy LL

z z Z z

0

- N

'-0)

CD U)

0.

022

1-

N6

9

E : E

9 000

OnCL U)

a di5

4il

o o 04 NiE E e -

8 8 o 0

HA

cc0

9..0000:

7

C:

Z -6

CC c

.2

0 a• °0 cc

xli

ci:c

C9 8agei,-*-

DMD




ooooooo o ooooo)

zzz z z z z z

0 z z Zz z0 :. .. .0 0 0 C. 0 i i i

ZZ Z Z°°°Z Zooo:3 C: C3 (0 O Dt o D

o " U z z z 6 T 0CC'00800c

E E <E E E: E: E0 8< ~ <z 0 0 0 << < < < < 0 0 0 8 0 0zo Z 0Zz 3Z zz z 000 00

0 ; 0

6CO~~XC~z :XCOZixxca; :XXCOZ :X>(COZ -;OXXCZXxO0iZ30 Z :ROaj 00a 000 0a . . : : . Z .6 o OZ 000000 Z !!!

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

1m z z: 0 z m EDxm :U :0m 0 :5z m ~ m ~ z m d Uj q q iwo 0 - U( )q q

0 6 0 0

* . __ ~ E : .. .. * : : : :

CN N 6yI? A0.. . .:_

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

cr E : C ',

0" 0 0 0: . : : :

0 ED

0) 0 8

00 05010 2K 0 - xc=3T C9 COZE MC

M0 4) CD00 6

-- c cx

0

C LX c s E 0 0 3 4) (D.2Z

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

coc..5( ICM) M

I5-COO) 0JC550D

-" l'JC )



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

CL ))00

I.- 0zZ

0.

-JZ Z Z I-

o : 0 : : :" ' . Z .

M. : . . . . . z .Z.

Mx Q H. : :,: -Z c z z z LO_l1 :8wwQ

3: z z o o,_ , 0 0 C 4

• .

C Y . z< < ooo,. z z z o e

z 88 Z .9.. OZ z z z

0~ cc ou~o. oo~

1- 42 -cc a a-, 6 ! .9 - : : ::

O6 -- 0

. ... : . .. , r I

49 0 . . . . . .:xci C &

(i : ' " : : : ' .

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

_) M 2 2 i 2 xa

-. U._

z o 6. .

: ) : :: . . _ ) U

(Us) *, . .-

:C o 0 .. 0 .oaU0 0 0 -

(UCO C C' ~

14 % I 0 00-

(0 N co




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

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

0 0 ::: : 0:

a: g :. 0 oa... . 80< 2< .- 0E EE000Ez z oz 8 z z oz z oooz c3z c

w :

C -

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

D : :00 :D: .

cc < z -0I c) 0- co z vi LL z C" .-

0:

:E : EE : E E , E E EE EE E, E--

ww

0 Z-- : 0-

000

0 0 0 0 - 0

CO > .0 Z Od( ~

,o X X M ° X.o X-

cm~~J W.z (0

3: : •) - 4

.2. r ® --- -g e : .. E- o_ o- _ .- _

-T _ n ZCU40f N~ 00 it C) N (7 L

*0o~ ~o >.o0~ 00. 0~ 6.. 2 E

C41L E22(D. -)Zao, Z o .~ -~a

r- 0 jF:= - .

-5 ci 5G(00 ... 5555 IT LO CO

' t2 U1D :3 D D :)

r- c CF




• . . - -.

S< o<Z Z z - Z

U) U)0 C )co) Cl) C\I U.

E I0 0 04ooo) Qz

.0)0).-

oo

Ck 6 L6a.

12 zz Z

.Z

cqo'w U.

00z0 Z

Uo,. .4.

(0r.- 0)

w .

