[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-22493]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 19, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 148, 260, 261, 264, 265, 266, 268 and 271

[FRL-5028-9]
RIN 2050-AD89

 

Land Disposal Restrictions Phase II--Universal Treatment 
Standards, and Treatment Standards for Organic Toxicity Characteristic 
Wastes and Newly Listed Wastes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: As part of the Agency's Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) 
program, EPA is today promulgating treatment standards for the newly 
identified organic toxicity characteristic (TC) wastes (except those 
managed in Clean Water Act (CWA) systems, CWA- equivalent systems, or 
Class I Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) injection wells), and for all 
newly listed coke by-product and chlorotoluene production wastes. The 
required treatment standards for these wastes must be met before they 
are land disposed. EPA is also requiring ignitable characteristic 
wastes with a high total organic carbon (TOC) content and toxic 
characteristic pesticide wastes, that are being disposed in Class I 
nonhazardous waste injection wells, to either be injected into a well 
that is subject to a no-migration determination, or be treated by the 
designated LDR treatment method. Promulgation of these treatment 
standards for the newly identified and listed wastes and promulgation 
of the dilution prohibitions for high TOC ignitables and pesticides 
fulfills requirements of a proposed consent decree between EPA and the 
Environmental Defense Fund, and a settlement agreement between EPA, the 
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, and a number of environmental groups 
including the Natural Resources Defense Council.
    EPA is also making a major improvement in the Land Disposal 
Restrictions program in order to simplify and provide consistency in 
the requirements. EPA is establishing a single set of requirements, 
referred to as universal treatment standards, that apply to most 
hazardous wastes. EPA is also simplifying the Land Disposal 
Restrictions program by reducing paperwork for the regulated community, 
and improving guidance to make compliance easier. EPA is also 
publishing clarifying guidance regarding treatability variances, which 
largely restates previous Agency statements. Finally, EPA is modifying 
the hazardous waste recycling regulations which will allow streamlined 
regulatory decisions to be made regarding the regulation of certain 
types of recycling activities.

DATES: Effective date: The final rule is effective on December 19, 
1994. Section 266.100 and Appendix VIII are effective September 19, 
1994.
    Applicability dates: For high TOC D001 (40 CFR 148.17) and 
halogenated pesticides wastes (40 CFR 148.17) disposed in Class I 
nonhazardous injection deep wells, the compliance date is September 19, 
1995. For radioactive waste mixed with the newly listed or identified 
wastes, or soil and debris contaminated with such mixed wastes (40 CFR 
268.38), the compliance date is September 19, 1996. Although the 
effective date of today's rule is December 19, 1994, facilities will be 
in compliance if they meet the universal treatment standards (UTS) 
before the 90-day period ends.

ADDRESSES: The official record for this rulemaking is identified as 
Docket Number F-94-CS2F-FFFFF, and is located in the EPA RCRA Docket, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room 2616, 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. The RCRA Docket is open from 9 am to 4 pm Monday 
through Friday, except for Federal holidays. The public must make an 
appointment to review docket materials by calling (202) 260-9327. The 
public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory document at 
no cost. Additional copies cost $.15 per page. The mailing address is 
EPA RCRA Docket (5305), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the 
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll-free) or (703) 412-9810 locally. 
For technical information about mercury and radioactive mixed waste, 
contact Shaun McGarvey on (703) 308-8603; for technical information 
about lab packs and metal Universal Treatment Standards, contact Anita 
Cummings on (703) 308-8303; for technical information about organic 
Universal Treatment Standards, contact Lisa Jones on (703) 308-8451; 
for technical information about Toxicity Characteristic wastes, contact 
Mary Cunningham on (703) 308-8453; for technical information about 
petroleum refining wastes, contact Jose Labiosa on (703) 308-8464; for 
other information, contact Richard Kinch on (703) 308-8414; of the 
Waste Treatment Branch, Office of Solid Waste (5302W), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460, phone (703) 308-8434. For technical information on capacity 
analyses, contact Bengie Carroll of the Capacity Programs Branch, 
Office of Solid Waste (5302W), phone (703) 308-8440. For technical 
information on Hazardous Waste Recycling, contact Mitch Kidwell of the 
Regulation Development Branch, Office of Solid Waste (5304), phone 
(202) 260-8551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Summary of the Statutory Requirements of the 1984 Hazardous 
and Solid Waste Amendments, and Requirements of the 1993 Settlement 
Agreement with the Environmental Defense Fund
    B. Pollution Prevention Benefits
    C. Relationship of Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) 
Treatment Standards To Initiatives To Strengthen Federal Controls 
Governing Hazardous Waste Combustion Devices
    D. Relationship of LDR Treatment Standards to Risk-based 
Treatment Standards
    E. Treatment Standards for Hazardous Soil
II. Summary of Rule
    A. Treatment Standards for Newly Identified Organic Toxicity 
Characteristic (TC) Wastes
    B. Prohibition of Dilution of High TOC Ignitable and of TC 
Pesticide Wastes Injected Into Class I Deep Wells
    C. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed Wastes
    D. Universal Treatment Standards
    E. Modifications to Hazardous Waste Recycling Regulations
III. Improvements to the Existing Land Disposal Restrictions Program
    A. Background
    B. Universal Treatment Standards
    1. Identification of Wastes to Which Universal Treatment 
Standards Apply
    2. Differences in Universal Treatment Standards and Previous 
Treatment Standards
    3. Universal Treatment Standards for Organic Hazardous 
Constituents
    a. Analyte Combinations
    b. Organics--Nonwastewaters
    c. Organics--Wastewaters
    4. Universal Treatment Standards for Metal Hazardous 
Constituents
    a. Nonwastewaters
    b. Wastewaters
    5. Universal Treatment Standards for Cyanide Wastes
    a. Cyanide Nonwastewaters
    b. Cyanide Wastewaters
    C. Consolidation of Equivalent Technology-Specific Combustion 
Standards
    D. Incorporation of Newly Listed Wastes Into Lab Packs and 
Changes to Appendices
    E. Changes in the LDR Program In Response to the LDR Roundtable
    1. Consolidated Treatment Table
    2. Simplified LDR Notification Requirements
IV. Treatment Standards for Toxicity Characteristic Waste
    A. Introduction--Content and Scope
    1. Waste Management Systems Affected by Today's Rule
    2. Categories of TC Wastes Affected by Today's Rule
    3. Soil Contaminated by Underground Storage Tanks
    4. Metal TC Wastes Are Not Affected by Today's Rule
    B. Background
    1. Legal and Policy Basis for Today's TC Standards
    2. Ongoing Management Practices for TC Wastes
    C. Treatment Standards for New TC Organic Constituents (D018-
D043)
    1. Nonwastewaters
    2. Wastewaters
    3. Radioactive Mixed Waste
    D. Treatment Standards for Pesticide Wastes Exhibiting the 
Toxicity Characteristic
    1. Newly Identified Pesticide Nonwastewaters
    2. Pesticide Wastewaters
    E. Exemptions for De Minimis Losses of Commercial Chemical 
Product or Chemical Intermediates That Exhibit the Toxicity 
Characteristic (TC), and for TC Laboratory Wastes Discharged to CWA 
Wastewater Treatment Systems
V. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed Wastes
    A. Treatment Standards for Coke By-product Production Wastes
    B. Treatment Standards for Chlorotoluenes
VI. Debris Contaminated With Newly Listed or Identified Wastes
    A. Debris Treated to Meet the Phase II Treatment Standards
    B. Debris Treated to Meet the Alternative Debris Treatment 
Standards
VII. Response to Comments Regarding Exclusion of Hazardous Debris 
That Has Been Treated by Immobilization Technologies
    A. Background
    B. Roundtable Discussion
    C. EPA Investigations
    D. Specific Questions for Which Comments Were Solicited
    E. Comments Received and Conclusions
VIII. Deep Well Injection Issues
    A. Prohibition of Dilution of High TOC Ignitable and of TC 
Pesticide Wastes Injected Into Class I Deep Wells
    B. Request for Comment on Petition from Chemical Manufacturer's 
Association Regarding Deep Well Injection of Ignitable and Corrosive 
Characteristic Wastes
IX. Modifications to Hazardous Waste Recycling Regulations
    A. Introduction
    B. Modification of the Existing ``Closed-loop'' Recycling 
Exclusion and Related Case-specific Variance
    1. ``Closed-loop'' Recycling Exclusion and Related Variance
    2. Storage Prior to Recycling
X. Compliance Monitoring and Notification
    A. Compliance Monitoring
    B. LDR Notification
    1. Constituents to be Included on the LDR Notification
    2. Management in Subtitle C-Regulated Facilities
    3. Potential Management of Decharacterized Wastes at a Subtitle 
D Waste Management Facility
XI. Implementation of the Final Rule
XII. Guidance to Applicants for Treatability Variances for As-
Generated Wastes
XIII. Clarifications and Corrections to Previous Rules
    A. Corrections to the Interim Final Rule Establishing Land 
Disposal Restrictions for Certain Ignitable and Corrosive Wastes
    B. Corrections to the Phase I Rule Establishing Land Disposal 
Restrictions for Newly Listed Wastes and Hazardous Debris
    C. Amendment of Boiler and Industrial Furnace Rules for Certain 
Mercury-containing Wastes
    1. The Proposal
    2. Comments and the Final Rule
XIV. Capacity Determinations
    A. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
    B. Analysis of Available Capacity
    C. Surface Disposed Newly Identified and Listed Wastes
    1. Required Capacity for Newly Identified TC Organics (D018-
D043)
    2. Used Oil
    3. Required Capacity for Other Newly Listed Organic Wastes
    a. Surface Disposed Coke By-product Wastes
    b. Surface Disposed Chlorinated Toluene Wastes
    4. Newly Identified TC Wastes That Were Not Previously Hazardous 
by the Old EP Leaching Procedure
    D. Required and Available Capacity for Newly Listed and 
Identified Wastes Mixed with Radioactive Components
    1. Waste Generation
    a. Non-soil and Non-debris Mixed Radioactive Wastes
    b. Mixed Radioactive Soil
    c. Mixed Radioactive Debris
    2. Available Capacity and Capacity Implications
    a. Non-soil and Non-debris Mixed Radioactive Wastes
    b. Mixed Radioactive Soil
    c. Mixed Radioactive Debris
    E. Required and Available Capacity for High TOC Ignitable, TC 
Pesticide, and Newly Listed Wastes Injected Into Class I Deep Wells
    F. Required and Available Capacity for Hazardous Soil and Debris 
Contaminated with Newly Listed and Identified Wastes
    1. Waste Generation
    a. Hazardous Soil
    b. Hazardous Debris
    2. Current Management Practices
    3. Available Capacity and Capacity Implications
    a. Hazardous Soil
    b. Hazardous Debris
XV. State Authority
    A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
    B. Effect on State Authorization
XVI. Regulatory Requirements
    A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866
    1. Methodology Section
    a. Methodology for Estimating the Affected Universe
    b. Cost Methodology
    c. Waste Minimization Methodology
    d. Economic Impact Methodology
    e. Benefits Methodology
    2. Results Section
    a. Volume Results
    b. Cost Results
    c. Waste Minimization
    d. Economic Impact Results
    e. Benefit Estimate Results
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Background

A. Summary of the Statutory Requirements of the 1984 Hazardous and 
Solid Waste Amendments, and Requirements of the 1993 Settlement 
Agreement With the Environmental Defense Fund

    The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted on November 8, 1984, 
largely prohibit the land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes. Once 
a hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal, the statute 
provides only two options for legal land disposal: meet the treatment 
standard for the waste prior to land disposal, or dispose of the waste 
in a land disposal unit that has been found to satisfy the statutory 
no-migration test. A no-migration unit is one from which there will be 
no migration of hazardous constituents for as long as the waste remains 
hazardous. RCRA sections 3004 (d), (e), (g)(5).
    The treatment standards may be expressed as either constituent 
concentration levels or as specific methods of treatment. These 
standards must substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or 
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous 
constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to 
human health and the environment are minimized. RCRA section 
3004(m)(1). For purposes of the restrictions, land disposal includes 
any placement of hazardous waste in a landfill, surface impoundment, 
waste pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome 
formation, salt bed formation, or underground mine or cave. RCRA 
section 3004(k).
    The land disposal restrictions are effective upon promulgation. 
RCRA section 3004(h)(1). However, the Administrator may grant a 
national capacity variance from the immediate effective date and 
establish a later effective date (not to exceed two years) based on the 
earliest date on which adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or 
disposal capacity which protects human health and the environment will 
be available. RCRA section 3004(h)(2). The Administrator may also grant 
a case-by-case extension of the effective date for up to one year, 
renewable once for up to one additional year, when an applicant 
successfully makes certain demonstrations. RCRA section 3004(h)(3). See 
55 FR 22526 (June 1, 1990) for a more detailed discussion on national 
capacity variances and case-by-case extensions.
    In addition, Congress prohibited the storage of any waste which is 
prohibited from land disposal unless such storage is to allow for the 
accumulation of such quantities of hazardous waste as are necessary to 
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or disposal. RCRA section 
3004(j). For storage up to one year, EPA has taken the position that 
the agency bears the burden of proving that such storage was not solely 
for the purpose of accumulation of quantities necessary to facilitate 
proper recovery, treatment or disposal. 40 CFR 268.50(b). For storage 
beyond one year, however, the burden of proof shifts to the generator 
or owner/operator of a treatment, storage or disposal facility to 
demonstrate that such storage was solely for the purpose of 
accumulation of quantities necessary to facilitate proper recovery, 
treatment or disposal. 40 CFR 268.50(c). The provision applies, of 
course, only to storage which is not also defined in section 3004(k) as 
land disposal.
    EPA was required to promulgate land disposal prohibitions and 
treatment standards by May 8, 1990 for all wastes that were either 
listed or identified as hazardous at the time of the 1984 amendments, 
RCRA sections 3004 (d), (e), and (g), a task EPA completed within the 
statutory timeframes. EPA was also required to promulgate prohibitions 
and treatment standards for wastes identified or listed as hazardous 
after the date of the 1984 amendments within six months after the 
listing or identification takes effect. RCRA section 3004(g)(4).
    The Agency did not meet this latter statutory deadline for all of 
the wastes identified or listed after the 1984 amendments. As a result, 
a suit was filed by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). EPA and EDF 
signed a consent decree (lodged with but not entered by the District 
Court) that establishes a schedule for adopting prohibitions and 
treatment standards for newly identified and listed wastes. (EDF v. 
Reilly, Civ. No. 89-0598, D.D.C.) This proposed consent decree was 
recently modified as a result of the court decision on the Third Third 
final rule (Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F.2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 
1992), cert. denied 113 S. Ct. 1961 (1993) (CWM v. EPA)). Today's rule 
fulfills several provisions of the proposed consent decree. The rule 
establishes treatment standards for newly listed coke by-product and 
chlorotoluene production wastes, and for the D018-D043 TC wastes (TC 
wastes identified as hazardous because of the presence of organic 
hazardous constituents) when these wastes are managed in systems other 
than those wastewater treatment systems whose discharge is regulated 
under the Clean Water Act (CWA), by zero-dischargers that do not engage 
in CWA-equivalent treatment prior to land disposal, and by injection 
into other than underground injection control (UIC) Class I deep 
injection wells regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 
Soils contaminated with these newly identified and listed wastes are 
also covered by this rule.
    Finally, this rule prohibits injection into deep wells of high 
Total Organic Carbon ignitable wastes (D001) and Toxic Characteristic 
organic pesticides (D012-D017) unless they are treated to meet 
applicable treatment standards, or the deep well has received a no-
migration variance. This last prohibition is in partial fulfillment of 
the settlement agreement following the D.C. Circuit's decision in CWM 
v. EPA.
    EPA is also modifying a number of the existing land disposal 
restrictions rules. Although not required by the settlements discussed 
above, these changes reflect EPA's updated technical knowledge, 
simplify implementation of the program, and provide greater 
programmatic consistency. In today's notice, EPA is establishing a set 
of treatment standards (called universal treatment standards) that 
apply to most hazardous wastes, changing requirements for land disposal 
of lab packs containing prohibited hazardous wastes, and simplifying 
paperwork requirements.

B. Pollution Prevention Benefits

    EPA's progress over the years in improving environmental quality 
through its media-specific pollution control programs has been 
substantial. Over the past two decades, standards for pollution control 
concentrated to a large extent on ``end-of-pipe'' treatment or land 
disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. Although none of the 
treatment standards in today's rule require waste minimization or 
recovery, these are viable options for facilities to choose to use to 
comply with universal treatment standards. For example, facilities may 
choose to reduce the generation of wastes and/or treat certain metal-
containing wastes by using high temperature metal recovery (HTMR), 
which has been shown to be effective for treating many metal bearing 
wastes.

C. Relationship of Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) 
Treatment Standards to Initiatives To Strengthen Federal Controls 
Governing Hazardous Waste Combustion Devices

    On May 18, 1993, EPA Administrator Browner announced additional 
steps that would be pursued to protect public health and the 
environment by further encouraging reduction in the amount of hazardous 
wastes generated in this country and strengthening federal controls 
governing hazardous waste incinerators and other combustion devices. 
With the announcement, the Draft Hazardous Waste Minimization and 
Combustion Strategy (also referred to as the Draft Strategy) was 
released, upon which the Agency has sought broad national dialogue. 
Among other things, the Draft Strategy called for a national review of 
the relative roles of hazardous waste combustion and source reduction 
in hazardous waste management.
    Since release of the Draft Strategy, the Agency has pursued a wide 
variety of activities. For example, EPA released in May 1994 a draft 
technical report entitled ``Combustion Emissions Technical Resource 
Document''. This report provides EPA's preliminary technical analysis 
of best operating practices and achievable emission levels with regards 
to emissions of dioxin and particulate matter from existing hazardous 
waste incinerators, and boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs) burning 
hazardous wastes, based on data already submitted to EPA. The report 
was also released to provide for early pre-proposal dialogue on the 
types of additional controls and emission limits that should be adopted 
for hazardous waste combustion units. In another action, the Agency 
announced its proposed permitting and public participation rule. This 
rule would amend EPA's RCRA regulations to provide earlier and more 
effective opportunities for public participation in the RCRA permitting 
process. The rule also proposes tighter standards for the interim 
period immediately after a facility trial burn is completed but before 
a final permit determination is made.
    Today's rule provides the Agency with another opportunity to 
address the objectives of the Draft Strategy. In particular, this rule 
specifies a series of new treatment standards that must be met before 
hazardous wastes are land disposed. As in previous LDR rules, the 
standards for hazardous organic constituents are, in many cases, based 
on the performance of combustion technology. In the proposed rule, the 
Agency solicited comments and data on whether other treatment 
technologies, especially recycling technologies, can achieve these or 
comparable treatment levels. EPA also solicited comment on whether the 
levels should be modified so as to allow and encourage the use of non-
combustion treatment technologies.
    It remains EPA's primary objective in hazardous waste management to 
reduce the amount of hazardous waste that is generated so as to 
minimize the need to treat and dispose of hazardous waste. A wide range 
of waste minimization activities are underway, including development of 
the National Plan for Hazardous Waste Minimization released in draft on 
May 23, 1994 as part of the Draft Strategy. However, for those 
hazardous wastes that are still produced and are disposed, the waste 
must be treated (see RCRA section 3004(m)).
    While the Agency has concerns with combustion devices that are not 
properly designed and operated, particularly if they do not fully 
control toxic metals and organics (including products of incomplete 
combustion (PICs)), the Agency also believes that combustion 
technologies, if properly designed and operated, do minimize threats to 
human health and the environment for many waste streams. Several 
commenters agree with the Agency on this point. In fact, these 
commenters (including environmental groups) argue that relaxing the 
treatment standards to reduce the amount of treatment otherwise 
achieved via combustion could actually increase threats to human health 
and the environment, and thus violate EPA's statutory requirements 
under 3004(m). In addition, it has also been argued that loosening the 
treatment standards will not necessarily result in less combustion 
because the regulated community may still choose to rely on combustion 
to meet the standards. Commenters also suggested that loosening the 
treatment standards will actually act as a disincentive to seek 
pollution prevention alternatives. This latter point seems to have 
merit in that based on some preliminary analysis of the land disposal 
restrictions program by the Agency, the existing treatment standards 
have raised the cost of hazardous waste management substantially and 
have been a factor in reducing the amount of hazardous waste generated.
    To address those combustion facilities that are not operated 
properly, the Agency will continue its aggressive inspection and 
enforcement program to bring the facilities back into compliance with 
all requirements and to impose penalties. In addition, the Agency is 
actively engaged with all interested parties in discussions on 
upgrading combustion regulations. EPA is considering, as part of this 
upcoming rulemaking, revising the controls on dioxin and furan 
emissions, particulate matter, and toxic metals. In the course of the 
rulemaking, the public will have the opportunity to comment on the 
Agency's proposals. As noted earlier, EPA is already seeking public 
comment on its preparatory work for this rulemaking to upgrade 
combustion regulations through release of the Combustion Emissions 
Technical Resource Document, this past May.
    Several commenters indicated that the LDR treatment standards 
should not be based on combustion performance because this will 
encourage combustion over other treatment alternatives. Although the 
Agency is willing to look at alternative technologies, such 
technologies must still achieve levels of performance that satisfy the 
dictates of RCRA section 3004(m). Also, we must have some assurance 
that any alternative treatment method is done safely. No information or 
data was provided by these commenters on the issues of the 
effectiveness or safety of the alternative treatment technologies or 
limits, or that such alternatives would be equally or more protective 
of human health and the environment. (As EPA has stated many times, the 
Agency specifies concentration levels as the treatment standards rather 
than mandated methods of treatment because this provides maximum 
flexibility in the selection of treatment technology that may be used.)
    Several commenters also asserted that only combustion technologies 
can achieve the levels specified as treatment standards for organics. 
However, no treatability data were provided to support their general 
assertions. On the other hand, limited data were provided on specific 
alternative treatment technologies that can also achieve the treatment 
standards in today's rule. Therefore, the Agency is not convinced that 
the treatment standards for organics in today's rule require 
modification to be achievable by technologies other than combustion, 
and such other technologies may be used to meet these standards.

D. Relationship of LDR Treatment Standards to Risk-based Treatment 
Standards

    The principal objection to the proposed UTS was that the values do 
not reflect risk, that is, the standards are based on performance of a 
treatment technology rather than on assessment of risks to human health 
and the environment posed by the waste. The debate over technology- 
versus risk-based treatment standards has continued throughout the 
development of the land disposal restrictions. EPA's ultimate policy 
preference is to establish risk-based levels that truly minimize 
threats to both human health and the environment. 55 FR at 6641 (Feb. 
26, 1990). Such standards would cap the extent of hazardous waste 
treatment. RCRA section 3004(m)(1). The difficulties involved in this 
task, however, are formidable and very controversial. The technical 
issues include assessing exposure pathways other than migration to 
groundwater, taking environmental risk into account, and developing 
adequate toxicological information for the hazardous constituents 
controlled by the hazardous waste program.
    The Agency is currently working on a rulemaking that will define 
hazardous constituent concentration levels below which a waste is no 
longer designated under RCRA subtitle C as ``hazardous.'' Discussions 
concerning these levels are taking place in the Federal Advisory 
Committee on the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR). The HWIR 
Committee is discussing issues and providing recommendations for two 
rulemakings: as-generated waste and contaminated media.
    The HWIR Committee is made up of industry, environmentalists, 
treaters and disposers, and state implementing officials. The HWIR 
Committee has begun discussions by focusing on concentrations below 
which waste mixtures and treatment residuals would no longer be subject 
to the hazardous waste regulations (``exit criteria''), while also 
discussing whether there is a regulatory approach to bring under 
regulation clearly hazardous waste not now controlled by the hazardous 
waste regulations (an ``entry'' rule). In addition, EPA is working with 
the Committee to consider whether risk-based exit criteria or other 
risk-based values based on the same exposure modeling could also serve 
as minimize threat levels to potentially cap treatment standards for 
the land disposal restrictions.
    In Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d 355 (D.C. 
Cir. 1989), cert. denied 111 S. Ct 139 (1990), the court held that the 
statute can be read to allow either technology-based or risk-based 
standards, and further held that technology-based standards are 
permissible so long as they are not established ``beyond the point at 
which there is no `threat' to human health or the environment.'' Id. at 
362. The court further held that the particular technology-based 
standards at issue were not established below this ``minimize threat'' 
level, notwithstanding that (in some cases) the standards were below 
Maximum Contaminant Levels used for drinking water under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, and were below the RCRA characteristic level. Id. 
at 361-62. In the court's view, the RCRA section 3004(m) minimize 
threat standard was more stringent than that used to establish either 
drinking water standards or characteristic levels. EPA finds, for 
purposes of this rule, that none of the treatment standards are 
established below levels at which threats to human health and the 
environment are minimized. This finding stems from the Agency's 
inability at the present time, as explained above, to establish 
concentration levels for hazardous constituents which represent levels 
at which threats to human health and the environment are minimized. 
Unless the Agency determines risk-based concentration levels that 
achieve the ``minimized threat'' requirement for a particular 
wastestream, the Agency believes that BDAT treatment (as reflected by 
the UTS levels) fulfills the statutory charge.

E. Treatment Standards for Hazardous Soil

    As stated in the September 14, 1993 proposal (58 FR 48124), EPA 
recognizes that the treatment standards promulgated for as-generated 
hazardous waste may not always be achievable or appropriate for soil 
contaminated with that waste. EPA therefore proposed less stringent 
alternative treatment standards that would specifically apply to 
hazardous soils. In addition, EPA proposed to codify the ``contained-
in'' policy for contaminated media (see 58 FR 48127). Subsequent to the 
proposal, the Agency received a number of comments from the varied 
constituencies (industry, environmental, waste treatment and state) 
involved in the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) effort for 
addressing contaminated media, urging the Agency to await the results 
of that effort before developing soil-specific treatment standards. 
Thus, EPA has decided not to promulgate alternative treatment standards 
for hazardous soil and the codification of the contained-in policy as 
part of this rulemaking, but rather will address it as part of the HWIR 
effort for contaminated media. EPA announced this decision on November 
12, 1993 (see 58 FR 59976) and again on March 8, 1994 (see 59 FR 
10778).
    The Hazardous Waste Identification Rule for Contaminated Media, 
which is being developed by EPA in concert with the States and with 
affected stakeholders, is intended to create a comprehensive regulatory 
framework within RCRA Subtitle C that will apply to the management of 
contaminated media that are managed as part of remediation activities. 
Through the public dialogue process, a conceptual framework has been 
developed for HWIR for media. As currently envisioned, the HWIR media 
rule will establish mandatory treatment requirements for soils (and 
possibly other media) that are highly contaminated, while less 
contaminated soils would be subject to management requirements of the 
overseeing regulatory agency. The HWIR media rule is expected to 
encourage national consistency in the management of higher risk media, 
while providing management flexibility for a significant volume of 
lower risk contaminated media, thereby facilitating more timely and 
less costly cleanups.
    Although the HWIR rule for contaminated media is being developed on 
a different schedule than the LDR rules, EPA believes (and is supported 
by many commenters) that it is appropriate to address the issue of 
setting treatment standards for soils within the broader framework of 
the HWIR rule, since such treatment requirements are expected to be an 
integral part of that rule. In addition, EPA believes that the 
contained-in policy is one of the key issues that must be addressed in 
the development of a comprehensive regulatory framework for management 
of contaminated media.
    In the meantime, hazardous soils are generally subject to the LDR 
treatment standards that apply to the hazardous wastes with which the 
soils are contaminated, including those addressed in today's rule.
    The Agency has stated a presumption, however, that the treatment 
standards for as-generated wastes are generally inappropriate or 
unachievable for soils contaminated with hazardous wastes, within the 
meaning of 40 CFR 268.44(a) (see 55 FR 8759-60, March 8, 1990). It has 
been the Agency's experience that contaminated soils are significantly 
different in their treatability characteristics from the wastes that 
have been evaluated in establishing the BDAT standards, and thus, will 
generally qualify for a treatability variance under 40 CFR 268.44. For 
guidance on treatability variances for soils, see the EPA Fact Sheet 
entitled ``Regional Guide: Issuing Site-Specific Treatability Variances 
for Contaminated Soils and Debris from Land Disposal Restrictions 
(OSWER Publication 9839.3-08FS). For RCRA actions, the Regional 
Administrator was delegated the authority to deny or grant these 
variances in a non-rulemaking procedure under 40 CFR 268.44(h) on April 
22, 1991. These variances may be granted by State agencies in States 
authorized for Sec. 268.44. Variance authority for CERCLA actions is 
discussed in LDR Guides 6A (revised Sept. 1990) and 6B (OSWER 9347.3-
06FS and 9347.3-06BFS).
    As previously noted, EPA chose not to develop separate treatment 
standards for soils in this rulemaking, and currently plans to address 
treatment standards for contaminated soils in the context of the 
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) for contaminated media, 
which is currently under development. If, however, the HWIR 
Contaminated Media rule does not sufficiently address treatment 
standards for contaminated soils in a timely manner, the Agency may 
promulgate such standards in a separate rulemaking. Information on the 
HWIR Contaminated Media rule may be obtained by contacting Carolyn 
Loomis, at (703) 308-8626.
    Until LDR standards specific to soils are promulgated, EPA believes 
that treatability variances will generally be appropriate when 
hazardous soils are managed as part of site remediation activities. The 
Agency recognizes, however, that in some cases obtaining a treatability 
variance as provided under Sec. 268.44 could cause delays in 
implementing remedial actions. The Agency is currently considering 
whether changes to the existing variance or authorization procedures 
should be made as a means of expediting cleanup actions that are 
conducted under RCRA or other Federal or State authorities, or other 
cleanups initiated by responsible parties. Such changes, if necessary, 
will be addressed in a future rulemaking.

II. Summary of Rule

A. Treatment Standards for Newly Identified Organic Toxicity 
Characteristic (TC) Wastes

    On March 29, 1990, EPA promulgated a rule that identified organic 
constituents (in addition to existing EP metals and pesticide 
constituents) and levels at which a waste is considered hazardous based 
on the characteristic of toxicity (55 FR 11798). Because these wastes 
were identified as hazardous after the enactment date of HSWA in 1984, 
they are ``newly identified wastes'' for purposes of the LDR program. 
Included are wastes identified with the codes D018 through D043 based 
on the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP), i.e., TC 
wastes. EPA is establishing treatment standards for each of these 
constituents if they are managed in systems other than those regulated 
under the Clean Water Act (CWA), those engaging in CWA-equivalent 
treatment prior to land disposal, and those injected into Class I deep 
injection wells regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 
(For an explanation of these qualifications, see the May 24, 1993 
Interim Final Rule (58 FR 29860).) In addition, because wastes 
exhibiting the toxicity characteristic (TC) can contain treatable 
levels of other hazardous constituents, EPA is establishing treatment 
standards for the underlying hazardous constituents, as defined in 
268.2(i). These rules are consistent with the court's opinion in 
Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F.2d 2, 17-8 (D.C. Cir. 1992), 
cert. denied 113 U.S. 1961 (1993), which held that all hazardous 
constituents in characteristic wastes must meet the levels of 
performance satisfying the requirements in RCRA 3004(m) before land 
disposal, and that treatment standards cannot be achieved by dilution 
(provided, of course, that treatment standards are not established 
below the level at which threats to human health and the environment 
are minimized).

B. Prohibition of Dilution of High TOC Ignitable and of TC Pesticide 
Wastes Injected Into Class I Deep Wells

    In its ruling on the Third Third LDR Rule, the D.C. Circuit Court 
of Appeals remanded the portion of the Agency's rule allowing treatment 
standards for characteristic wastes to be achieved by dilution. The 
Agency is continuing to develop a regulatory response to implement the 
court's ruling. As part of that response, EPA is today requiring that 
hazardous constituents in two types of characteristic wastes, high 
total organic carbon (TOC) ignitable liquids (D001), and halogenated 
pesticide wastes that exhibit the toxicity characteristic (D012-D017), 
be fully treated before those wastes are disposed unless the wastes are 
disposed in an injection well that has a no-migration variance.
    The Agency believes that treatment of these particular wastestreams 
is warranted. (See Section VIII--Deep Well Injection Issues for further 
discussion.) The D001 wastes are ignitable with potentially high 
concentrations of hazardous constituents, and the pesticide wastes 
contain particularly toxic constituents. Further, the organics in D001 
high TOC liquids can be recovered, destroyed, or used as a fuel and 
occur in only small volumes so that segregation and treatment should 
not prove difficult.

C. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed Wastes

    EPA has promulgated a number of hazardous waste listings since the 
enactment of HSWA in 1984, referred to as ``newly listed wastes'' under 
the LDR program. This rule describes the treatment technologies 
(recycling is a type of treatment) identified as BDAT for several of 
these newly listed wastes, and establishes treatment standards based on 
these BDATs. Newly listed wastes included in today's rule are K141-
K145, K147-K148, and K149-K151 (coke by-product production wastes and 
chlorotoluene wastes) (see 40 CFR 261.32 for a description of these 
wastes).

D. Universal Treatment Standards

    Today's rule promulgates universal treatment standards (UTS) for 
organic, metal, and cyanide constituents--one set for wastewaters and a 
different set for nonwastewaters--that replace existing treatment 
standards for hazardous wastes. (``Replace'' is something of a 
misnomer, as explained more fully below, since many of the standards 
actually remain at current levels, and the rule does not require 
treatment of hazardous constituents not already regulated under current 
standards.) Currently, facilities managing hazardous wastes must meet 
LDR treatment standards established for many different listed and 
characteristic hazardous waste codes before the waste may be land 
disposed. In some cases, a constituent regulated under the treatment 
standard for one waste was also regulated in another waste at different 
concentration levels. Today's rulemaking eliminates these differences 
in concentration limits for the same constituent to provide a better 
assessment of treatability, reduce confusion, and ease compliance and 
enforcement. Promulgation of UTS does not change the constituents of 
concern regulated in listed wastes--that is, if only cadmium, lead and 
chromium have been regulated in a listed waste, only cadmium, lead and 
chromium are subject to regulation now that UTS are promulgated. 
However, the concentration levels for cadmium, lead and chromium now 
are numerically identical with UTS for those constituents.

E. Modifications to Hazardous Waste Recycling Regulations

    The Agency is modifying the regulatory framework to the definition 
of solid waste to allow environmentally beneficial recycling operations 
to continue without the regulatory impediments imposed by full RCRA 
Subtitle C requirements. In turn, this will allow EPA and the states to 
streamline their efforts and better focus on operations that are part 
of the nation's waste disposal problem, rather than on those that are 
not, while the Agency continues to look at the overall definition.
    These modifications will broaden the 40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(iii) 
``closed-loop'' recycling exclusion from the definition of solid waste 
such that the residues of a secondary process are excluded from being a 
solid waste if they are reinserted into the process without prior 
reclamation (and also similarly broaden the related 40 CFR 260.30(b) 
variance for materials that are reclaimed prior to reinsertion). These 
provisions will put secondary recovery operations that recycle residues 
which they generated on the same regulatory footing as primary recovery 
operations. The modifications are based, in part, on two Court opinions 
(American Petroleum Institute v.  EPA, 906 F.2d 726 (D.C. Cir. 1990) 
(API) and American Mining Congress v.  EPA, 907 F. 2d 1179 (D.C. Cir. 
1990) (AMC II)) which indicate that the Agency has some discretion to 
consider the manner in which a secondary material is managed in 
determining RCRA jurisdiction (i.e., RCRA jurisdiction may be 
determined, at least in part, by consideration of whether the material 
is part of the waste management problem, as indicated by the potential 
for the material to pose a hazard to human health and the environment 
when recycled).

III. Improvements to the Existing Land Disposal Restrictions Program

A. Background

    ``Our goal is to make the entire federal government both less 
expensive and more efficient . . . we intend to redesign, to reinvent, 
to reinvigorate the entire national government.''

President Bill Clinton Remarks Announcing the National Performance 
Review, March 3, 1993

    ``We are searching for ways to change--to work better and smarter 
so that the Agency can deliver high quality results at a reduced cost. 
Our aim is to treat citizens as customers, improve the service and 
delivery of our programs, and eliminate waste and inefficiency.''

From ``Creating A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that Works 
Better And Costs Less'' (EPA's National Performance Review Phase I 
Report)

    In the past several years, the EPA has embarked on major efforts to 
improve the quality of its work in protecting human health and the 
environment. Coincident with this emphasis on improvement in the way 
its work is done, the Agency is striving to help reinvent government, 
in part by streamlining its organization and its work in order to be 
more efficient and save public resources. In that spirit, a major part 
of today's rule is designed to improve the quality and efficiency in 
the Land Disposal Restrictions Program. The measures promulgated today 
to improve the Program received widespread support from commenters when 
they were proposed.
    The universal treatment standards, described in detail in the next 
section, greatly simplify both compliance and enforcement with the 
LDRs, without sacrificing protection of the environment or human 
health. In particular, the rule replaces the myriad constituent 
concentration levels in the LDR treatment standards for most hazardous 
wastes with a uniform set of constituent levels. Thus, the treatment 
standard concentration for a constituent in waste A will be the same 
concentration as for that constituent in waste B. As a result, 
hazardous waste generators and treaters should be able to save money 
and effort in treating hazardous wastes. These facilities will be able 
to operate more efficiently by consolidating treatment activities. One 
facility, for example, estimated an annual savings of $750,000 from not 
having to campaign treat their wastes with varying limits. The 
consistency provided by universal treatment standards will make it 
easier to comply with the LDRs. Likewise, the universal treatment 
standards will make the job of enforcement easier for state 
governments. With universal treatment standards in place, it will also 
be easier and quicker for EPA to set standards for hazardous wastes 
identified in the future (assuming those standards are feasible and 
appropriate for newly identified and listed wastes). The end result for 
the regulated community, states, and the EPA will be to save resources 
for other pressing tasks.
    While establishment of universal treatment standards is the primary 
improvement, other improvements are also included in today's rule. In 
particular, the Agency is:
     Consolidating three separate tables containing treatment 
standards into a single consolidated table;
     Reducing the information required on notification forms;
     Simplifying the regulations for treatment of lab packs;
     Providing easy-to-read flowcharts and a simple guide to 
paperwork requirements in order to make the rule's requirements clearer 
and easier to implement.
    Although today's rule takes significant steps in improving the Land 
Disposal Restrictions program, the Agency recognizes that further, in 
fact continuing, improvement is necessary. Some of the universal 
treatment standards (such as cyanide) will need to be reassessed upon 
completion of Agency efforts to improve the analytic test method. HWIR 
will need to be integrated into the Land Disposal Restrictions. The 
Agency is also on a firm track of pursuing other avenues for continuous 
quality improvement in the program. Ideas and suggestions for 
improvements have, and will, come from: (1) Advance Notices of Proposed 
Rulemaking published by EPA in order to acquire as much information as 
possible from the public about treatment options; (2) communications 
between EPA and its customers representing environmental groups, 
generators, and treaters; and, (3) the LDR Program evaluation that is 
currently being conducted, which was initiated by a public roundtable 
discussion with a large number of customers. Consequently, the Agency 
will continue to take advantage of opportunities to streamline and 
improve the LDR program.