* . E

S 0 L "--

" - 0-

. a.:.: : : -

:) 0 a

M0o: -

:.2

S0

Eo

2S60.-z

is w- NXO) 0F.-9 0) co D- -- r - v-

0

CO)

-t

co

0

-I-'

0E0

00

WE

0

0

M)

0)0) )



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

IV

E EE EE

z < < <! <" i

4: ii : :m 4: 4 4:4< 4:4 4:4 4:4z

-- ,--I z zz zz zz z z zzz

Z Z z z

z z :zz

C. 0 .0 " 0)C-- ". ... '0

00

--

_j __ _jca~JUUL z Zo z o c; c< cr a: <zzc

U) U) _)z c - - % Y R U 0

. .:cc.u ::

LL ~ ~ ~ ~ aa a-N DL OinL czc a: z cc az L I4L

E E EE: E~ E E E Z E< < <E 00000 < 4 :0z z z z (DC)(DZ 00000Z z UZ oz Z- z 8 z z

. . . . .

: . , °

az ~ z

~Z~Z<<OZ0-l~. i:)(z :~OsZ :........

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

-0 c

LU~~~C 0C' zL 1 n Z- 0 L C' 3:0 45l~- LO )0-U <) I-CD I-I 00- I-C (UC

Sc.0 .. .. . .

Lf LO : : : : : :

0-r 4 YC - n r

e" e e o0"- c . '' E E EE EE Eo 4EL 9... E E E),.c E E E E Eo Z ) )

(D00cac

ca 000

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

(D 0 c 00 0 .2-2~

cc : 0)0= . (a VV v C :0 E 0c

&~~. 00 ' o .2 ~ o

CY 4 CM 1 YC- C C:3 ) ) 000DD-3 -)




V)

aCO

E E E°ECDE-

z"

SZ ....

zoo

o O D Wu. -- ) U) U--

MaU')

c.

C

Ecis

CO

C 0

Eg

z z z

z z zz z CO Z

zgz

> zo <xZ Z

K :6i0 ca~0 0

C

z z

60' 0 26002

oz

EEEE"4) M 0 8

- •• 0= 0 -I 0

_0 Z 0 Q8 LU m ZoZ0 ~ 0 :o0r L

. .~ 8°". x " .:- . 3-ozOccr O- r 0or- 0 cc-- x_ 0,0 0 0 cc x LZ q: r . cc

co ,,0;; .- _, _,'< F , 0o. o ~ ~ 0 FM < J<Q zo M < 0

z ) .. .r-

Zo j:

;z N c :.~ cJ

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

E

:0o:

E

' '

CL0.

C)

0E"00

.0c

60

.r 0.

0 ._2.2_CL

ED9-5" q

E :

2 -

C.0 :

0: m : :C:

cu

0 ~ 0*:0:

0 0 :00

.22 0 z E0 0 . 8-V00

0 0E.eE Z :2 i5 2

0.. WU . .r > 0CC0 .>0-o -" ' , -'~~~ x -- r r -- ''

CO) U) (0 N ON1 N\ N NCNl N1 N NN

r- G 0) 00C 4

04 0 N N 04 N C%CD N ON NN C

0) Go

=) D




z z

73U)E m

0

_Q zZ Z

z z

ZC C

z z

0 0MZq 0 ,rZO 0

So:zaz _o 5zzzY <o< 0 n ,.Z Zz z

(1 CC* .C.

S x 0400_ N

1NR

4)

00

,.

"0CM

0 is

00LON

Cu

-U



48200 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules§ 268.41 .[Reserved]

21. Section 268.41 in subpart D isremoved and reserved.

22. Section 268.42 is amended byremoving Table 2 and Table 3, andrevising paragraphs (a) introductorytext, (c)(2) and (d) to read as follows:

§ 268.42 Treatment standards expressedas specified technologies.

(a) The following wastes inparagraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of thissection and in the Table of TreatmentStandards for which standards areexpressed as a treatment method ratherthan a concentration must be treatedusing the technology or technologiesspecified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)and Table I of this section.

(c) * * *(2) The lab pack does not contain the

following wastes: DOO9, F019, K003,K004, K005, K006, K062, K071, K100,K106, PO10, P011, P012, P076, P078,U134, U151.

(d) Hazardous debris containingradioactive waste is subject to thetreatment standards specified in§ 268.45.

§268.43 [Reserved)23. Section 268.43 in Subpart D is

removed and reserved.24. In subpart D, § 268.47 is added to

read as follows:

§ 268.47 Treatment standards forhazardous soil.

(a) Treatment standards for theorganic and inorganic constituentslisted in § 268.48, Table UTS, UniversalTreatment Standards, an:ppplicable toRCRA hazardous soil befo4he soil island disposed.