B. Universal Treatment Standards

    The EPA is promulgating a single universal treatment standard (UTS) 
for each constituent in nonwastewater form and a single UTS for each 
constituent in wastewater form, regardless of the hazardous waste 
containing the constituent.
1. Identification of Wastes to Which Universal Treatment Standards 
Apply
    The universal treatment standards apply to all listed and 
characteristic wastes for which treatment standards have been 
promulgated, with two exceptions. The first exception is the TC metal 
wastes (D004-D011). These metal wastes will be addressed in the future 
Phase IV LDR rule. (It should be noted that the mineral processing 
wastes which were formerly excluded from RCRA Subtitle C regulation 
under the Bevill Amendment are considered to be newly identified and 
will also be addressed in Phase IV.) The second exception is those for 
which the treatment standard is a specified method of treatment. Most 
of these wastes must continue to be treated using those required 
technologies. For a small number of wastes with previously specified 
methods of treatment, the universal standards are an alternative, i.e. 
either use of the specified method or the universal standard will 
satisfy the LDR requirement. For those few situations where a mixture 
of wastes may be subject to different standards for the same 
constituent, the more stringent standard continues to apply. See 
Sec. 268.41(b).
    Although the proposed rule excluded F024 from the UTS, EPA is 
applying UTS to F024 in today's rule. The existing standards, which 
were unique among standards set for F- or K-listed wastes, incorporated 
numerical treatment standards and also mandated a specific technology--
incineration. The original F024 numerical standards for metals were 
also exceptionally low, reflecting the fact that F024 contains only low 
levels of metals.
    However, comments from Dow Freeport indicated that the low F024 
metal limit needlessly prevented them from co-treating wastes, a 
process that could save the facility $750,000/year, and that 
application of UTS solved this problem without diminishing the extent 
of treatment. EPA agrees, and is applying UTS to F024 in this rule 
while continuing to require incineration.
    UTS apply to underlying hazardous constituents in characteristic 
wastes that are subject to LDRs. Apparent confusion in several comments 
leads the Agency to clarify that UTS will apply to the F039 waste code, 
the code for multi-source leachate. EPA used the F039 levels in the May 
1993 Interim Final Rule as treatment standards for underlying hazardous 
constituents in certain decharacterized D001 and D002 wastes (58 FR 
29885). Consequently, UTS levels and F039 standards are identical, with 
the exception of those few constituents regulated in F039 but not in 
UTS. This means that the Interim Final Rule requirement that underlying 
hazardous constituents in certain D001 and D002 wastes meet F039 levels 
is now one and the same thing with the requirement that underlying 
hazardous constituents meet UTS. (The term ``underlying hazardous 
constituents'' is defined at 268.2(i)).
2. Differences in Universal Treatment Standards and Previous Treatment 
Standards
    In most cases (59%), UTS are the same as the previous treatment 
standards. Thirty three percent of the standards went up or down within 
a factor of ten of the original standard, while 8% underwent larger 
changes (3% of the total number of UTS becoming significantly more 
stringent). The following table lists the differences between the UTS 
and previous standards.

   Table 3.--Comparison of Universal Treatment Standards to Previously  
                    Promulgated Treatment Standards                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Wastewater  Nonwastewater
                  Parameter                      forms         forms    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of Constituent/Waste Code                                  
 Combinations................................       938          924    
Number of Combinations Unchanged by the                                 
 Universal Treatment Standards...............       677          416    
Number of Combinations for which the                                    
 Universal Treatment Standards are Slightly                             
 Less Stringent\1\...........................       138          209    
Number of Combinations for which the                                    
 Universal Treatment Standards are Slightly                             
 More Stringent\1\...........................        76          199    
Number of Combinations for which the                                    
 Universal Treatment Standards are                                      
 Significantly Less Stringent\2\.............        17           80    
Number of Combinations for which the                                    
 Universal Treatment Standards are                                      
 Significantly More Stringent\2\.............        30          20     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The change is less than a factor of ten greater or less than the     
  previously promulgated standard.                                      
\2\The change is a factor of ten or more greater or less than the       
  previously promulgated standard.                                      

    This numerical comparison somewhat exaggerates the degree of 
change. The changes in numerical values for many of the organic 
constituents reflect adjustments in the limits of analytic detection. 
Actual treatment will consequently likely continue to destroy or remove 
organics to nondetectable levels. It also is important to note that 
even in those cases where numerical limits have changed, the technology 
basis has not. Treatment technology used to comply with the previous 
standards should also be able to comply with UTS. Again, because most 
treatment technologies cannot be so precisely calibrated as to achieve, 
for instance, 3.5 ppm rather than 2.7 ppm, the likely result is that 
the same amount of treatment will occur. The main impact of UTS will be 
in simplifying compliance.
    EPA also notes that very few of the commenters who complained about 
treatment standards being unachievable provided data to support their 
claims. Because most of the wastes subject to UTS are already subject 
to LDR treatment requirements, there should be data documenting 
treatment performance of these wastes that commenters could have 
submitted. EPA believes, therefore, that the absence of substantiating 
data cannot be attributable to commenters' inability to generate 
treatment data. (The situation differs from the state of affairs at the 
beginning of the land disposal restrictions program when there was 
little existing treatment data to draw upon, because many hazardous 
wastes were being disposed untreated, and there was little time to 
generate such data.)
    For discussion of comparison between the UTS and previous standards 
for nonwastewater metal constituents, see section III.B.5.a. of this 
preamble.
3. Universal Treatment Standards for Organic Hazardous Constituents
    EPA is today promulgating UTS for nonwastewater and wastewater 
forms of organic hazardous constituents, as found in the two tables in 
this section.

a. Analyte Combinations

    Motivated by concern for analytical feasibility, EPA proposed that 
several groups or pairs of analytically similar organic compounds be 
regulated as the sum of their concentrations rather than as individual 
analytes. Commenters supported these proposals as a simplification of 
analytical procedures, particularly the proposed total PCB standards 
for arochlors. Thus, today's rule regulates each of these groups or 
pairs collectively by setting wastewater and nonwastewater numbers 
representing their sums rather than individual concentrations. Specific 
analytes to be regulated with one wastewater and nonwastewater number 
are: PCBs (arochlors), xylenes, benzo(b)fluoranthene/ 
benzo(k)fluoranthene and diphenylamine/diphenylnitrosamine.
    PCBs: Today's approach for PCBs is consistent with the regulations 
of other EPA offices, such as those promulgated pursuant to the Toxic 
Substance Control Act (TSCA). This approach will also eliminate 
analytical difficulties in quantifying each of the individual 
arochlors.
    The ``Total PCB'' standards include seven arochlors that represent 
hundreds of isomers of polychlorinated biphenyls. Earlier LDR 
regulations addressed individual arochlors and required recognition of 
a gas chromatograph pattern which is often difficult to differentiate. 
Furthermore, regulation of individual arochlors may be difficult for 
wastes subject to degradation or treatment. EPA recommends SW-846 
methods 8080 or 8081 (which use a gas chromatograph/electron capture 
detector) for measurement of total PCBs.
    Xylenes: Similarly, today's rule regulates the sum of several 
xylene isomer analytes in both wastewaters and nonwastewaters. The 
three xylenes included on the BDAT list of hazardous constituents are 
ortho-, meta-, and para-xylene. Meta- and para-isomers co-elute in gas 
chromatograph analysis. Two methods exist in SW-846 for the measurement 
of total xylenes: 8020 and 8240. Method 8020 detects xylenes using a 
photoionization detector and 8240 uses a mass spectrometer. Total 
xylenes concentration is determined from the addition of the ortho-
xylene concentration and the meta-/para-xylene concentration.
    Benzo(b)fluoranthene/Benzo(k)fluoranthene and Diphenylamine/ 
Diphenylnitrosamine: EPA is also regulating two pairs of analytically 
problematic constituents, benzo(b)fluoranthene/ benzo(k)fluoranthene 
and diphenylamine/diphenylnitrosamine with a single wastewater and 
nonwastewater number for each pair.

b. Organics--Nonwastewaters

i. The Universal Treatment Standards Promulgated in Today's Rule

    EPA is promulgating UTS for organics in nonwastewaters as proposed 
with the exception of the standards for m- and p-cresols. These are the 
only organic constituents for which commenters provided data supporting 
changes to the proposed UTS. Although organic nonwastewater UTS differ 
in some cases from the previously promulgated standards, the same 
technology basis, combustion, can meet the limits. In the previous 
standards as well as the UTS, the organic standards are based on a 
detection level in a combustion residue (adjusted upward by a 
variability factor accounting for analytic and process variability). 
Differences between UTS and previous standards reflect a more 
consistent assessment of achievable detection levels for various 
constituents in combustion residues, and continue to be achievable 
using BDAT, combustion. Because the essential technical issue at the 
heart of these adjustments is the value of the detection limit, most of 
these changes reflect analytical artifacts rather than absolute 
differences in the quantities of toxics available for release following 
land disposal.

ii. Modifications to Universal Treatment Standards Made in Response to 
Comments

    A petroleum refiner involved in building a biological treatment 
system submitted data on organic nonwastewaters, and indicated their 
concern about the lower treatment standards for certain organic 
constituents that were proposed as UTS. The Agency evaluated the 
commenter's data and found, in some cases, the commenter was requesting 
that UTS levels be set at levels higher than the maximum levels in 
their untreated wastes. Furthermore, the commenter's data did not 
represent proper monitoring. The Agency was able to determine from 
their data, however, that one limit, the proposed m- and p-cresol 
limit, should be raised from 3.2 mg/kg to 5.6 mg/kg. This adjustment is 
based on other factors described below.
    The proposed UTS for m- and p-cresol was 3.2 mg/kg, which differed 
from the proposed UTS for o-cresol, which was 5.6 mg/kg. Today's rule 
promulgates 5.6 mg/kg for both o-cresol and m- and p-cresol. The 
proposed limits for cresols were based on a detection limit of 2 mg/kg 
for o-cresol and 1 mg/kg for m- and p-cresol from an incinerator ash 
study used to develop nonwastewater standards in the Third Third 
rulemaking. The differences in detection limits occurred because EPA 
used different treatment tests to set the limits for o- versus m- and 
p-cresol. Examination of the same test runs revealed that where o-
cresol had a detection level of 2 mg/kg, the detection level for m- and 
p-cresol was also 2 mg/kg. In addition, where the detection level for 
m- and p-cresol was 1 mg/kg, the detection level for o-cresol was also 
1 mg/kg. Upon further review of other data, the Agency observed that 
within a test, o-cresol and m- and p-cresols had the same detection 
levels. The numbers for o-cresol and m- plus p-cresol promulgated in 
today's rule were calculated with the same detection limit, as 
justified by the data review, and the same recovery factor. The 
resulting identical treatment standards reflect the fact that 
incineration treats both of these isomer groups to the same level, 
within the existing analytical constraints.

iii. Use of Alternative Treatment Technologies to Combustion

    In establishing numerical treatment standards, the Agency allows 
the use of any technology (other than impermissible dilution) to comply 
with the limits. Some previous standards, namely those for petroleum 
refining wastes, were based on combustion as well as thermal desorption 
and solvent extraction. Under UTS, organic nonwastewater standards are 
based on and achievable by combustion. As for other technologies, EPA 
assessed whether the changes in limits disrupted commitments made to 
use these other technologies. With regard to thermal desorption, EPA 
examined comments on the proposed levels by three 'vendors of thermal 
desorption units (Seaview Thermal Systems (STS), Separation and 
Recovery Systems, Inc. (SRS), and Ecova (formerly Waste Tech 
Services)), BDAT Background Development Documents for treatment 
standards applicable to petroleum wastes, the Marathon delisting 
petition, and other available literature.
    These data demonstrate the achievability of UTS by thermal 
desorption for petroleum refining wastes. This was an expected result, 
given the comments on the Phase I LDR rule which addressed F037 and 
F038 petroleum refining wastes. In these comments, a thermal desorption 
company called for limits lower than today's UTS limits (these data 
reflected lower detection levels, not necessarily better treatment than 
today's UTS). Also important in the use of thermal desorption are the 
operating conditions: raising the temperature, and/or the detention 
time increases the amount of hazardous organic constituents desorbed.
    As for solvent extraction, the data used for development of the 
K048-K052 treatment standards achieved UTS levels for about half of the 
demonstration runs. Operating conditions, such as solvent selection, 
solvent to waste ratios, detention time, and number of treatment passes 
significantly affect treatment results, and the agency believes these 
parameters can be adjusted to comply with the UTS. There may, however, 
be other factors which result in this technology not being selected, 
and based on information available to the Agency, no petroleum refining 
facilities are utilizing solvent extraction.
    EPA requested comments on the achievability of the proposed UTS for 
petroleum refining wastes when treated via noncombustion technologies. 
(See 58 FR 48106-48107.) EPA also requested comments on whether the 
industry has invested in non-combustion technologies, including those 
designated as BDAT in previous rules that cannot meet the UTS. In 
particular, EPA requested information on the type of treatment, 
performance data, and an explanation of why existing treatment could 
not be adjusted and operated more efficiently to comply with the UTS. 
EPA also pointed out it was willing to revise the proposed UTS, if data 
indicated that appropriate noncombustion technologies could achieve 
slightly higher levels than those proposed for UTS.
    Only one commenter, Valero, Inc., submitted comments with regard to 
a contractual agreement for the construction of a full scale bioslurry 
reactor and data from a bench scale treatability study. None of the 
other petroleum refining commenters indicated they had invested in 
noncombustion technologies. Valero, Inc., and two remediation 
companies, Retec Technologies and OHM Corporation, submitted data on 
biotreatment of organic constituents. They reported treatment 
efficiencies from 40 to 60 percent for some PNAs and questioned whether 
the proposed treatment standards can be routinely achieved by 
biotreatment technologies. EPA does not generally consider such 
treatment efficiencies adequate for organic constituents. As indicated 
previously, facilities can use any technology other than impermissible 
dilution to comply with the treatment standards. If design and 
operating conditions can be adjusted to meet the limits, this could be 
full compliance. If not, the technology may still be appropriate for 
remediation wastes, for which standards are currently being revised in 
the development of HWIR.