(b) Hazardous soil may be landdisposed if the concentration of eachconstituent found on Table UTS in thesoil is equal to or less than:

(1) A 90% reduction of the initialuntreated concentration, provided thatthe resulting treated concentration isless than or equal to ten times theuniversal treatment standard; or

(2) The concentration is less than orequal to ten times the universaltreatment standard; or

(3) A 90% reduction of the initialuntreated concentration unless suchwould result in a treatment level belowthe universal treatment standard for thatconstituent, in which case the universaltreatment standard would apply.

25. In subpart D, § 268.48 is added toread as follows:

§268.48 Universal treatment standards.

(a) Table UTS identifies the hazardousconstituents associated with restrictedhazardous wastes regulated under thispart. It also establishes theconcentrations of those constituents thatmay not be exceeded in the waste ortreatment residual, or in an extract ofsuch waste or residual, if so specified inTable UTS.

(1) Compliance with these treatmentstandards is measured by an analysis ofgrab samples, unless otherwise noted inthe following Table UTS.

(2) The constituent-specific treatmentstandards in Table UTS supersede thetreatment standards found at §§ 268.41and 268.43, when such constituents areregulated in wastes listed as hazardousunder 40 CFR part 261, subpart D, ofthis chapter.

(3) The requirements of paragraph(a)(2) of this section do not apply to thehazardous waste specified in §§ 268.41and 268.43 as F024. This waste issubject to the treatment standards in§§ 268.41 and 268.43.

§ 268.48 TABLE UTS-UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS

Wastewater con.- NonwastewaterWasteatercon- concentration totalRegulated hazardous constituent centration total com- composition tmta

positionomposition (g/positon (rg/I)kg)

Acenaphthalene ....................................................................................................................................Acenaphthene ......................................................................................................................................Acetone .................................................................................................................................................Acetonitrile......................................................Acetophenone .......................................................................................................................................2-Acetylaminofluorene .................................................................................................................Acrolein .................................................................................................................................................Acrylonitrile ............................................................................................................................................Aldrin .....................................................................................................................................................4-Am inobiphenyl ....................................................................................................................................Aniline ....................................................................................................................................................Anthracene ............................................................................................................................................Aram ite ..................................................................................................................................................Aroclor 1016 ..........................................................................................................................................Aroclor 1221 ..........................................................................................................................................Aroclor 1232 ..........................................................................................................................................Aroclor 1242 ..........................................................................................................................................Aroclor 1248 ..........................................................................................................................................Aroclor 1254 ..........................................................................................................................................Aroclor 1260 ..........................................................................................................................................alpha-BHC .............................................................................................................................................beta-BHC ...............................................................................................................................................delta-BHC .............................................................................................................................................gam ma-BHC ..........................................................................................................................................Benz(a)anthracene ......................................................................................................................Benzal chloride ......................................................................................................................................Benzene ................................................................................................................................................Benzo(a)pyrene .....................................................................................................................................Benzo-(b)fluoranthene ....................................................................................................................Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ...................................................................................................................Benzo(k)fluoranthene ...................................................................................................................Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane ..................................................................................................................Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether ....................................................................................................................

0.0590.0590.280.170.0100.0590.290.240.0210.130.810.0590.360.0130.0140.0130.0170.0130.0140.014.0.000140.000140.0230.00170.0590.0550.140.0610.110.00550.110.0360.033

3.43.4

160NR

9.7140NR84

0.0664NR143.4

NR0.920.920.920.920.921.81.80.0660.0660.0660.0663.46.0

103.46.81.86.87.26.0

58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules48200 Federal Register / Vol.