                        Universal Treatment Standards for Organic Hazardous Constituents                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Nonwastewater  
                                                                                                   standard;    
                                                                                               concentration in 
                    Regulated constituent--common name                         CAS\1\ No.       mg/kg\2\ unless 
                                                                                                noted as ``mg/l 
                                                                                                    TCLP''      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acenaphthylene...........................................................           208-96-8               3.4  
Acenaphthene.............................................................            83-32-9               3.4  
Acetone..................................................................            67-64-1             160    
Acetonitrile.............................................................            75-05-8               1.8  
Acetophenone.............................................................            96-86-2               9.7  
2-Acetylaminofluorene....................................................            53-96-3             140    
Acrolein.................................................................           107-02-8              NA    
Acrylamide...............................................................            79-06-1              23    
Acrylonitrile............................................................           107-13-1              84    
Aldrin...................................................................           309-00-2               0.066
4-Aminobiphenyl..........................................................            92-67-1              NA    
Aniline..................................................................            62-53-3              14    
Anthracene...............................................................           120-12-7               3.4  
Aramite..................................................................           140-57-8              NA    
alpha-BHC................................................................           319-84-6               0.066
beta-BHC.................................................................           319-85-7               0.066
delta-BHC................................................................           319-86-8               0.066
gamma-BHC................................................................            58-89-9               0.066
Benzene..................................................................            71-43-2              10    
Benz(a)anthracene........................................................            56-55-3               3.4  
Benzal chloride..........................................................            98-87-3               6.0  
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (difficult to distinguish from benzo(k)fluoranthene)           205-99-2               6.8  
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (difficult to distinguish from benzo(b)fluoranthene)           207-08-9               6.8  
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene.....................................................           191-24-2               1.8  
Benzo(a)pyrene...........................................................            50-32-8               3.4  
Bromodichloromethane.....................................................            75-27-4              15    
Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)............................................            74-83-9              15    
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether...............................................           101-55-3              15    
n-Butyl alcohol..........................................................            71-36-3               2.6  
Butyl benzyl phthalate...................................................            85-68-7              28    
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (Dinoseb)..................................            88-85-7               2.5  
Carbon disulfide.........................................................            75-15-0           (\3\)    
Carbon tetrachloride.....................................................            56-23-5               6.0  
Chlordane (alpha and gamma isomers)......................................            57-74-9               0.26 
p-Chloroaniline..........................................................           106-47-8              16    
Chlorobenzene............................................................           108-90-7               6.0  
Chlorobenzilate..........................................................           510-15-6              NA    
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene...................................................           126-99-8               0.28 
Chlorodibromomethane.....................................................           124-48-1              15    
Chloroethane.............................................................            75-00-3               6.0  
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane...............................................           111-91-1               7.2  
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether..................................................           111-44-4               6.0  
Chloroform...............................................................            67-66-3               6.0  
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether..............................................           108-60-1               7.2  
p-Chloro-m-cresol........................................................            59-50-7              14    
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether................................................           110-75-8              NA    
Chloromethane (Methyl chloride)..........................................            74-87-3              30    
2-Chloronaphthalene......................................................             91-8-7               5.6  
2-Chlorophenol...........................................................            95-57-8               5.7  
3-Chloropropylene........................................................           107-05-1              30    
Chrysene.................................................................           218-01-9               3.4  
o-Cresol.................................................................            95-48-7               5.6  
m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from p-cresol)........................           108-39-4               5.6  
p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from m-cresol)........................           106-44-5               5.6  
Cyclohexanone............................................................           108-94-1           (\4\)    
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane..............................................            96-12-8              15    
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)...................................           106-93-4              15    
Dibromomethane...........................................................            74-95-3              15    
2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)...................................            94-75-7              10    
o,p'-DDD.................................................................            53-19-0               0.087
p,p'-DDD.................................................................            72-54-8               0.087
o,p'-DDE.................................................................          3424-82-6               0.087
p,p'-DDE.................................................................            72-55-9               0.087
o,p'-DDT.................................................................           789-02-6               0.087
p,p'-DDT.................................................................            50-29-3               0.087
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene..................................................            53-70-3               8.2  
Dibenz (a,e) pyrene......................................................           192-65-4              NA    
m-Dichlorobenzene........................................................           541-73-1               6.0  
o-Dichlorobenzene........................................................            95-50-1               6.0  
p-Dichlorobenzene........................................................           106-46-7               6.0  
Dichlorodifluoromethane..................................................            75-71-8               7.2  
1,1-Dichloroethane.......................................................            75-34-3               6.0  
1,2-Dichloroethane.......................................................           107-06-2               6.0  
1,1-Dichloroethylene.....................................................            75-35-4               6.0  
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene...............................................           156-60-5              30    
2,4-Dichlorophenol.......................................................           120-83-2              14    
2,6-Dichlorophenol.......................................................            87-65-0              14    
1,2-Dichloropropane......................................................            78-87-5              18    
cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene................................................         10061-01-5              18    
trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene..............................................         10061-02-6              18    
Dieldrin.................................................................            60-57-1               0.13 
Diethyl phthalate........................................................            84-66-2              28    
2-4-Dimethyl phenol......................................................           105-67-9              14    
Dimethyl phthalate.......................................................           131-11-3              28    
Di-n-butyl phthalate.....................................................            84-74-2              28    
1,4-Dinitrobenzene.......................................................           100-25-4               2.3  
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol.....................................................           534-52-1             160    
2,4-Dinitrophenol........................................................            51-28-5             160    
2,4-Dinitrotoluene.......................................................           121-14-2             140    
2,6-Dinitrotoluene.......................................................           606-20-2              28    
Di-n-octyl phthalate.....................................................           117-84-0              28    
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene................................................            60-11-7              NA    
Di-n-propylnitrosamine...................................................           621-64-7              14    
1,4-Dioxane..............................................................           123-91-1             170    
Diphenylamine (difficult to distinguish from diphenylnitrosamine)........           122-39-4              13    
Diphenylnitrosamine (difficult to distinguish from diphenylamine)........            86-30-6              13    
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine....................................................           122-66-7              NA    
Disulfoton...............................................................           298-04-4               6.2  
Endosulfan I.............................................................           939-98-8               0.066
Endosulfan II............................................................          33213-6-5               0.13 
Endosulfan sulfate.......................................................          1-31-07-8               0.13 
Endrin...................................................................            72-20-8               0.13 
Endrin aldehyde..........................................................          7421-93-4               0.13 
Ethyl acetate............................................................           141-78-6              33    
Ethyl cyanide (Propanenitrile)...........................................           107-12-0             360    
Ethyl benzene............................................................           100-41-4              10    
Ethyl ether..............................................................            60-29-7             160    
bis (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate.............................................           117-81-7              28    
Ethyl methacrylate.......................................................            97-63-2             160    
Ethylene oxide...........................................................            75-21-8              NA    
Famphur..................................................................            52-85-7              15    
Fluoranthene.............................................................           206-44-0               3.4  
Fluorene.................................................................            86-73-7               3.4  
Heptachlor...............................................................            76-44-8               0.066
Heptachlor epoxide.......................................................          1024-57-3               0.066
Hexachlorobenzene........................................................           118-74-1              10    
Hexachlorobutadiene......................................................            87-68-3               5.6  
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene................................................            77-47-4               2.4  
HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins).................................                 NA               0.001
HxCDFs (All Hexachlorodibenzofurans).....................................                 NA               0.001
Hexachloroethane.........................................................            67-72-1              30    
Hexachloropropylene......................................................          1888-71-7              30    
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene..................................................           193-39-5               3.4  
Iodomethane..............................................................            74-88-4              65    
Isobutyl alcohol.........................................................            78-83-1             170    
Isodrin..................................................................           465-73-6               0.066
Isosafrole...............................................................           120-58-1               2.6  
Kepone...................................................................           143-50-8               0.13 
Methacrylonitrile........................................................           126-98-7              84    
Methanol.................................................................            67-56-1           (\5\)    
Methapyrilene............................................................            91-80-5               1.5  
Methoxychlor.............................................................            72-43-5               0.18 
3-Methylcholanthrene.....................................................            56-49-5              15    
4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline).......................................           101-14-4              30    
Methylene chloride.......................................................            75-09-2              30    
Methyl ethyl ketone......................................................            78-93-3              36    
Methyl isobutyl ketone...................................................           108-10-1              33    
Methyl methacrylate......................................................            80-62-6             160    
Methyl methansulfonate...................................................            66-27-3              NA    
Methyl parathion.........................................................           298-00-0               4.6  
Naphthalene..............................................................            91-20-3               5.6  
2-Naphthylamine..........................................................            91-59-8              NA    
o-Nitroaniline...........................................................            88-74-4              14    
p-Nitroaniline...........................................................           100-01-6              28    
Nitrobenzene.............................................................            98-95-3              14    
5-Nitro-o-toluidine......................................................            99-55-8              28    
o-Nitrophenol............................................................            88-75-5              13    
p-Nitrophenol............................................................           100-02-7              29    
N-Nitrosodiethylamine....................................................            55-18-5              28    
N-Nitrosodimethylamine...................................................            62-75-9               2.3  
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine................................................           924-16-3              17    
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine................................................         10595-95-6               2.3  
N-Nitrosomorpholine......................................................            59-89-2               2.3  
N-Nitrosopiperidine......................................................           100-75-4              35    
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine.....................................................           930-55-2              35    
Parathion................................................................            56-38-2               4.6  
Total PCBs (sum of all PCB isomers, or all Arochlors)....................          1336-36-3              10    
Pentachlorobenzene.......................................................           608-93-5              10    
PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins)................................                 NA               0.001
PeCDFs (All Pentachlorodibenzofurans)....................................                 NA               0.001
Pentachloroethane........................................................            76-01-7               6.0  
Pentachloronitrobenzene..................................................            82-68-8               4.8  
Pentachlorophenol........................................................            87-86-5               7.4  
Phenacetin...............................................................            62-44-2              16    
Phenanthrene.............................................................            85-01-8               5.6  
Phenol...................................................................           108-95-2               6.2  
Phorate..................................................................           298-02-2               4.6  
Phthalic acid............................................................           100-21-0              28    
Phthalic anhydride.......................................................            85-44-9              28    
Pronamide................................................................         23950-58-5               1.5  
Pyrene...................................................................           129-00-0               8.2  
Pyridine.................................................................           110-86-1              16    
Safrole..................................................................            94-59-7              22    
Silvex(2,4,5-TP).........................................................            93-72-1               7.9  
2,4,5-T(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid)...............................            93-76-5               7.9  
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene...............................................            95-94-3              14    
TCDDs (All Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins).................................                 NA               0.001
TCDFs (All Tetrachlorodibenzofurans).....................................                 NA               0.001
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane................................................           630-20-6               6.0  
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane................................................            79-34-6               6.0  
Tetrachloroethylene......................................................           127-18-4               6.0  
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol................................................            58-90-2               7.4  
Toluene..................................................................           108-88-3              10    
Toxaphene................................................................          8001-35-2               2.6  
Bormoform (Tribromomethane)..............................................            75-25-2              15    
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene...................................................           120-82-1              19    
1,1,1-Trichloroethane....................................................            71-55-6               6.0  
1,1,2-Trichloroethane....................................................            79-00-5               6.0  
Trichloroethylene........................................................            79-01-6               6.0  
Trichloromonofluoromethane...............................................            75-69-4              30    
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol....................................................            95-95-4               7.4  
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol....................................................            88-06-2               7.4  
1,2,3-Trichloropropane...................................................            96-18-4              30    
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2,-trifluoroethane...................................            76-13-1              30    
tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl) phosphate.......................................           126-72-7               0.10 
Vinyl chloride...........................................................            75-01-4               6.0  
Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-, m-, p-xylene concentrations)...........          1330-20-7              30    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a   
  combination of a chemical with it's salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only.
\2\All concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples.                        
\3\4.8 mg/l TCLP.                                                                                               
\4\0.75 mg/l TCLP.                                                                                              
\5\0.75 mg/l TCLP.                                                                                              
Note: NA means not applicable.                                                                                  

c. Organics--Wastewaters

i. The Universal Treatment Standards Promulgated in Today's Rule

    The set of wastewater UTS proposed in September 1993 was virtually 
identical to the F039 wastewater standards promulgated in the Third 
Third Rule. Applying UTS to F- and K- listed wastes changes organic 
constituent wastewater standards in a handful of codes (F024, K001, 
K011/13/14, K015, K040, K038, K036, K037, K060, K099, K103/104, and 
U051). Commenters raised specific concerns with three of the organic 
wastewater treatment standards, and EPA is revising the proposed 
standards for two of the three constituents: the wastewater standard 
proposed for carbon disulfide will change from 0.014 mg/l to 3.8 mg/l, 
and the proposed wastewater universal treatment standard for 1,4-
dioxane has been withdrawn. Changes to the treatment standards for 
these two constituents is explained in the following section. The third 
constituent was acetonitrile. Monsanto, Dupont, Cytec and other 
acrylonitrile producers, together with the Chemical Manufacturing 
Association's Acrylonitrile Group, objected to EPA extending the UTS to 
acrylonitrile production wastes K011, K013 and K014. Their comments 
stated that the acetonitrile wastewater UTS was unachievably low in 
acrylonitrile wastes. The Agency is promulgating an acetonitrile UTS of 
5.6 based on steam stripping performance data. This level also appears 
achievable by WAO (wet air oxidation) followed by PACT@ (a combination 
of powdered activated carbon treatment and activated sludge).

ii. Treatment Standard Modification Made in Response to Comments

    Carbon Disulfide. In response to data submitted by the Chemical 
Manufacturer's Association's Carbon Disulfide Task Force, EPA is 
promulgating a treatment standard of 3.8 mg/l based on data submitted 
by several facilities which generate high concentrations of carbon 
disulfide in wastewaters. The proposed wastewater treatment standard 
(0.014 mg/l) was based on one data point for biological treatment. 
After receiving substantially more treatment data representative of 
more significant influent concentrations, EPA is promulgating a carbon 
disulfide wastewater number of 3.8 mg/l, based on the performance of 
activated sludge at one of the facilities generating carbon disulfide.
    1,4-Dioxane. Eastman Chemical reported that serious analytical 
problems, namely wide variation in detection limits, precluded reliable 
and accurate quantification of 1,4-dioxane. After reviewing detection 
limit data, EPA decided to withdraw the wastewater treatment standard 
for 1,4-dioxane pending technical resolution in a later rule. This 
decision changes the treatment standard for U108 (1,4-dioxane) 
wastewaters. Formerly the wastewater treatment standard was 0.12 mg/l; 
today's rule promulgates a method of treatment as a standard for U108 
wastewaters, namely wet air oxidation or chemical oxidation followed by 
carbon adsorption or incineration.

                                   Universal Treatment Standards for Organics                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Wastewater standard 
                                                                                          ----------------------
                  Regulated constituent--Common name                       CAS\1\ No.       Concentration in mg/
                                                                                                    l\2\        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acenaphthylene........................................................           208-96-8               0.059   
Acenaphthene..........................................................            83-32-9               0.059   
Acetone...............................................................            67-64-1               0.28    
Acetonitrile..........................................................            75-05-8               5.6     
Acetophenone..........................................................            96-86-2               0.010   
2-Acetylaminofluorene.................................................            53-96-3               0.059   
Acrolein..............................................................           107-02-8               0.29    
Acrylamide............................................................            79-06-1              19       
Acrylonitrile.........................................................           107-13-1               0.24    
Aldrin................................................................           309-00-2               0.021   
4-Aminobiphenyl.......................................................            92-67-1               0.13    
Aniline...............................................................            62-53-3               0.81    
Anthracene............................................................           120-12-7               0.059   
Aramite...............................................................           140-57-8               0.36    
alpha-BHC.............................................................           319-84-6               0.00014 
beta-BHC..............................................................           319-85-7               0.00014 
delta-BHC.............................................................           319-86-8               0.023   
gamma-BHC.............................................................            58-89-9               0.0017  
Benzene...............................................................            71-43-2               0.14    
Benz(a)anthracene.....................................................            56-55-3               0.059   
Benzal chloride.......................................................            98-87-3               0.055   
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (difficult to distinguish from                                                             
 benzo(k)fluoranthene)................................................           205-99-2               0.11    
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (difficult to distinguish from                                                             
 benzo(b)fluoranthene)................................................           207-08-9               0.11    
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene..................................................           191-24-2               0.0055  
Benzo(a)pyrene........................................................            50-32-8               0.061   
Bromodichloromethane..................................................            75-27-4               0.35    
Methyl bromide (Bromomethane).........................................            74-83-9               0.11    
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether............................................           101-55-3               0.055   
n-Butyl alcohol.......................................................            71-36-3               5.6     
Butyl benzyl phthalate................................................            85-68-7               0.017   
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (Dinoseb)...............................            88-85-7               0.066   
Carbon disulfide......................................................              75-15              03.8     
Carbon tetrachloride..................................................            56-23-5               0.057   
Chlordane (alpha and gamma isomers)...................................            57-74-9               0.0033  
p-Chloroaniline.......................................................           106-47-8               0.46    
Chlorobenzene.........................................................           108-90-7               0.057   
Chlorobenzilate.......................................................           510-15-6               0.10    
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene................................................           126-99-8               0.057   
Chlorodibromomethane..................................................           124-48-1               0.057   
Chloroethane..........................................................            75-00-3               0.27    
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane............................................           111-91-1               0.036   
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether...............................................           111-44-4               0.033   
Chloroform............................................................            67-66-3               0.046   
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether...........................................           108-60-1               0.055   
p-Chloro-m-cresol.....................................................            59-50-7               0.018   
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether.............................................           110-75-8               0.062   
Chloromethane (Methyl chloride).......................................            74-87-3               0.19    
2-Chloronaphthalene...................................................             91-8-7               0.055   
2-Chlorophenol........................................................            95-57-8               0.044   
3-Chloropropylene.....................................................           107-05-1               0.036   
Chrysene..............................................................           218-01-9               0.059   
o-Cresol..............................................................            95-48-7               0.11    
m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from p-cresol).....................           108-39-4               0.77    
p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from m-cresol).....................           106-44-5               0.77    
Cyclohexanone.........................................................           108-94-1               0.36    
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane...........................................            96-12-8               0.11    
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)................................           106-93-4               0.028   
Dibromomethane........................................................            74-95-3               0.11    
2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)................................            94-75-7               0.72    
o,p'-DDD..............................................................            53-19-0               0.023   
p,p'-DDD..............................................................            72-54-8               0.023   
o,p'-DDE..............................................................          3424-82-6               0.031   
p,p'-DDE..............................................................            72-55-9               0.031   
o,p'-DDT..............................................................           789-02-6               0.0039  
p,p'-DDT..............................................................            50-29-3               0.0039  
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene.................................................            53-70-3               0.055   
Dibenz(a,e)pyrene.....................................................           192-65-4               0.061   
m-Dichlorobenzene.....................................................           541-73-1               0.036   
o-Dichlorobenzene.....................................................            95-50-1               0.088   
p-Dichlorobenzene.....................................................           106-46-7               0.090   
Dichlorodifluoromethane...............................................            75-71-8               0.23    
1,1-Dichloroethane....................................................            75-34-3               0.059   
1,2-Dichloroethane....................................................           107-06-2               0.21    
1,1-Dichloroethylene..................................................            75-35-4               0.025   
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene............................................           156-60-5               0.054   
2,4-Dichlorophenol....................................................           120-83-2               0.044   
2,6-Dichlorophenol....................................................            87-65-0               0.044   
1,2-Dichloropropane...................................................            78-87-5               0.85    
cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene.............................................         10061-01-5               0.036   
trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene...........................................         10061-02-6               0.036   
Dieldrin..............................................................            60-57-1               0.017   
Diethyl phthalate.....................................................            84-66-2               0.20    
2-4-Dimethyl phenol...................................................           105-67-9               0.036   
Dimethyl phthalate....................................................           131-11-3               0.047   
Di-n-butyl phthalate..................................................            84-74-2               0.057   
1,4-Dinitrobenzene....................................................           100-25-4               0.32    
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol..................................................           534-52-1               0.28    
2,4-Dinitrophenol.....................................................            51-28-5               0.12    
2,4-Dinitrotoluene....................................................           121-14-2               0.32    
2,6-Dinitrotoluene....................................................           606-20-2               0.55    
Di-n-octyl phthalate..................................................           117-84-0               0.017   
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene.............................................            60-11-7               0.13    
Di-n-propylnitrosamine................................................           621-64-7               0.40    
Diphenylamine (difficult to distinguish from diphenylnitrosamine).....           122-39-4               0.92    
Diphenylnitrosamine (difficult to distinguish from diphenylamine).....            86-30-6               0.92    
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.................................................           122-66-7               0.087   
Disulfoton............................................................           298-04-4               0.017   
Endosulfan I..........................................................           939-98-8               0.023   
Endosulfan II.........................................................          33213-6-5               0.029   
Endosulfan sulfate....................................................          1-31-07-8               0.029   
Endrin................................................................            72-20-8               0.0028  
Endrin aldehyde.......................................................          7421-93-4               0.025   
Ethyl acetate.........................................................           141-78-6               0.34    
Ethyl cyanide (Propanenitrile)........................................           107-12-0               0.24    
Ethyl benzene.........................................................           100-41-4               0.057   
Ethyl ether...........................................................            60-29-7               0.12    
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate...........................................           117-81-7               0.28    
Ethyl methacrylate....................................................            97-63-2               0.14    
Ethylene oxide........................................................            75-21-8               0.12    
Famphur...............................................................            52-85-7               0.017   
Fluoranthene..........................................................           206-44-0               0.068   
Fluorene..............................................................            86-73-7               0.059   
Heptachlor............................................................            76-44-8               0.0012  
Heptachlor epoxide....................................................          1024-57-3               0.016   
Hexachlorobenzene.....................................................           118-74-1               0.055   
Hexachlorobutadiene...................................................            87-68-3               0.055   
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.............................................            77-47-4               0.057   
HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins)..............................                 NA               0.000063
HxCDFs (All Hexachlorodibenzofurans)..................................                 NA               0.000063
Hexachloroethane......................................................            67-72-1               0.055   
Hexachloropropylene...................................................          1888-71-7               0.035   
Indeno (1,2,3-c,d) pyrene.............................................           193-39-5               0.0055  
Iodomethane...........................................................            74-88-4               0.19    
Isobutyl alcohol......................................................            78-83-1               5.6     
Isodrin...............................................................           465-73-6               0.021   
Isosafrole............................................................           120-58-1               0.081   
Kepone................................................................           143-50-8               0.0011  
Methacrylonitrile.....................................................           126-98-7               0.24    
Methanol..............................................................              67-56              15.6     
Methapyrilene.........................................................            91-80-5               0.081   
Methoxychlor..........................................................            72-43-5               0.25    
3-Methylcholanthrene..................................................            56-49-5               0.0055  
4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)....................................           101-14-4               0.50    
Methylene chloride....................................................            75-09-2               0.089   
Methyl ethyl ketone...................................................            78-93-3               0.28    
Methyl isobutyl ketone................................................           108-10-1               0.14    
Methyl methacrylate...................................................            80-62-6               0.14    
Methyl methansulfonate................................................            66-27-3               0.018   
Methyl parathion......................................................           298-00-0               0.014   
Naphthalene...........................................................            91-20-3               0.059   
2-Naphthylamine.......................................................            91-59-8               0.52    
o-Nitroaniline........................................................            88-74-4               0.27    
p-Nitroaniline........................................................           100-01-6               0.028   
Nitrobenzene..........................................................            98-95-3               0.068   
5-Nitro-o-toluidine...................................................            99-55-8               0.32    
o-Nitrophenol.........................................................            88-75-5               0.028   
p-Nitrophenol.........................................................           100-02-7               0.12    
N-Nitrosodiethylamine.................................................            55-18-5               0.40    
N-Nitrosodimethylamine................................................            62-75-9               0.40    
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine.............................................           924-16-3               0.40    
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine.............................................         10595-95-6               0.40    
N-Nitrosomorpholine...................................................            59-89-2               0.40    
N-Nitrosopiperidine...................................................           100-75-4               0.013   
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine..................................................           930-55-2               0.013   
Parathion.............................................................            56-38-2               0.014   
Total PCBs (sum of all PCB isomers, or all Arochlors).................          1336-36-3               0.10    
Pentachlorobenzene....................................................           608-93-5               0.055   
PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins).............................                 NA               0.000063
PeCDFs (All Pentachlorodibenzofurans).................................                 NA               0.000035
Pentachloroethane.....................................................            76-01-7               0.055   
Pentachloronitrobenzene...............................................            82-68-8               0.055   
Pentachlorophenol.....................................................            87-86-5               0.089   
Phenacetin............................................................            62-44-2               0.081   
Phenanthrene..........................................................            85-01-8               0.059   
Phenol................................................................           108-95-2               0.039   
Phorate...............................................................           298-02-2               0.021   
Phthalic acid.........................................................           100-21-0               0.055   
Phthalic anhydride....................................................            85-44-9               0.055   
Pronamide.............................................................         23950-58-5               0.093   
Pyrene................................................................           129-00-0               0.067   
Pyridine..............................................................           110-86-1               0.014   
Safrole...............................................................            94-59-7               0.081   
Silvex (2,4,5-TP).....................................................            93-72-1               0.72    
2,4,5-T (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid)...........................            93-76-5               0.72    
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene............................................            95-94-3               0.055   
TCDDs (All Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins)..............................                 NA               0.000063
TCDFs (All Tetrachlorodibenzofurans)..................................                 NA               0.000063
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane.............................................           630-20-6               0.057   
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane.............................................            79-34-6               0.057   
Tetrachloroethylene...................................................           127-18-4               0.056   
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol.............................................            58-90-2               0.030   
Toluene...............................................................           108-88-3               0.080   
Toxaphene.............................................................          8001-35-2               0.0095  
Bromoform (Tribromomethane)...........................................            75-25-2               0.63    
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene................................................           120-82-1               0.055   
1,1,1-Trichloroethane.................................................            71-55-6               0.054   
1,1,2-Trichloroethane.................................................            79-00-5               0.054   
Trichloroethylene.....................................................            79-01-6               0.054   
Trichloromonofluoromethane............................................            75-69-4               0.020   
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol.................................................            95-95-4               0.18    
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.................................................            88-06-2               0.035   
1,2,3-Trichloropropane................................................            96-18-4               0.85    
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane.................................            76-13-1               0.057   
tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl) phosphate....................................           126-72-7               0.11    
Vinyl chloride........................................................            75-01-4               0.27    
Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-, m-, and p-xylene concentrations)....          1330-20-7               0.32    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a   
  combination of a chemical with its salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only. 
\2\Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/l are based on analysis of composite samples.    
Note: NA means not applicable.                                                                                  

5. Universal Treatment Standards for Metal Hazardous Constituents
    EPA is promulgating UTS for both the nonwastewater and wastewater 
forms of each of the 14 BDAT list metal constituents. The standards are 
found in the table ``Universal Treatment Standards for Metal 
Constituents'' at the end of this preamble section. These UTS will 
replace the existing metal constituent treatment standards for all 
listed wastes, and will constitute applicable levels for underlying 
hazardous metal constituents in ignitable, corrosive and TC organic 
wastes. They do not apply to wastes exhibiting the toxicity 
characteristic due to metal constituents, i.e., waste codes D004-D012, 
nor do they replace the treatment standards promulgated in the Third 
Third rule for EP metals. Wastecodes D004-D012 will be addressed in an 
upcoming rulemaking.

a. Nonwastewaters

    The nonwastewater UTS for 12 of the 14 metal constituents are based 
on the performance of high temperature metal recovery (HTMR) or 
stabilization. The remaining two metals are arsenic for which the 
standard is based on vitrification, and mercury, which standard 
requires recovery by roasting or retorting for certain highly 
concentrated mercury wastes. As always, when the Agency develops 
concentration-based treatment standards, the use of other technologies 
to achieve those standards is allowed.
    The following table presents a comparison of the previously 
promulgated standards with the UTS.

            Comparison of UTS Nonwastewater TCLP Concentrations Versus Previous Standards for Metals            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Previous standards being replaced               
                        Final UTS NWW standards  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                (TCLP)               Old                                                        
                                                   level                         Waste codes                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony............  2.1.......................     2.1    K061                                                
                      ..........................     0.23   K021, F039                                          
Arsenic.............  5.0.......................     5.6    K031, K084, K101, K102, P010, P011, P036, P038, U136
                      ..........................     5.0    F039                                                
                      ..........................     0.055  K061                                                
Barium..............  7.6.......................    52      F039, P013                                          
                      ..........................     7.6    K061                                                
Beryllium...........  0.014.....................     0.014  K061                                                
Cadmium.............  0.19......................     0.19   K061                                                
                      ..........................     0.14   K069                                                
                      ..........................     0.066  F006, F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, F039, K100      
Chromium............  0.86......................     5.2    F006, F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, F019, F039, K006
                                                             (hydrated), K061, K100                             
                      ..........................     1.7    K015, K048, K049, K050, K051, K052                  
                      ..........................     0.33   K061                                                
                      ..........................     0.094  K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, K008, K062,     
                                                             K086, U032                                         
                      ..........................     0.073  K028                                                
Lead................  0.37......................     0.51   F006, F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, F039, K001,     
                                                             K087, K100, U051, U144, U145, U146, P110           
                      ..........................     0.37   K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, K008, K061,     
                                                             K062, K086                                         
                      ..........................     0.24   K069                                                
                      ..........................     0.18   K046                                                
                      ..........................     0.021  K028                                                
Mercury.............  0.20 for retort residues       0.20   K106, U151, P065, P092 (for RMERC residues)         
                       0.025 for other residues.                                                                
                      ..........................     0.025  K071, K106, U151, P065, P092 (low mercury wastes),  
                                                             F039                                               
                      ..........................     0.009  K061                                                
Nickel..............  5.0.......................     5.0    K061                                                
                      ..........................     0.32   F006, F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, F039, K115, K061
                                                             (stabilization)                                    
                      ..........................     0.2    K015, K048, K049, K050, K051, K052                  
                      ..........................     0.088  K028, K083                                          
Selenium............  0.16......................     5.7    F039, P103, P114, U204, U205                        
                      ..........................     0.16   K061                                                
Silver..............  0.30......................     0.30   K061                                                
                      ..........................     0.072  F006, F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, P099, P104      
Thallium............  0.078.....................     0.078  K061                                                
Vanadium............  0.23......................     0.23   K061                                                
Zinc................  5.3.......................     5.3    K061                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Constituents are actually regulated only if the treatment standard specifically requires it (for listed   
  wastes, or constituents are reasonably expected to be present (underlying hazardous constituents in           
  characteristic wastes).                                                                                       

    Commenters objected to the proposed levels and provided treatment 
data for only two metal limits, chromium and mercury. The Agency 
revised the proposed treatment standards for chromium and mercury as 
described later in this section. For the other UTS metal constituents 
the Agency promulgated standards as proposed.
    For four of these metals beryllium, thallium, vanadium and zinc, 
the previous standards limited the metal at one level, which was 
proposed and promulgated for UTS.
    For four other metals, antimony, cadmium, nickel and silver, the 
Agency proposed and promulgated the UTS level at the highest of the 
previous standards. This occurred based on the best data for the most 
difficult to treat wastes. Commenters did not submit new data 
supporting lower limits for these constituents. While the limits for 
some waste codes are raised, EPA considered the following factors:
    (1) A broader assessment of the treatment data;
    (2) Some of the low/previous metal standards simply reflected low 
levels in the untreated wastes;
    (3) Regulation of other metals for a waste code, namely those that 
are present in significantly high concentrations, will control design 
and operations of the treatment technology.
    For the remaining four metals, arsenic, barium, lead and selenium, 
the Agency did not propose or promulgate the UTS at the highest 
previous standard. Commenters did not submit data on these metals. The 
justification for rejecting lower levels are the same as those 
presented for antimony, cadmium, nickel and silver in the preceeding 
discussion. For these metals, EPA did not choose the highest previous 
standard; rather, the standard for the most difficult to treat waste 
was selected and it achieved a lower standard than the highest previous 
standard.
    In addition to the above consideration, the Agency considered 
matrix effects. In setting the nonwastewater metal limits, EPA has 
examined the most difficult to treat wastes; therefore, if a matrix 
relationship exists, other wastes should more easily meet the limits. 
If there exists a waste that can not meet the limits, the Agency has a 
treatability variance process to address those instances. It appears 
that HTMR is matrix independent, consistently achieving the same level 
of treatment performance as measured in the residuals, regardless of 
the influent matrix composition. With regard to matrix effects on 
stabilization, adjustments to the type and quantity of stabilizing 
agents can greatly compensate for matrix effects.
    The UTS standard for chromium (Total) was proposed to be 0.33 mg/l 
in the TCLP extract based upon the K061-HTMR treatment standard data. 
One commenter (Occidental Chemical), objected to the proposed limits 
and supplied stabilization data for chromium. They indicated through 85 
data points that they could achieve a level of 0.58 mg/kg. The Agency 
evaluated treatability data from various sources, including Occidental 
Chemical and previously promulgated waste codes. These evaluations 
compared analyses of performance data between untreated and treated 
concentrations of metal waste. From this treatability data the Agency 
selected the most difficult to treat waste. It was determined that the 
waste criteria selected was submitted by Cyanokem for F006 during the 
promulgation of the Third Third rule (June 1, 1990). This waste was a 
composition of stripping liquids, plating operations, pelletizing 
operations, and clean out wastes from plating tanks. The data sets 
involving the most difficult to treat waste were used to calculate the 
limit of 0.86 mg/l TCLP. The other data sets, including those from the 
comments, generally achieved the 0.86 mg/l TCLP. The treatment results 
that did not meet the levels may be due to treatment being designed to 
only meet the characteristic levels. It is the Agency's belief that 
with the use of a more effective stabilization process, a lower level 
could be achieved, as demonstrated by the fact that a more difficult to 
treat waste attained the level of 0.86 mg/l TCLP. Therefore, the Agency 
is promulgating the treatment standard of 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
    EPA proposed UTS for low mercury subcategory nonwastewaters 
(containing less than 260 mg/kg total mercury) at 0.009 mg/l TCLP. Many 
commenters expressed concern over this standard. EPA has reconsidered 
the proposed UTS for mercury and is promulgating standards as follows: 
0.200 mg/l TCLP for low subcategory retort residues, and 0.025 mg/l 
TCLP for other low subcategory nonwastewaters. (The existing treatment 
standard for high subcategory mercury nonwastewaters (concentration 
greater than 260 mg/kg) is already RMERC, i.e., recovery of mercury by 
retorting or roasting. This treatment standard is unaffected by today's 
rule.) Comments and EPA's responses are summarized below.
    Several commenters expressed the belief that the current treatment 
standards for K106, D009, and K071 wastes should remain in effect. 
These commenters submitted data from the analysis of retorted mercury 
waste to support the claim that the proposed UTS for mercury is not 
achievable by retorting, the recognized BDAT for K106 and D009 wastes. 
These data consisted of total and TCLP analyses of 109 residue samples 
from retorted K106 and D009 wastes. Although 23 of these samples 
contained greater than 260 mg/kg total mercury and would therefore 
require further retorting, of the remaining 86 samples, 18 contained 
greater than 0.009 mg/l mercury by TCLP, the proposed UTS for mercury 
nonwastewaters. All 86 samples contained less than 0.15 mg/l mercury by 
TCLP. These data support the commenters' position that the proposed UTS 
for mercury is not achievable by properly operated BDAT treatment 
technology (e.g., RMERC).
    Further examination of available data has convinced the Agency that 
the proposed nonwastewater standard was too low. The basis for the 
proposed UTS for metal nonwastewaters, which was data from the 
treatment of K061 by high temperature metal recovery (HTMR), is not 
appropriate for mercury wastes. K061 waste does not typically contain 
large quantities of mercury and HTMR facilities do not accept wastes 
containing high concentrations of mercury. EPA has therefore decided 
not to promulgate the proposed nonwastewater standards, and instead to 
apply the existing treatment standards for K071, K106, P065, P092, and 
U151 as the UTS for mercury nonwastewaters. This is appropriate, since 
mercury is the most significant constituent in these wastes, and BDAT 
for these wastes is particularly directed to treating mercury. The 
Agency continues to believe that the revised limits for mercury and 12 
other metal constituents in K061 provide adequate assurance that BDAT 
will occur for K061. Thus, the universal treatment standards for low 
subcategory mercury wastes will be 0.20 mg/l mercury by TCLP for retort 
residue nonwastewaters, and 0.025 mg/l mercury by TCLP for other low 
subcategory nonwastewaters.
    The following table is a compilation of the final metal universal 
standards for nonwastewaters.

    Universal Treatment Standards for Metal\1\ Hazardous Constituents   
                            [Nonwastewaters]                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Maximum for 
                                                            any single  
                  Regulated constituent                     grab sample 
                                                            TCLP (mg/l) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony................................................           2.1  
Arsenic.................................................           5.0  
Barium..................................................           7.6  
Beryllium...............................................           0.014
Cadmium.................................................           0.19 
Chromium (Total)........................................           0.86 
Lead....................................................           0.37 
Mercury--retort residues................................           0.20 
Mercury--not retort residues............................           0.025
Nickel..................................................           5.0  
Selenium................................................           0.16 
Silver..................................................           0.30 
Thallium................................................           0.078
Vanadium................................................           0.23 
Zinc....................................................           5.3  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Treatment standards for cyanide wastes are discussed in the next     
  preamble section.                                                     

b. Wastewaters

    The metal UTS for wastewaters are based on chemical precipitation 
as BDAT. Depending on the initial concentration of metal constituents 
in the wastewater, operating conditions such as retention time, 
flocculating agents, reagent concentrations such as iron to affect 
solubility of other metals, and mixing may need to be adjusted to 
comply with the standards.
    The following table presents the UTS metal wastewater limits, and 
the previous limits. Changes to the proposed metal standards occurred 
in two areas: use of Office of Water Metal Finishing limits, and an 
adjustment of the proposed vanadium limit. These changes are explained 
following the table.

                Comparison of UTS Wastewater Concentrations Versus Previous Standards for Metals                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Previous standards                               
                       Final  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        UTS       Old                                                                           
                                 level                                 Waste codes                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony............     1.9   ........  K061                                                                   
                                  0.60   K021                                                                   
                                  1.9    F039                                                                   
Arsenic.............     1.4      0.79   K031, K084, K101, K102, P010, P011, P012, P036, P038, U136             
                                  1.4    F039                                                                   
                                         K061                                                                   
Barium..............     1.2      1.2    F039, P013                                                             
                                         K061                                                                   
Beryllium...........     0.82     0.82   F039, K061                                                             
Cadmium.............     0.69     6.4    K028                                                                   
                                  0.20   F039                                                                   
                                  0.24   K101, K102                                                             
                                  1.6    F006, K061, K069, K100                                                 
Chromium............     2.77     0.32   F006, F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, F019, K015, K061, K062, K086, K100,
                                          U032                                                                  
                                  0.2    F037, F038, K048, K049, K050, K051, K052                               
                                  0.37   F039                                                                   
                                  0.9    K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, K008                               
                                  0.35   F024, K022, K028                                                       
Lead................     0.69     0.040  F006, F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, K062, U144, U145, U146, P110       
                                  3.4    K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, K008                               
                                  0.17   K101, K102                                                             
                                  0.28    F039                                                                  
                                  0.51   K061, K069, K100                                                       
                                  0.037  K001, F037, F038, K028, K046, K048, K049, K050, K051, K052, K086, K087,
                                          U051                                                                  
Mercury.............     0.15     0.030  K071, K106, P065, P092, U151                                           
                                  0.082  K101, K102                                                             
                                  0.15   F039                                                                   
Nickel..............     3.98     0.55   F039                                                                   
                                  0.44   F006, F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, K015, K061, K062, P074             
                                  0.32   P073                                                                   
                                  0.47   F024, K022, K028, K083, K115                                           
Selenium............     0.82     0.82   F039                                                                   
                                  1.0    P103, P114, U204, U205                                                 
Silver..............     0.43     0.29   F039, P099, P104                                                       
Thallium............     1.4      0.14   P113, P114, P115, U214, U215, U216, U217                               
                                  1.4    F039                                                                   
Vanadium............     4.3      0.042  F039                                                                   
                                 28      P119, P120                                                             
Zinc................     2.61     1.0    F039                                                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposal, EPA solicited comments on changing the limits for 
cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc to those used in the 
Office of Water's Metal Finishing Effluent Guidelines. These standards 
represented a more comprehensive database, addressed many more 
facilities, and represented the most difficult to treat waste. Although 
none of the commenters submitted data, they (commenters) supported the 
use of the Metal Finishing standards as the UTS wastewater treatment 
numbers. We are adopting the metal wastewater limits used for the 
Effluent Guidelines for the Metal Finishers Point Source category for 
cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, silver and zinc for the reasons 
outlined above.
    The Agency received comments, but no data, that the proposed 
vanadium limit of 0.042 was unachievably low. At the proposed level, 
vanadium would be the most stringent regulated metal. With little data 
supporting the proposed level, the Agency tried to follow up with 
commenters and other sources to obtain data. Wastewater with 
significant vanadium is rare, and EPA's efforts yielded limited data 
supporting a level of 4.3 mg/l. This level is within the range of other 
metal limits, and is achievable, based on the data availability. While 
the Agency would have preferred having more data for vanadium, the UTS 
is set at 4.3 mg/l. If the few facilities that have significant 
vanadium wastewaters can not meet this limit, EPA's treatability 
variance process is available. Also, the Agency would be willing to 
reassess this limit in a future rule, if data are submitted which 
supports a change in this standard.
    For all other metal wastewater UTS--antimony, arsenic, barium, 
beryllium, mercury, selenium and thallium--EPA is promulgating limits 
as proposed. The data used for UTS reflect, for each of these metals, 
the best data available. With the possibility of more wastewaters being 
treated to comply with LDR standards--particularly characteristic 
wastewaters that heretofore have been decharacterized and whose 
underlying hazardous constituents may not have been treated, EPA has 
made a determined effort in this rulemaking to base treatment standards 
on the best data available, which data reflects a wide variety of 
wastewaters. Although the UTS are in some cases higher than existing 
limits, EPA believes that these existing lower limits, in many cases, 
reflected low levels of metals in untreated wastes. In addition, 
wastewater standards, to date, have not had direct effect on many 
wastes, because most hazardous wastewaters are either treated in tanks 
and discharged, managed in Sec. 3005(j)(ii) impoundments, injected into 
Class I hazardous deep wells which have received no-migration 
variances, or decharacterized, and so are not subject to these lower 
standards.
    The following table is a compilation of final metal universal 
treatment standards for wastewaters.