§ 268.48 TABLE UTS-UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS-Continued

Wastewater con- NonwastewaterRegulated hazardous constituent centration total corn-coenrtntta

posiion mgn) composition (mg/positon (g/I)kg)

Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether .................................................................................................................... 0.055 7.2Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ..................................................................................................................... 0.28 28Bromoedichloromethane ......................................................................................................................... 0.35 15Brom omethane ...................................................................................................................................... 0 .11 154-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ........................................................ 0.055 - 15n-Butyl alcohol ....................................................................................................................................... 5.6 2.6Butyl benzyl phthalate .......................................................................................................................... 0.017 282-sec-Butyl-4,6- dinitrophenol ............................................................................................................... 0.066 2.5Carbon disulfide .................................................................................................................................... 0.014 4.81Carbon tetrachloride .............................................................................................................................. 0.057 6.0Chlordane ....................................... . ............................................... 0.0033 0.26p-Chloroaniline ....................................................................................................................................... 0.46 16Chlorobenzene ...................................................................................................................................... 0.057 6.0Chlorobenzilate ..................................................................................................................................... 0.10 NR2-Chloro-1,3-butAadiene .......................................................................................................................... 0.057 NRChlorodibromomethane ......................................................................................................................... 0.057 15Chloroethane ......................................................................................................................................... 0.27 6.0Chloroform ............................................................................................................................................. 0.046 6.0p-Chloro-m-cresol .................................................................................................................................. 0.018 142-Chloroethyl vinyl ether ....................................................................................................................... 0.062 NRChloromethane (Methyl chloride) .......................................................................................................... 0.19 302-Chloronaphthalene ............................................................................................................................ 0.055 5.62-Chlorophenol ...................................................................................................................................... 0.044 5.73-Chloropropylene ................................................................................................................................. 0.036 30Chrysene ............................................................................................................................................... 0.059 3.4Cresol (m- and p-isomers) .................................................................................................................... 0.77 3.2o-Cresol ................................................................................................................................................. 0.11 5.6Cyclohexanone ...................................................................................................................................... 0.36 0.75o,p'-DDD ............................................................................................................................................... 0.023 0.087p,p'-DDD ................................................................................................................................................ 0.023 0.087o,p .-DDE ................................................................................................................................................ 0.031 0.087p,p'-DDE ................................................................................................................................................ 0.03 1 0.087o,p'-DDT ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0039 0.087p,p'-DDT ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0039 0.087Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene ............................................................................................................................... 0.061 NRDibenz(a,h)anthracene .......................................................................................................................... 0.055 8.2tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl) phosphate ...................................................................................................... 0.11 NR1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ............................................................................................................... 0.11 151,2-Dibromoethane ................................................................................................................................ 0.028 15Dibromomethane ................................................................................................................................... 0.11 15m Dichlorobenzene .............................. ........... .... ............. ................................................ 0.036 6.0o-Dichlorobenzene ............................... ............ ....................................... 0.088 6.0p-Dichlorobenzene ..................................................................................... .......................................... 0.090 6.0Dichlorodifluoromethane ........................................................................................................................ 0.23 7.21,1-Dichloroethane ................................................................................................................................ 0.059 6.01,2-Dichloroethane ................................................................................................................................ 0.21 6.01.1-Dichloroethylene .............................................................................................................................. 0.025 6.0trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene .................................................................................................................... 0.054 30

.2,4-Dichlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ 0.044 142,6-Dichlorophenol ................................................................................................................................ 0.044 142,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) ................................................................................................ 0.72 101,2-Dichloropropane .............................................................................................................................. 0.85 18cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene ...................................................................................................................... 0.036 18trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene .................................................................................................................. 0.036 18Dieldrin .................................................................................................................................................. 0.017 0.13Diethyl phthalate ................................................................................................................................... 0.20 28p-Dimethylaminoazo-benzene ............................................................................................................... 0.13 NR2,4-Dime thylphenol ............................................................................................................................... 0.036 14Dimethyl l phthalate ................................................................................................................................. 0.047 28Di-n-butyl phthalate ................................................................................................................................ 0.05 7 281,4-Dinitrobenzene ................................................................................................................................ 0.32 2.34,6-Diitrocresol ................................................................................................................................... 0.28 1602,4-Dinitrophenol ...................... ............................................... 0.12 1602,4-Dinitrotoluene .................................................................................................................................. 0.32 1402,6-Dinitrotoluene .................................................................................................................................. 0.55 28Di-n-octyl phthalate ............................................................................................................................... 0.017 28Di-n-propylnitrosamine .......................................................................................................................... 0.40 14Diphenylam ine ....................................................................................................................................... 0.92 131,2-Diphenyl hydrazine ......................................................................................................................... 0.087 NR