    Universal Treatment Standards for Metal\1\ Hazardous Constituents   
                             [Wastewaters]                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Maximum for 
                                                             any single 
                  Regulated constituent                     grab sample 
                                                               (mg/l)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................................           1.9 
Arsenic..................................................           1.4 
Barium...................................................           1.2 
Beryllium................................................           0.82
Cadmium..................................................           0.69
Chromium (Total).........................................           2.77
Lead.....................................................           0.69
Mercury..................................................           0.15
Nickel...................................................           3.98
Selenium.................................................           0.82
Silver...................................................           0.43
Thallium.................................................           1.4 
Vanadium.................................................           4.3 
Zinc.....................................................           2.61 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Treatment standards for cyanide wastes are discussed in the next     
  preamble section.                                                     

6. Universal Treatment Standards for Cyanide Wastes
    For the nonwastewater forms of cyanide wastes, EPA is promulgating 
the UTS as proposed: 590 mg/kg (total cyanide) and 30 mg/kg (amenable 
cyanide). For wastewaters, EPA is promulgating the UTS: 1.2 mg/l (total 
cyanide) and 0.86 mg/l (amenable cyanide). These wastewater standards 
differ from those that were proposed (see section b of the cyanide UTS 
discussion below). The cyanide wastewater and nonwastewater UTS are 
based on the treatment of wastewaters via alkaline chlorination.
    EPA is also codifying in 40 CFR 268.40 that compliance with the 
cyanide nonwastewater UTS requires the use of EPA SW-846, Test Methods 
9010 and 9012, along with a specified sample size of 10 grams, and a 
distillation time of 75 minutes. Most commenters, in particular those 
from the hazardous waste treatment industry, welcomed and supported 
this part of EPA's proposal. These kind of provisions eliminate 
variabilities that can result from the analyses of different sample 
sizes and distillation times. A detailed discussion of these treatment 
standards follows.

a. Cyanide Nonwastewaters

    EPA proposed three options for cyanide in nonwastewater forms (a 
standard based on total and amenable cyanide concentrations, a standard 
based on TCLP concentrations, and a standard that specifies treatment 
methods) at 58 FR 48104. EPA is promulgating the first option.
    EPA is discussing in this preamble only the major comments on the 
first option. Please see the Response to Comments Document in the 
docket for this rule for EPA's responses to all the comments received 
on the proposed three options.
    EPA requested comments on its rationale for setting a common 
cyanide UTS for all nonwastewater forms of cyanide. Two primary issues 
were emphasized in the proposal: (1) the establishment of a cyanide UTS 
that is less stringent for wastes that contain little to no cyanide; 
and, (2) standardized sample size and distillation time for compliance 
monitoring.
    EPA believes that by basing a universal treatment on the cyanide 
matrix that is most difficult to treat, the universal treatment 
standard will indeed be uniformly achievable. EPA has determined that 
electroplating wastes with high concentrations of iron represent the 
most difficult to treat of all the cyanide wastes. The available 
performance data for treating electroplating wastes support the 
establishment of a UTS of 590 mg/kg (total cyanide) and 30 mg/kg 
(amenable cyanide).
    EPA noted that although other cyanide wastes were required to meet 
lower treatment standards, the establishment of this higher UTS was not 
likely to discourage effective treatment of these other wastes. 
Examples of the other wastes of concern include multi-source leachate, 
pigments, petroleum, coking, ink solvents and organo-nitrogen wastes. 
These wastes generally have very little cyanide in the untreated waste, 
have cyanide along with organic constituents which are routinely 
incinerated, or have cyanide in a free form which is easier to treat by 
conventional treatment methods (alkaline chlorination). Because these 
wastes are routinely treated by incineration or a cyanide destruction 
technology, EPA believes further subcategorization of the cyanide UTS 
standard is not warranted at this time. (Put another way, the Agency 
does not believe as a practical matter that more cyanide will be land 
disposed as a result of UTS, and therefore that the interest in 
simplified standards warrants against further subcategorization of 
cyanide wastes.)
    The majority of the commenters supported EPA's proposed rationale 
for developing a cyanide UTS and believe EPA's proposed approach is 
appropriate for setting UTS. Two commenters, however, urged EPA to 
withdraw the proposed UTS and to promulgate instead a lower cyanide 
UTS, as described below.
    The first commenter believes that EPA should set two categories of 
cyanide UTS: (1) organic, which would include all those cyanide wastes 
with regulated organics; and, (2) inorganic, which include all cyanide 
wastes with regulated metals. For organics, they suggested a UTS of 30 
mg/kg (total cyanide) and 1.8 mg/kg (amenable cyanide). For inorganics, 
the commenter suggested a UTS of 400 mg/kg (total cyanide) based on 
rejecting three data points used to calculate the 590 mg/kg limits.
    The other commenter believes that it is inappropriate for EPA to 
raise the standards for all nonwastewater forms of cyanide wastes. They 
said that existing treatment technologies can treat cyanide wastes to 
levels below the proposed UTS, and they asked EPA to promulgate lower 
cyanide levels such as those promulgated for nonwastewater forms of 
F011 and F012.
    EPA is not persuaded by these comments. First, a separate lower 
treatment standard for cyanide in organic wastes is currently 
unnecessary because combustion of these wastes to comply with organic 
treatment standards effectively destroys cyanides. Second, EPA believes 
that the three data points queried in CyanoKem's comment are in fact 
representative. None of these three data points fail a statistical 
Outlier test. Furthermore, the description of the design and operating 
conditions make it appear that treatment was conducted properly. Third, 
the limit for F011 and F012 (which had a treatment standard for cyanide 
below the UTS) has not been previously subject to the 1 hour and 15 
minute distillation time and 10 gram sample requirements, which can 
greatly influence results and are required conditions for the UTS.
    CyanoKem's comment, in fact, amounts to a request that EPA reopen 
the technology basis for the cyanide standard, an issue not opened for 
public comment. The treatment standards for cyanide are based on 
performance of alkaline chlorination technology. 54 FR at 26610-611 
(June 23, 1989). CyanoKem has upgraded that technology with certain 
proprietary modifications. 56 FR at 12355 (March 25, 1991). EPA has 
already indicated that this adapted technology is not, and need not 
serve as the basis for the treatment standard. Id.
    In any case, EPA does not believe that this is an appropriate time 
to undertake major changes to the cyanide standards. This is because 
the cyanide analytic method, although improved by the changes in this 
rule which are the best available at the present time, continues to 
have shortcomings. EPA is working to develop a different analytic 
method. It may be that after the new method is developed, further 
investigation of cyanide standards will be warranted.

              Universal Treatment Standards for Cyanide\1\              
                            [Nonwastewaters]                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Maximum for
                                                             any single 
                  Regulated constituent                       composite 
                                                             sample (mg/
                                                                 kg)    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide (Total)...........................................           590
Cyanide (Amenable)........................................           30 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Cyanide nonwastewaters are analyzed using SW-846 Method 9010 or 9012,
  sample size 10 grams, distillation time, one hour and 15 minutes.     

b. Cyanide Wastewaters

    EPA is promulgating 1.2 mg/l (total cyanide) and 0.86 mg/l 
(amenable cyanide) as UTS for wastewater forms of cyanide wastes. In 
the proposed rule, EPA pointed out that a total cyanide concentration 
of 1.9 mg/l, regardless of process waste type, is widely used in 
wastewater discharge regulations--namely those for the Metal Finishing 
Industry and the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 
(OCPSF) Industry; however, the concentration of 1.9 mg/l was a 
typographical error. The Agency intended to propose a concentration 1.2 
mg/l of total cyanide. (The 1.2 mg/l level is supported by EPA's OCPSF 
regulations and the background information in the record to the 
proposed rule supporting the proposed total cyanide UTS applicable to 
cyanide wastewaters.) The majority of commenters from the 
pharmaceutical and waste treatment industry commented on the proposed 
UTS cyanide for wastewaters assuming a standard of 1.2 mg/l total 
cyanide level was proposed.
    Commenters pointed out that the proposed level of 1.2 mg/l (total 
cyanide) is not always applied to OCPSF discharges. EPA has authorized 
permit writers or control authorities to exempt a source from OCPSF's 
total cyanide (discharge) limit, and to establish a Best Professional 
Judgement (``BPJ'') amenable cyanide limit. The BPJ limit must be based 
on a determination that the cyanide limits are not achievable due to 
elevated levels of non- amenable cyanide that result from the 
unavoidable complexing of cyanide at the process source (40 CFR 
414.11(g), 414.91, and 414.101). As with the CWA regulations, EPA 
provides facilities with a RCRA treatability variance process in the 40 
CFR 268.44 regulations that would allow a facility to achieve an 
alternate treatment standard (see discussion of treatability variance 
at section XII of this preamble). EPA believes that this provision 
provides a mechanism for establishing an alternative cyanide limit for 
OCPSF facilities in appropriate cases.
    These commenters also reported that CWA regulations for the 
Pharmaceutical Industry specify cyanide limitations as high as 33.5 mg/
l total cyanide. EPA looked into these concerns; in particular, whether 
the proposed standard of 1.2 mg/l can be achieved universally. 
Treatment performance data, however, were not submitted by the 
commenters. Contrary to the commenters' arguments, the literature and 
the performance data on cyanide treatment clearly show that cyanide 
wastewaters are treatable to 1.2 mg/l total cyanide. While the CWA 
cyanide limit is 33.5 mg/l for the pharmaceutical industry, that limit 
was established in 1983 and is currently being investigated for 
possible revision. Data were obtained from these ongoing efforts, 
confirming that pharmaceutical wastes can achieve the 1.2 mg/l cyanide 
level.
    Other commenters emphasized that because EPA's proposed universal 
wastewater standard of 1.2 mg/l total CN could not be routinely met by 
cyanide destruction technologies available at their site, EPA should 
only set a treatment level of 0.86 mg/l (amenable cyanide). Another 
commenter added that in the Third Third rule (see 55 FR 22550-22553, 
June 1, 1990), EPA already set a level of 0.86 mg/l for amenable 
cyanide in characteristic wastewaters which is routinely met by their 
modified wastewater treatment system. The proposed UTS treatment 
standard of 0.86 mg/l (amenable cyanide) is based on the treatment of 
complex-iron wastewaters from the electroplating industry by alkaline 
chlorination (a cyanide destruction technology, and BDAT). The 
commenter urged EPA to set this level as the sole cyanide UTS.
    In the first place, the Agency views the issue of requiring 
treatment for both total and amenable CN to be settled in past rules, 
and did not intend to reopen it. See 54 FR at 26609 (June 23, 1989). If 
further response is deemed necessary, EPA remains unpersuaded by these 
arguments. Clean Water Act effluent limitations could technically be 
met by adding ferro-sulfate or other sulfate reagents to wastewaters. 
These chemical reagents do not destroy cyanides in the effluent 
wastewater but instead, they leave behind iron-cyanide complexes or 
thiocyanates. By requiring compliance for both amenable and total 
cyanide, facilities must pursue treatment practices that can 
effectively destroy cyanides. EPA is thus promulgating 1.2 mg/l (total 
cyanide) and 0.86 mg/l (amenable cyanide) as UTS for wastewater forms 
of cyanide wastes.
    EPA had previously reserved the treatment standard for total 
cyanide in wastewater forms of D003 reactive cyanide wastes. In today's 
rule, EPA is applying the UTS of 1.2 mg/l to this waste. EPA sees no 
reason that the limit is not generally achievable, and commenters 
supplied no reasons.

                Universal Treatment Standard for Cyanide                
                             [Wastewaters]                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Maximum for 
                                                             any single 
                  Regulated constituent                      composite  
                                                           sample (mg/l)
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide (Total)..........................................           1.2 
Cyanide (Amenable).......................................           0.86 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consolidation of Equivalent Technology-Specific Combustion Standards

    Another improvement to the existing Land Disposal Restrictions 
program that is being made in today's rule is the simplification of two 
equivalent technology-specific combustion standards in: Table 1--
Technology Codes and Description of Technology-Based Standards in 40 
CFR 268.42. The Agency is consolidating the descriptions of INCIN 
(incineration) and FSUBS (fuel substitution), by combining them into 
one term, CMBST (combustion). The definition of CMBST, as stated in 
Sec. 268.42 Table 1, is: ``combustion in incinerators, boilers, or 
industrial furnaces operated in accordance with the applicable 
requirements of 40 CFR part 264 subpart O, and part 266, subpart H.'' 
(Because the Part 265 interim status standards for incinerators are 
largely nonsubstantive, EPA does not view facilities operating pursuant 
to these standards to be performing BDAT treatment. This is not true of 
boilers and industrial furnaces, where the interim status standards are 
nearly as stringent as those for permitted units.)
    This definition includes a specific reference to boilers and 
industrial furnaces in order to clarify that combustion in these units 
is (and always has been) allowed as a means of complying with FSUBS. 
The Agency is also clarifying that any future regulations, such as 
potential emission limits on metals or halogenated organic content, 
established in part 264 subpart O, and part 266 subpart H, shall also 
apply automatically to the standard of CMBST (or INCIN) in part 268. 
The consolidation of INCIN with FSUBS to read CMBST does not represent 
any change to the promulgated standards and additional notice and 
comment was, therefore, not required.
    All of the K-, U-, and P-listed wastes that have technology-
specific standards contain chemicals that are very difficult to 
quantify in treatment residues. The chemicals representing the waste 
codes for which the Agency has promulgated CMBST as a standard are, for 
the most part, thermally labile and are expected to be destroyed 
relatively easily in any type of combustion unit. EPA originally set up 
the two separate standards of INCIN and FSUBS (Final Rule for Third 
Third Wastes, June 1, 1990), because the Agency did not have in place 
the operating requirements for boilers and industrial furnaces (i.e., 
the requirements for FSUBS). See 52 FR at 17021 (May 6, 1987). Because 
these requirements have been promulgated (56 FR 7134 (February 21, 
1991), both sets of standards should assure equally efficient 
combustion of hazardous waste. For the same reason, there is no need to 
distinguish between the types of units that are allowed to handle each 
specific waste code. (EPA is, however, actively reviewing current 
regulations for combustion units to assure the rules' protectiveness, 
and may propose more stringent standards for such units. See EPA's 
Draft Combustion Strategy of May 18, 1993).
    As a result of today's action the standards for the following waste 
codes are modified to read ``CMBST'':

(1) Two treatment subcategories of D001 wastes
(2) Six source-specific wastes listed in Sec. 261.32: K027, K039, K113, 
K114, K115, K116
(3) Seventeen wastes listed in Sec. 261.33(e): P001, P003, P005, P009, 
P040, P041, P043, P044, P062, P068, P081, P085, P088, P102, P105, P109, 
P112
(4) Forty-one wastes listed in Sec. 261.33(f): U008, U016, U023, U053, 
U055, U056, U057, U058, U064, U085, U086, U087, U089, U090, U094, U096, 
U098, U099, U103, U109, U113, U122, U123, U124, U125, U126, U133, U147, 
U154, U160, U166, U182, U186, U197, U201, U213, U221, U248, U328, U353, 
U359

    Other technology-specific standards and/or numerical standards that 
have been promulgated for the above listed codes remain unchanged. In 
particular, the promulgated standards of CHRED and CHOXD (i.e., 
chemical reduction and chemical oxidation) remain unchanged as 
alternatives to CMBST for fourteen of the above U and P waste codes. 
These standards were established because the chemicals represented by 
these wastes hydrolyze relatively rapidly (i.e., react with water) and 
both of the technologies represented by these standards are typically 
performed under aqueous conditions. These waste codes include: P009, 
P068, P081, P105, P112, U023, U086, U096, U098, U099, U103, U109, U133, 
U160.
    Today's rule does not affect the existing standards for waste codes 
where INCIN was specified, but FSUBS was not. For those waste codes, 
the standard remains identified as INCIN, rather than CMBST.
    The Agency is further investigating potential modifications to the 
presentation in 40 CFR 268.40 of all of the technology-specific 
standards in order to simplify and clarify the promulgated treatment 
standards, and may propose additional changes in the future.

D. Incorporation of Newly Listed Wastes Into Lab Packs and Changes to 
Appendices

    On June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22629), EPA promulgated alternative 
treatment standards under 40 CFR 268.42(c) for waste codes listed in 40 
CFR 268 Appendix IV and V that are placed in lab packs. These 
alternative standards are legally constructed, in part, as ``specified 
methods of treatment'' because of physical difficulties in measuring 
compliance with numerical standards for these multi-coded waste forms 
(i.e., compliance is complicated by the fact that many lab packs are 
comprised of hundreds of small containers, each with different organic 
or organo-metallic chemicals in them, making it difficult to accurately 
sample treatment residues for those organics). In the January, 1991, 
correction notice and again in the May 30, 1991, Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 24453), the Agency requested comment on 
potential improvements to these alternative standards.
    EPA's original intent in establishing two separate appendices was 
to distinguish between those lab packs containing organo-metallics 
(Appendix IV) and those containing only organics (Appendix V). As such, 
lab packs containing organo-metallics (Appendix IV) were expected to 
need stabilization after performing the specified method of treatment, 
INCIN (i.e., incineration), while Appendix V lab packs only needed to 
be incinerated. However, under 40 CFR 268.42(c)(4), all treatment 
residues of either type of lab pack also had to comply with the 
standards for the extraction procedure (EP) for metals, i.e., D004, 
D005, D006, D007, D008, D010, and D011. (D009 is not included in this 
list because most mercury-bearing wastes were excluded from the use of 
the alternative standards in both of these Appendices.) As such, if 
metals were concentrated in the residues from the incineration of an 
Appendix V lab pack and the resultant residues then exhibited one of 
the characteristics for EP metals, these residues would also have had 
to be stabilized to comply with the appropriate treatment standard for 
metals. In such a case, there was no practical difference between 
Appendix IV and Appendix V lab packs in terms of the treatment that was 
needed.
    The majority of the comments received from the regulated community 
supported the Agency's proposed approach. In this final rule EPA is, 
therefore, replacing Appendix IV and Appendix V with a new Appendix IV. 
In order to simplify the new Appendix IV it only contains those wastes 
excluded from lab packs. The following wastes are excluded from lab 
packs (and appear in new Appendix IV) for the purpose of using the 
alternative lab pack treatment standard in 40 CFR 268.42(c): D009, 
F019, K003, K004, K005, K006, K062, K071, K100, K106, P010, P011, P012, 
P076, P078, U134, U151.
    In today's rule, EPA is also stating that the alternative treatment 
standard for lab packs applies to the following additional waste codes 
that were previously not included in Appendix IV or V: wastes for which 
treatment standards were promulgated in the LDR Phase I rule August 1, 
1992 (57 FR 37194), and wastes (including TC organic wastes) for which 
treatment standards are promulgated in this final rule. Today's rule 
does not list these as excluded waste codes in the new Appendix IV.
    As a matter of clarification, the alternative treatment standard 
for lab packs is INCIN. This required combustion technology combined 
with the requirements of 40 CFR 268.42(c)(4) (ash residues are treated 
to meet the characteristic metals treatment standards), will ensure 
that all underlying hazardous constituents present in characteristic 
wastes (other than those excluded in the new Appendix IV), will be 
treated. The use of this alternative lab pack standard negates the 
requirement to monitor for, or comply with, the UTS for underlying 
hazardous organic constituents.
    For reasons outlined in the June 1, 1990 final rule, mercury wastes 
were excluded from this alternative standard for lab packs. Mercury is 
considered a ``volatile metal'' which may lead to excessive air 
emissions in some combustion devices when present in large quantities. 
Mercury is also very difficult to stabilize if present in ash residues 
in large quantities. Commenters did not provide any justifiable 
technical reason for EPA to modify its position with respect to mercury 
wastes, and thus these wastes shall remain excluded from this 
alternative lab pack treatment standard.

E. Changes in the LDR Program in Response to the LDR Roundtable

    EPA convened a roundtable meeting on January 12-14, 1993 to discuss 
the LDR program. The purpose of the roundtable was for EPA to hear 
suggestions on improvements to the LDR program from persons who 
implement it. Participants included representatives of hazardous waste 
generators, treaters, and disposers; public interest groups; state 
environmental agencies; EPA regional offices; and other federal 
agencies. EPA is today promulgating several recommendations made by 
roundtable participants. The Agency is consolidating the three existing 
treatment standard tables into one table, and is simplifying 
notification requirements and reducing paperwork, as discussed below. 
In addition, as discussed in an earlier section of this preamble, the 
Agency is also promulgating universal treatment standards. Furthermore, 
the Agency is committed to continue to identify ways the LDR program 
can be simplified. Additional opportunities for such streamlining will 
be explored in future LDR rulemakings.
1. Consolidated Treatment Table
    Several of the groups present at the LDR roundtable expressed an 
interest in having a consolidated treatment standard table in the 
regulations. Participants stated that the existing system of three 
separate tables at 40 CFR 268.41-268.43 was too complex and burdensome. 
In its September 14, 1993 notice, EPA proposed a single consolidated 
table of treatment standards. Comments on the table were favorable.
    Today, EPA is replacing the three existing treatment standard 
tables with the consolidated table, called ``Treatment Standards for 
Hazardous Waste'' and placing it at Sec. 268.40 along with much of the 
text found currently in Secs. 268.41-268.43. Section 268.42 continues 
to describe the technology codes, to regulate California list PCBs and 
HOCs, to set out exemptions from the required methods, and to provide 
procedures for equivalency determinations. The numerical treatment 
standards in the consolidated table are identical to the UTS 
promulgated in today's rule with the exception of characteristic metal 
wastes.
    Reformatting Secs. 268.40-268.43 also corrects a confusing aspect 
of the way the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) has appeared for some 
time. The ``No Land Disposal'' treatment standards that have appeared 
at Sec. 268.43 will be deleted from the regulations and should no 
longer appear in the CFR. These treatment standards have not been in 
effect since 1990, when the LDR Third Third rule set treatment 
standards for these wastes that were expressed as either methods of 
treatment or numerical standards that now appear in the consolidated 
treatment standard table Sec. 268.40. It was only a drafting oversight 
that made these ``No Land Disposal'' standards continue to appear in 
the regulations, and today's rule corrects this mistake.
2. Simplified LDR Notification Requirements
    Comments on LDR notification requirements at the roundtable ranged 
from suggestions that EPA should eliminate notifications altogether to 
suggestions that EPA modify or delete data items on the notification. 
In response, EPA proposed to eliminate the requirement at 40 CFR 
268.7(a)(1)(ii) and at 268.9(d)(1) that the notification include 
treatment standards or references to those standards. It was argued 
that such a simplification makes particular sense in conjunction with 
EPA's proposal to consolidate the treatment standard tables. Commenters 
on this issue all supported this proposed simplification. EPA is thus 
dropping the treatment standard or reference to the treatment standard 
from the LDR notification in this final rule.
    Today's action does not eliminate the existing requirement to 
identify the constituents in F001-F005 spent solvent wastes, F039 
wastes, or the underlying hazardous constituents in D001, D002, and in 
TC organic wastes, unless the generator/treater is going to monitor for 
all hazardous constituents in the waste. However, the regulatory 
language is made clearer, and there is no longer any requirement that 
the corresponding constituent level be included with the constituents 
identified on the LDR notification for these wastes.

IV. Treatment Standards for Toxicity Characteristic Waste

A. Introduction--Content and Scope

    EPA is promulgating treatment standards for the newly identified 
toxicity characteristic (TC) organic wastes (D018-D043) as proposed. 
These are identical to the UTS in today's rule. The UTS apply to the 
underlying hazardous constituents in the TC waste as well as the 
individual constituent responsible for the TC designation. Underlying 
hazardous constituents are any constituents in Sec. 268.48 which are 
reasonably expected to be present at levels above the UTS at the point 
of generation of the TC waste. (See definition at Sec. 268.2(i).) 
Although the intent of today's regulations is to require treating all 
underlying hazardous constituents present plus the TC constituent, 
today's rule calls for generators to monitor only the TC constituent 
and those underlying hazardous constituents ``reasonably expected to be 
present'' in their waste at its point of generation. Today's rule is 
promulgating the compliance monitoring provisions that were proposed. 
Section X of this preamble (Compliance Monitoring and Notification) 
discusses them in detail.
    Several commenters suggested that EPA promulgate alternative 
standards of incineration (INCIN), fuel substitution (FSUBS) and 
recovery of organics (RORGS) for these wastes. These commenters pointed 
to the Interim Final Rule of May 24, 1993 (58 FR 29867) where EPA 
extended the use of these methods of treatment to all D001 wastes 
disposed outside CWA or CWA-equivalent impoundments or Safe Drinking 
Water Act regulated Class I underground injection wells. EPA is not 
adopting this approach in today's rule for TC organic wastes. First, 
EPA does not believe that methods of treatment intended to address 
organic constituents will always adequately address any underlying 
metal constituents present in these wastes. In addition, the Agency has 
not yet been able to completely evaluate the appropriateness of 
requiring specified treatment technologies for TC wastes and other 
wastes.
1. Waste Management Systems Affected by Today's Rule
    In terms of waste management systems, today's rule applies to those 
TC wastes which are managed in systems other than: (1) wastewater 
treatment systems which include surface impoundments whose ultimate 
discharge is subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA); (2) zero dischargers 
who, before permanent land disposal of the wastewater, treat the 
wastewaters in a CWA-equivalent wastewater treatment system; or, (3) 
Class I underground injection wells subject to the Safe Drinking Water 
Act (SDWA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. CWA-equivalent 
treatment means biological treatment for organics, reduction of 
hexavalent chromium, precipitation/sedimentation for metals, alkaline 
chlorination or ferrous sulfate precipitation of cyanide (to the extent 
these constituents are present in the untreated influent to wastewater 
treatment systems), or treatment that the facility can show performs as 
well or better than these enumerated technologies. See Sec. 268.37(a), 
58 FR at 29885 (May 24, 1993). Organic TC wastes managed in these types 
of systems will be regulated in the next LDR rule.
    Additionally, ``decharacterizing'' the TC wastes regulated under 
this rule by rendering them noncharacteristic does not remove them from 
the scope of these regulations. Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 
F. 2d at 14-15. Consequently today's final rule will apply to some 
injection practices, in particular, those involving Class V injection 
wells. These typically are wells injecting nonhazardous wastes above or 
into underground sources of drinking water. (If, however, the TC wastes 
injected into non-Class I wells were to be treated by CWA-equivalent 
means before injection, today's treatment standards would not apply. 
This is an example of the type of zero discharger referred to above.)
2. Categories of TC Wastes Affected by Today's Rule
    The following TC wastes are subject to UTS: (1) all wastes 
identified as D018 through D043 (described in the proposed rule as 
``new organic constituents); (2) D012 through D017 organic pesticide 
wastes whose TCLP extract composition meets the concentration criteria 
of 40 CFR 261.24, Table A but whose EP extract composition does not; 
(3) D012 through D017 pesticide wastes whose TCLP extract composition 
meets the concentration criteria of 40 CFR 261.24 Table A, as does the 
EP extract composition, and (4) soil and debris contaminated with the 
preceeding three sets of wastes. The first two categories are newly 
identified wastes, i.e. wastes not yet identified as hazardous at the 
time of the 1984 amendments and therefore not covered by the original 
statutory schedule. (The March 29, 1990 rule extended the list of 
chemicals defined as TC and changed the extraction step to a more 
sensitive procedure which may potentially identify more pesticide 
wastes than did the EP.) For soil contaminated with the TC wastes, the 
variance process is available (see discussion in the Background section 
of this rule under the heading ``E. Treatment Standards for Hazardous 
Soil'').
    As noted in the proposed rule, regulating land disposal of newly 
identified TC wastes by addressing underlying hazardous constituents is 
the same approach as EPA adopted in the recent interim final rule for 
ignitable (D001) and corrosive (D002) characteristic wastes, 
promulgated on May 10, 1993 (published on May 24, 1993, 58 FR 29860) in 
response to the court's decision in Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 
976 F. 2d 2. That case vacated and remanded certain Agency regulations 
(commonly referred to as the Third Third rule) establishing 
prohibitions and treatment standards for characteristic wastes, and 
also established rules as to when the prohibitions and standards would 
not apply. A summary of the court's decision, an overview of the 
interim final rule published on May 24, 1993, and a discussion of how 
the Agency proposed to apply this approach to the TC wastes can be 
found in the text of the proposed rule at 58 FR 48092.
    Today's rule regulates underlying hazardous constituents in the 
D018-D043 as well as in newly identified D012-D017 and in the rest of 
the universe of D012-D017 wastes. (The definition of ``underlying 
hazardous constituents'' is contained at 268.2(i) in this rule.) For 
those D012-D017 nonwastewaters originally regulated in the Third Third 
rule, today's rule changes the numerical value of the previously 
applicable treatment standards to the UTS.
3. Soil Contaminated by Underground Storage Tanks
    Soil which is contaminated with petroleum and is managed during 
corrective action of releases from a RCRA Subtitle I underground 
storage tank (UST) is not subject to the treatment standards 
promulgated today for the TC organic wastes (D018-D043). Such soil that 
fails the TC for one or more of the newly identified organic wastes 
(D018-D043) has been temporarily deferred from regulation as a 
hazardous waste (55 FR 26986). In addition, the Agency has proposed to 
permanently exempt UST petroleum-contaminated soils from the TC rule 
(58 FR 8504). However, any Subtitle I petroleum-contaminated soil 
identified as D001 through D017 would not be subject to the deferral 
and would be subject to all applicable RCRA land disposal restriction 
requirements.
    The Agency reminds the regulated community that any soil 
contaminated by a release from a hazardous substance UST (Subtitle I) 
as well as from all non-Subtitle I USTs (including petroleum tanks) 
will continue to be subject to applicable RCRA hazardous waste 
requirements, including the land disposal restrictions. Likewise, 
petroleum-contaminated soils from non- UST sources that exhibit a 
hazardous characteristic are also subject to applicable Subtitle C 
requirements.
4. Metal TC Wastes Are Not Affected by Today's Rule
    Today's rule does not affect TC metal wastes at all; this rule 
leaves the Third Third final treatment standards (which apply to EP 
metals) in place. Furthermore, today's rule does not affect the mineral 
processing wastes which were formerly exempt from Subtitle C regulation 
under the Bevill Amendment but which recently lost that exemption. 
Included in that set of wastes are wastes from the remediation of 
historic manufactured gas plant or coal gasification sites. EPA will 
address TC metal wastes and the former Bevill mineral processing wastes 
in a future rulemaking.

B. Background

1. Legal and Policy Basis for Today's TC Standards
    Today's rule applies the UTS to underlying hazardous constituents 
in D012-D043 wastewaters and nonwastewaters. Commenters' principal 
objection to the proposed standards for TC wastes was that the 
September 1992 Circuit Court decision did not authorize EPA to regulate 
underlying hazardous constituents in TC wastes.
    Most of these comments asserted that organic TC wastes were 
fundamentally different from ignitable or corrosive wastes and 
therefore EPA's decision to apply the standards promulgated in the May 
24, 1993 Interim Final Rule for ignitable and corrosive wastes was 
inappropriate. These commenters said that TC wastes were unlikely to 
pose a threat to human health and the environment once treatment 
removed the single constituent, partly because such treatment would 
remove other similar hazardous components of the waste. None of these 
commenters submitted process data demonstrating these claims. On the 
other hand, some commenters argued that merely deactivating 
characteristic wastes might well leave hazardous components intact.
    The Agency is regulating in this rule underlying hazardous 
constituents in TC wastes when they are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA 
equivalent/non-Class I injection well waste management systems. If, as 
commenters assert, treatment of the TC constituent effectively treats 
underlying hazardous constituents, then regulating the underlying 
hazardous constituent poses no further burden. Additionally, EPA 
believes that the compliance monitoring provisions requiring the 
generator to address only those underlying constituents ``reasonably 
expected to be present in the wastes'' relieves generators and treaters 
from an undue regulatory burden.
    Several commenters objected that extending the requirement to treat 
underlying hazardous constituents from ignitable and corrosive wastes, 
as promulgated in the May 24, 1993 Interim Final Rule, to TC wastes was 
unnecessary. The numerical treatment standard for the constituent 
present at the TC level, the commenters reasoned, meets RCRA's section 
3004(m) ``minimize threat'' requirement. EPA is not persuaded by such 
reasoning. 55 FR 22542, 22652 (June 1, 1990); Chemical Waste 
Management, 976 F.2d at 14; HWTC III, 886 F. 2d at 362. The TC level 
identifies wastes that are clearly hazardous, and does not evaluate 
presence of underlying hazardous constituents, non-groundwater exposure 
pathways, or adverse environmental effects.
2. Ongoing Management Practices for TC Wastes
    The proposed rule solicited comments and data on volumes of TC 
wastes managed in Class V injection wells, and on waste management 
practices employed prior to such injection. EPA received little 
substantive comment and consequently has no basis for changing the 
proposed approach.
    The proposed rule also solicited information about industrial 
generation patterns in order to allow the Agency to assess the 
potential for source reduction or recycling for these TC wastes in 
light of their wide diversity. However, EPA received no comments 
describing current industry practices upon which the Agency could act.
    The Agency is to consider opportunities for source reduction and 
recycling of these wastes, and ways treatment standards could reflect 
such types of waste minimization. The Agency notes that the subtitle C 
rules generally, and the LDR rules in particular, have already resulted 
in substantial volumes of hazardous waste no longer being generated, 
because these rules impose waste management costs on hazardous waste 
generators, and thus create a financial incentive to generate less 
waste.
    Finally, several commenters expressed concerns about achievability 
of UTS for underlying hazardous constituents in complex matrices and 
about the appropriateness of numerical standards based on incineration. 
See the discussion of UTS in section III.A of this preamble for more 
information on these comments.

C. Treatment Standards for New TC Organic Constituents (D018-D043)

1. Nonwastewaters
    The Agency is also promulgating concentration-based treatment 
standards for TC organic constituents in nonwastewaters, that are 
identical to the levels promulgated as UTS in a separate section of 
this preamble. These standards are based on treatment data that were 
used to establish UTS for these same constituents in listed wastes. 
These standards are primarily based on incineration data and are 
presented at the end of this section.
    EPA believes that a variety of treatment technologies, combustion 
and non-combustion, can achieve these treatment standards. EPA 
reiterates that any technology that does not constitute impermissible 
dilution can be used to meet these concentration levels.

                  BDAT Standards for TC Organic Wastes                  
                            [Nonwastewaters]                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Maximum for
                                                              any single
                                                                 grab   
   Code                  Regulated constituent                 sample.  
                                                                Total   
                                                             composition
                                                               (mg/kg)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D018        Benzene........................................       10    
D019        Carbon tetrachloride...........................        6.0  
D020        Chlordane......................................        0.26 
D021        Chlorobenzene..................................        6.0  
D022        Chloroform.....................................        6.0  
D023        o-Cresol.......................................        5.6  
D024        m-Cresol.......................................     \1\5.6  
D025        p-Cresol.......................................     \1\5.6  
D026        Cresol.........................................        5.6  
D027        1,4-Dichlorobenzene............................        6.0  
D028        1,2-Dichloroethane.............................        6.0  
D029        1,1-Dichloroethylene...........................        6.0  
D030        2,4-Dinitrotoluene.............................      140    
D031        Heptachlor.....................................        0.066
D031        Heptachlor epoxide.............................        0.066
D032        Hexachlorobenzene..............................       10    
D033        Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene.......................        5.6  
D034        Hexachloroethane...............................       30    
D035        Methyl ethyl ketone............................       36    
D036        Nitrobenzene...................................       14    
D037        Pentachlorophenol..............................        7.4  
D038        Pyridine.......................................       16    
D039        Tetrachloroethylene............................        6.0  
D040        Trichloroethylene..............................        6.0  
D041        2,4,5-Trichlorophenol..........................        7.4  
D042        2,4,6-Trichlorophenol..........................        7.4  
D043        Vinyl Chloride.................................        6.0  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\m- and p-cresol are regulated together as the sum of their           
  concentrations.                                                       

2. Wastewaters
    The Agency is today promulgating concentration-based treatment 
standards for the TC organic constituents in wastewaters, that are 
identical to the levels promulgated as UTS in a separate part of 
today's rule. These standards were based on existing treatment data 
that were used to establish UTS for these same constituents in the 
broad array of listed wastes. Today's standards are based on data 
representing a variety of wastewater treatment units and are presented 
at the end of this section.
    These wastewater treatment standards apply to newly identified TC 
wastewaters that are managed in systems other than those regulated 
under the CWA, those regulated under the SDWA that inject TC 
wastewaters into Class I injection wells, and those zero discharge 
facilities that engage in CWA-equivalent treatment prior to land 
disposal. The treatment standards promulgated today for newly 
identified TC organic (D018-D043) wastewaters require treatment to meet 
the UTS for the TC constituent and for the underlying hazardous 
constituents in the TC waste as generated.