§ 268.48 TABLE UTS-UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS-Continued

Wastewater con- NonwastewaterRegulated hazardous constituent centration total corn- concentration total

position (mg/I) composition (mg/

Diphenylnitrosoam ine ............................................................................................................................1,4-Dioxane ...........................................................................................................................................Disulfoton ..............................................................................................................................................Endosulfan I .........................................................................................................................................Endosuffan II .........................................................................................................................................Endosulfan sulfate .................................................................................................................................Endrin ....................................................................................................................................................Endrin aldehyde ....................................................................................................................................Ethyl acetate .........................................................................................................................................Ethyl benzene .......................................................................................................................................Ethyl ether .............................................................................................................................................Ethyl methacrylate .................................................... ......................................................................Ethylene oxide .......................................................................................................................................Fam rphur ................................................................................................................................................Fluoranthene .........................................................................................................................................Fluorene ................................................................................................................................................Heptachlor .............................................................................................................................................Heptachlor epoxide ...............................................................................................................................Hexachlorobenzene ............................................................ : ......................................................Hexachlorobutadiene ............................................................................................................................Hexachlorodibenzoturans ....... ............ . . . . . . . ............Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ................................................................................................................Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ..................................................................................................................Hexachloroethane .................................................................................................................................Hexachloropropylene ...........................................................................................................................Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene .............................................................................................. . ..............lodomethane .........................................................................................................................................Isobutyl alcohol .....................................................................................................................................Isodrin ....................................................................................................................................................Isosafrole .................................................................................... ; ..........................................................Kepo ne ..................................................................................................................................................Methacrylonitrile ...................................................................................................................................Methanol ................................................................................................................................................Methapyrilene ........................................................................................................................................Methoxychlor .........................................................................................................................................3-Methylchloanthrene ...........................................................................................................................4,4-Methylene-bis-(2-chloraniline) .........................................................................................................Methylene chloride ................................................................................................................................Methyl ethyl ketone ..............................................................................................................................Methyl isobutyl ketone ...........................................................................................................................Methyl methacrylate ...........................................................................................................................Methyl methansulfonate ...................................................................................................................Methyl parathion ....................................................................................................................................Naphthalene ..........................................................................................................................................2-Naphthylamine ...................................................................................................................................p-Nitroaniline .......................................................................................................................... ................o-Nitroaniline .........................................................................................................................................Nitrobenzene .................... ....................................................................................................................5-Nitro-o-toluidine ..................................................................................................................................o-Nitrophenol ........................................................................................................................................p-Nitrophenol ........................................................................................................................................N-Nitrosodiethylamine ..........................................................................................................................N-Nitrosodimethylam ine ........................................................................................................................N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine .......................................................................................................................N-Nitrosomethylethylamine ...................................................................................................................N-Nitrosomorpholine .............................................................................................................................N-Nitrosopipeddine ...............................................................................................................................N-Nitrosopyrrolidine ..................................................... .........................................................................Parathion ...............................................................................................................................................Pentachlorobenzene .............................................................................................................................Pentachlorodibenzofurans .....................................................................................................................Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins............................................. ..Pentachloroethane ................................................................................................................. I .............Pentachloronitrobenzene .................................................................................................................Pentachlorophenol .................................................................................................................... : ...........Phenacetin ...........................................................................................................................................Phenanthrene ............................................................................................................................... I ........Phenol ............................................................................................................ ......................................Phorate ..................................................................................................................................................

0.920.120.0170.0230.0290.0290.00280.0250.340.0570.120.140.120.0170.0680.0590.00120.0160.0550.0550.0000630.0000630.0570.0550.0350.00550.195.60.0210.0810.00110.245.60.0810.250.00550.500.0890.280.140.140.0180.0140.0590.520.0

NR0.0680.32

NR0.120.400.400.400.400.400.0130.0130.0140.0550.000035

.0.000063NR

0.0550.0890.0810.0590.0390.021

13170

6.20.0660.130.130.130.13

3310

160160NR153.43.40.0660.066

105.60.0010.0012.4

3030

3.465

1700.0662.60.13

840.751.50.18

1530303633

160NR

4.65.6

NR28141428132928

2.3172.32.3

35354.6

100.0010.00164.87.4

165.66.24.6




§268.48 TABLE UTS-UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS-Continued

Wastewater on- NonwastewaterRegulated hazardous constituent centration total concentration total

position (mg/) kmpositin (mg/

Phthalic acid ......................................................................................................................................... 0.055* 28Phthalic anhydride ......................................................... 0.055 28Pronamide ........................................................................................................... ... . 0.093 1.5Propanenitrile ......................................... ............................................................................................... 0.24 360Pyre ne ................................................................................................................................................. 0.067 8.2Pyridine....................................... ........ 0.014 16Safrole ................................................................ 0.081 22Silvex (2,4,5-TP) .................................................................................................................................... 0.72 7.92,4,5,-T .............................................................................................................. ..... .... .............. 0.72 7.91,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene .................................................................................................................. 0.055 14Tetrachlorodibenzofurans ...................................................................................................................... 0.000063 0.001Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dibxins ................................................................................................................ 0.000063 0.0011,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ..................................................................................................................... 0.057 6.01.1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ..................................................................................................................... 0.057 6.0Tetrachloroethylene ........................................................ 0.056 6.02,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ..................................................................................................................... 0.030 7.4Toluene ................................................................................................................................................. 0.080 10Toxaphene ............................................................................................................................................ 0.0095 2.6Tribrom om ethane (Brom oform ) ............................................................................................................. 0.63 151.2,4-Trichlorobenzene ....................................................................................................................... 0.055 191,1,1 -T rchloroethane .... ........................................................................................................................ 0,054 6.01,1,2-Trichloroethane ............................................................................................................................ 0.054 6.0Trichloroethylene ................................................................................................................................... 0.054 6.0Trichlorom onofluorom ethane ................................................................................................................. 0.020 302,4,5-Trchlorophenol ......................................................................................................................... 0.18 7.42,4,6-Trichlorophenol ......................................................................................................................... 0.035 7.42,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid ......................................................................................................... 0.72 7.91,2,3-Tchloropropane ............................... 0.85 301,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trfluoroethane ........................................... . 0.057 30Vinyl chloride ......................................................................................................................................... 0.27 6.0Xylenes (total) ....................................................................................................................................... 0.32 30

Total PCBs ..................................................................................................................................... . 0.1 10

Wastewater con- NonwastewaterRegulated hazardous constituent centration total concentration

composition (mgI) TCLP (mg/I)

Antim ony ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.9 2.1Arsenic ........................................................................................................................................................ 1.4 5.0Barium ......................................................................................................................................................... 1.2 7.6Beryllium .......................................................................... ............................................................................ 0.82 0.014Cadm ium ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.20 0.19Chrom ium (total) .......................................................................................................................................... 0.37 0.33Cyanide (total) ............................................................................................................................................ 1.9 1590Cyanide (am enable) .................................................................... I ............................................................... NR 130Lead ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.28 0.37Mercury .................................................................. 0.15 0.009Nickel ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.55 5.0Selenium ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.82 0.16Silver ........................................................................................................................................................... 029 0.30Thallium .................................................................. 1.4 0.078Vanadium .................................................................................................. ;0................................... ! ............. 0.042 0.23Zinc .............................................................................................................................................................. 1.0 5.3

As analyzed using SW-846 Method 9010 or 9012; sample size 10 gram; distillation time one hour and fifteen minutes.

PART 271-REQUIREMENTS FORAUTHORIZATION OF STATEHAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), and6926.

Subpart A--Requirements for FinalAuthorization

27. Section 271.1(j) is amended byadding the following entries toTable Iin chronological order by date ofSublication in the Federal Register. and

y adding the following entries to Table

2 in chronological order by effectivedate in the Federal Register:

§271.1 Purpose and scope.* * *. * *

(j), . •

48203




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

Promulgation date Title of regulation FEDERAL REGISTER Effective datereference

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

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

FEDERAL. REGISTEREffective date Self-implementing provision RCRA citation F reference

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

§268.48. page numbers].

* a*

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



Documents

Ii ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 3. 2616 · of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments B. Pollution Prevention Benefits C. Relationship of Developing LDR Treatment Standards to Levels