                     BDAT Standards for TC Organics                     
                             [Wastewaters]                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Maximum for
                                                              any single
                                                                 grab   
                        Constituent                            sample.  
                                                                Total   
                                                             composition
                                                                (mg/l)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D018--Benzene..............................................       0.14  
D019--Carbon tetrachloride.................................       0.057 
D020--Chlordane............................................       0.0033
D021--Chlorobenzene........................................       0.057 
D022--Chloroform...........................................       0.046 
D023--o-Cresol.............................................       0.11  
D024--m-Cresol.............................................       0.77  
D025--p-Cresol.............................................       0.77  
D026--Cresol...............................................       0.88  
D027--1,4-Dichlorobenzene..................................       0.09  
D028--1,2-Dichloroethane...................................       0.21  
D029--1,1-Dichloroethylene.................................       0.025 
D030--2,4-Dinitrotoluene...................................       0.32  
D031--Heptachlor...........................................       0.0012
D031--Heptachlor epoxide...................................       0.016 
D032--Hexachlorobenzene....................................       0.055 
D033--Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene.............................       0.055 
D034--Hexachaloroethane....................................       0.055 
D035--Methyl ethyl ketone..................................       0.28  
D036--Nitrobenzene.........................................       0.068 
D037--Pentachlorophenol....................................       0.089 
D038--Pyridine.............................................       0.014 
D039--Tetrachloroethylene..................................       0.056 
D040--Trichloroethylene....................................       0.054 
D041--2,4,5-Trichlorophenol................................       0.18  
D042--2,4,6-Trichlorophenol................................       0.035 
D043--Vinyl Chloride.......................................       0.27  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Radioactive Mixed Waste
    Radioactive mixed wastes are those wastes that satisfy the 
definition of radioactive waste subject to the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) 
that also contain waste that is either listed as a hazardous waste in 
Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261, or that exhibit any of the hazardous 
waste characteristics identified in subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261. Since 
the hazardous portions of the mixed waste are subject to RCRA, the land 
disposal restrictions apply. This means that the RCRA hazardous portion 
of all mixed waste must meet the appropriate treatment standards for 
all applicable waste codes before land disposal. Therefore, any 
radioactive waste mixed with organic TC wastes that are managed in non-
CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non-Class I SDWA facilities must meet the 
treatment standards being promulgated today for the TC wastes.
    The standards that were proposed for the TC wastes were also 
proposed for TC radioactive mixed wastes. Prior to this proposal, 
however, the Department of Energy (DOE) had expressed some concerns 
about meeting certain treatment standards and stated that they were 
collecting data from their facilities on mixed TC wastes. EPA stated in 
the proposed rule that, for the most part, the low concentrations of 
radioactive compounds should not interfere with the treatability of the 
hazardous constituents in the waste, and requested data on instances 
when the radioactivity prevented the waste from meeting the LDR 
treatment standard.
    One commenter suggested that EPA postpone its decision on 
appropriate methods for treating mixed waste until information 
currently being collected profiling commercially generated low- level 
radioactive mixed waste has been submitted and reviewed by EPA. This 
commenter claimed that the results of this profile contradict EPA's 
statement that radioactive material concentrations in mixed waste are 
low and should not interfere with the treatment of the mixed waste. 
Another commenter expressed the belief that the presence of radioactive 
components within the limits of operator exposure and safety should not 
interfere with the treatment of hazardous constituents in waste.
    Neither commenter submitted any data or other supporting 
information to substantiate their assertions regarding the treatability 
of radioactive mixed waste; therefore, EPA has decided to promulgate 
the standards for newly identified TC radioactive mixed wastes as 
proposed. However, if data is submitted to EPA indicating that the 
presence of radioactive components prevents a waste from meeting the 
LDR treatment standards, the Agency will evaluate the data and amend 
the standards as appropriate. The Agency's variance provisions of 40 
CFR 268.44 can also be used to obtain alternate limits in the meantime.

D. Treatment Standards for Pesticide Wastes Exhibiting the Toxicity 
Characteristic

D012--Endrin
D013--Lindane
D014--Methoxychlor
D015--Toxaphene
D016--2,4-D
D017--2,4,5-TP (Silvex)

    The Agency is promulgating treatment standards for these wastes 
essentially as proposed with the additional requirement that underlying 
hazardous constituents be treated in nonwastewater forms of these 
wastes. Today's standards apply to all D012-D017 wastes managed in non-
CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non-Class I injection well waste management 
facilities. These are the toxic pesticide wastes which are identified 
as toxic following application of the TCLP. The TCLP is more sensitive 
than the EP analysis, possibly bringing more wastes into the toxicity 
characteristic category than did the EP.
1. Newly Identified Pesticide Nonwastewaters
    EPA is today regulating newly identified D012-D017 nonwastewaters 
plus D012-D017 nonwastewaters regulated earlier in the Third Third 
rule. Treatment standards for both sets of D012-D017 nonwastewaters 
include the UTS value for the TC constituents plus UTS values for 
underlying hazardous constituents. The changes between the Third Third 
standards and today's rule are that the numerical value of the 
toxaphene nonwastewater standard rises from 1.3 to 2.6 and the standard 
for D013, lindane, incorporates numbers for the four BHC isomers. (It 
should be noted that EPA determined that the amount of D012-D017 waste 
subject to the treatment standards is very small. 55 FR at 22634, 
22646. Based on this determination, it is very unlikely that newly 
identified D012-D017 are being generated.)
    Today's rule also prohibits dilution of D012-D017 nonwastewaters 
injected into Class I deep injection wells. Consequently, these 
pesticide wastes must be treated to meet the treatment standards before 
they can permissibly be injected into such units, unless that unit has 
been granted a no-migration determination. Section VIII of this 
preamble discusses this and other deepwell injection issues presented 
in today's rule in more detail. 

                      BDAT Standards for Pesticides                     
                            [Nonwastewaters]                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Maximum for
                                                              any single
                                                                 grab   
   Code                  Regulated constituent                 sample.  
                                                                Total   
                                                             composition
                                                               (mg/kg)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D012        Endrin.........................................        0.13 
D012        Endrin aldehyde................................        0.13 
D013        alpha-BHC......................................        0.066
D013        beta-BHC.......................................        0.066
D013        gamma-BHC......................................        0.066
D013        delta-BHC......................................        0.066
D014        Methoxychlor...................................        0.18 
D015        Toxaphene......................................        2.6  
D016        2,4-D..........................................       10    
D017        2,4,5-TP (Silvex)..............................        7.9  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Pesticide Wastewaters
    EPA set treatment standards expressed as required methods of 
treatment for the EP toxic pesticide wastewaters in the Third Third 
final rule (55 FR 22554). Today's rule extends these treatment 
standards to those pesticide wastewaters covered in today's rule. (See 
268.40)

E. Exemptions for De Minimis Losses of Commercial Chemical Product or 
Chemical Intermediates That Exhibit the Toxicity Characteristic (TC), 
and for TC Laboratory Wastes Discharged to CWA Wastewater Treatment 
Systems

    In the Interim Final Rule published May 24, 1993, EPA established 
de minimis exemptions for commercial chemical product or chemical 
intermediates that are ignitable or corrosive hazardous wastes and that 
contained underlying hazardous constituents (58 FR 29875). The Agency 
proposed in Phase II to extend the exemptions in 40 CFR 268.1 to 
commercial chemical products or chemical intermediates that are TC 
organic wastes when disposed (58 FR 48118). Commenters expressed 
support for this approach.
    This action is necessary to avoid situations where minor leaks of 
organic TC commercial chemical products or chemical intermediates to a 
wastewater treatment system would potentially trigger all of the 
potential consequences of treating all underlying hazardous 
constituents that might be in the waste. As EPA noted in originally 
determining that the mixture rule should not apply in such situations, 
such small losses are as a practical matter unavoidable; responsible 
management involves channeling these minor losses to a centralized 
wastewater treatment system. In addition, there is a natural incentive 
to minimize the losses because the materials would otherwise be 
commercial chemical products or intermediates (46 FR 56583, Nov. 17, 
1981). Moreover, allowing de minimis losses of TC materials to trigger 
all of the LDR treatment consequences would be anomalously stringent 
because de minimis losses of listed wastes (i.e., the commercial 
chemical products listed in Sec. 261.33), which tend to be more 
concentrated (see generally 58 FR at 29875), would not be regulated 
because of the exception to the mixture rule found at 
Sec. 261.3(a)(iv)(D).
    This same type of exception is needed for TC laboratory wastes that 
are commingled with other plant wastewaters under designated 
circumstances: TC laboratory wastes containing underlying hazardous 
constituents from laboratory operations, that are mixed with other 
plant wastewaters at facilities whose ultimate discharge is subject to 
regulation under the CWA (including wastewaters at facilities which 
have eliminated the discharge of wastewater), provided that the 
annualized flow of laboratory wastewater into the facility's headwork 
does not exceed one part per million (the same condition that applies 
to the existing exemption in Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(E)).
    Thus de minimis losses of commercial chemical product or chemical 
intermediates that are TC organic wastes, and TC organic laboratory 
wastes discharged to CWA wastewater treatment systems, are not subject 
to the requirements of 40 CFR 268. De minimis losses are those 
occurring from normal material handling, minor leaks of equipment tanks 
or containers, and similar small but, for practical purposes, 
unavoidable losses. See Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(D) and 268.1(e)(4) as 
promulgated at 58 FR 29884 (May 24, 1993). The definition of de minimis 
loss is the same as EPA used in the May 24, 1993 rule. This definition 
mirrors the parallel language in Sec. 261.3(a)(iv)(D) except that it 
also includes discharges from safety showers and rinsing and cleaning 
of personal safety equipment and rinsate from empty containers or from 
containers that are rendered empty by that rinsing. When the 
Sec. 268.1(e)(4) definition was originally promulgated in the May 24, 
1993 rule, it seemed unlikely that ignitable or corrosive wastes would 
be generated from safety showers or rinsate. The Agency believes it is 
more likely that TC wastes could be generated in such a manner, 
therefore, the definition is being expanded to include this language in 
this rule.
    EPA also notes that the characteristic commercial chemical products 
exempted under this rule and the May, 1993 rule are not limited to 
products in which a particular chemical is ``the commercially pure 
grade of the chemical, any technical grades of the chemical, and all 
formulations in which the chemical is the sole active ingredient.'' 
(See Sec. 261.33(d) comment). Rather, the exemption extends to de 
minimis losses (as defined) of in-process materials such as 
intermediates and materials that would be products if they were not 
inadvertently discarded. 55 FR at 2869 (Jan. 31, 1991). The citation in 
the comment to Sec. 261.33(d), quoted above, is necessary to define the 
scope of the listing, but as just explained, does not apply to losses 
of characteristic materials.

V. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed Wastes

A. Treatment Standards for Coke By-product Production Wastes

K141--Process residues from the recovery of coal tar, including but 
not limited to tar collecting sump residues from the production of 
coke from coal or the recovery of coke by-products produced from 
coal. This listing does not include K087, decanter tank tar sludge 
from coking operations.
K142--Tar storage tank residues from the production of coke from 
coal or the recovery of coke by-products produced from coal.
K143--Process residues from the recovery of light oil, including but 
not limited to those generated in stills, decanters, and wash oil 
recovery units from the recovery of coke by-products produced from 
coal.
K144--Wastewater treatment sludges from light oil refining, 
including but not limited to intercepting or contamination sump 
sludges from the recovery of coke by-products produced from coal.
K145--Residues from naphthalene collection and recovery operations 
from the recovery of coke by-products produced from coal.
K147--Tar storage tank residues from coal tar refining.
K148--Residues from coal tar distillation, including but not limited 
to still bottoms.

    EPA is promulgating the treatment standards that were proposed for 
coke by-product production wastes. These treatment standards also apply 
to soil and debris contaminated with these wastes, although a variance 
process is available for such soils (see discussion on variances in the 
Background section of this rule under the heading ``E. Treatment 
Standards for Hazardous Soil''). The preamble of the proposed rule 
describes the generation and characteristics of the newly listed wastes 
in greater detail (58 FR 48119). Today's standards are concentration-
based limits for wastewaters and nonwastewaters, numerically identical 
to the UTS promulgated elsewhere in this rule for the nine constituents 
regulated in these wastes.
    The American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute requested that EPA 
allow the use of these wastes as fuels in blast furnaces and other 
applications where coke, coal and coal tar are used as fuels. The 
commenters were requesting EPA to extend the existing recycling 
exclusion--which allows these wastes to be combined with coal feedstock 
residue as it is charged to the coke oven, added to the coal recovery 
process or mixed with coal tar before this coal tar is sold as a 
product or further refined. Extending this exclusion is beyond the 
scope of this regulation; it was not included in the September proposal 
as an option for managing these wastes. The Definition of Solid Waste 
Task Force is examining the broad range of these types of issues.
    The other comments received concerning the proposed treatment 
standards for coke products' wastes came from the waste treatment 
industry. Several waste treatment companies supported applying 
universal standards to these waste streams and the UTS concept in 
general. However, one commenter provided data in support of extending 
the standards originally applied to K087 to these wastes. EPA evaluated 
these data but found no reason not to apply UTS to these wastes. EPA's 
evaluation of these data is presented in the Background Document for 
these wastes. In separate comments, two waste treatment companies 
objected to the benzene nonwastewater standards as unnecessarily high 
and pointed out that their facilities could achieve benzene limits 
below that proposed in the UTS. EPA does not believe these data really 
reflect better treatment. Rather, the commenters appear to have 
generated a waste matrix in which benzene is detectable at lower 
levels. EPA is promulgating the benzene nonwastewater standard as 
proposed, believing that it reflects an appropriate and broader 
assessment of benzene detection limits in combustion residues.

                                             BDAT Standards for K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, and K148                                            
                                                                    [Nonwastewaters]                                                                    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Maximum                         Constituents regulated for waste codes                      
                                                           for any   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         single grab                                                                                    
                      Constituent                          sample.                                                                                      
                                                            Total        K141        K142        K143        K144        K145        K147        K148   
                                                         composition                                                                                    
                                                           (mg/kg)                                                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene................................................         10    X           X           X           X           X           X           ..........
Benz(a)anthracene......................................          3.4  X           X           X           X           X           X           X         
Benzo(a)pyrene.........................................          3.4  X           X           X           X           X           X           X         
Benzo(b)fluoranthene...................................       \1\6.8  X           X           X           X           ..........  X           X         
Benzo(k)fluoranthene...................................       \1\6.8  X           X           X           X           ..........  X           X         
Chrysene...............................................          3.4  X           X           X           X           X           X           X         
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene..................................          8.2  X           X           ..........  X           X           X           X         
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.................................          3.4  X           X           ..........  ..........  ..........  X           X         
Naphthalene............................................          5.6  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  X           ..........  ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This standard represents the sum of the concentrations for each of this pair of constituents.                                                        


                                             BDAT Standards for K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, and K148                                            
                                                                      [Wastewaters]                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Maximum                         Constituents regulated for waste codes                      
                                                           for any   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         single grab                                                                                    
                      Constituent                          sample.                                                                                      
                                                            Total        K141        K142        K143        K144        K145        K147        K148   
                                                         composition                                                                                    
                                                            (mg/l)                                                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene................................................       0.14    X           X           X           X           X           X           ..........
Benz(a)anthracene......................................       0.059   X           X           X           X           X           X           ..........
Benzo(a)pyrene.........................................       0.061   X           X           X           X           X           X           X         
Benzo(b)fluoranthene...................................    \1\0.11    X           X           X           X           ..........  X           X         
Benzo(k)fluoranthene...................................    \1\0.11    X           X           X           X           ..........  X           X         
Chrysene...............................................       0.059   X           X           X           X           X           X           X         
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene..................................       0.055   X           X           ..........  X           X           X           X         
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene.................................       0.0055  X           X           ..........  ..........  ..........  X           X         
Naphthalene............................................       0.059   ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  X           ..........  ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This standard represents the sum of the concentrations for each of this pair of constituents.                                                        

B. Treatment Standards for Chlorotoluenes

K149--Distillation bottoms from the production of alpha (methyl) 
chlorinated toluenes, ring-chlorinated toluenes, benzoyl chlorides, 
and compounds with mixtures of these functional groups. (This waste 
does not include still bottoms from the distillation of benzyl 
chloride.)
K150--Organic residuals, excluding spent carbon adsorbent, from the 
spent chlorine gas and hydrochloric acid recovery processes 
associated with the production of alpha (methyl) chlorinated 
toluenes, ring-chlorinated toluenes, benzoyl chlorides, and 
compounds with mixtures of these functional groups.
K151--Wastewater treatment sludges, excluding neutralization and 
biological sludges, generated during the treatment of wastewaters 
from the production of alpha (methyl) chlorinated toluenes, ring-
chlorinated toluenes, benzoyl chlorides and compounds with mixtures 
of these functional groups.

    EPA is promulgating the treatment standards that were proposed for 
chlorotoluene wastes. The preamble of the proposed rule describes the 
generation and characteristics in greater detail (58 FR 48121). Today's 
standards are concentration-based limits for wastewaters and 
nonwastewaters, numerically identical to the UTS promulgated elsewhere 
in this rule for the thirteen constituents regulated in these wastes.
    Comments received concerning the proposed treatment standards for 
chlorotoluene wastes came from the waste treatment industry; they were 
similar to those received concerning the treatment standards for coking 
wastes. Several waste treatment companies supported applying universal 
standards to these waste streams and the UTS concept in general. Two 
waste treatment companies objected to the benzene nonwastewater 
standards as unnecessarily high and pointed out that their facilities 
could achieve benzene limits below that proposed in the UTS. EPA, 
however, believes that the UTS for benzene nonwastewaters reflects an 
appropriate and broad assessment of benzene detection levels in 
combustion residues.

                 BDAT Standards for K149, K150, and K151                
                            [Nonwastewaters]                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Maximum for   Constituents regulated for waste 
                          any single                 codes              
                             grab    -----------------------------------
      Constituent          sample.                                      
                            Total                                       
                         composition     K149        K150        K151   
                           (mg/kg)                                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene................         10    ..........  ..........  X         
Carbon tetrachloride...          6.0  ..........  X           X         
Chloroform.............          6.0  X           X           X         
Chloromethane..........         30    X           X           ..........
Chlorobenzene..........          6.0  X           ..........  ..........
1,4-Dichlorobenzene....          6.0  X           X           ..........
Hexachlorobenzene......         10    X           X           X         
Pentachlorobenzene.....         10    X           X           X         
1,2,4,5-                        14    X           X           X         
 Tetrachlorobenzene.                                                    
1,1,2,2-                         6.0  ..........  X           ..........
 Tetrachloroethane.                                                     
Tetrachloroethylene....          6.0  ..........  X           X         
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.         19    ..........  X           ..........
Toluene................         10    X           ..........  X         
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 BDAT Standards for K149, K150, and K151                
                              [Wastewaters]                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Maximum for   Constituents regulated for waste 
                          any single                 codes              
                             grab    -----------------------------------
      Constituent          sample.                                      
                            Total                                       
                         composition     K149        K150        K151   
                            (mg/l)                                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene................        0.14   ..........  ..........  X         
Carbon tetrachloride...        0.057  ..........  X           X         
Chloroform.............        0.046  X           X           X         
Chloromethane..........        0.19   X           X           ..........
Chlorobenzene..........        0.057  X           ..........  ..........
1,4-Dichlorobenzene....        0.090  X           X           ..........
Hexachlorobenzene......        0.055  X           X           X         
Pentachlorobenzene.....        0.055  X           X           X         
1,2,4,5-                       0.055  X           X           X         
 Tetrachlorobenzene.                                                    
1,1,2,2-                       0.057  ..........  X           ..........
 Tetrachloroethane.                                                     
Tetrachloroethylene....        0.056  ..........  X           X         
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.        0.055  ..........  X           ..........
Toluene................        0.080  X           ..........  X         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Debris Contaminated With Newly Listed or Identified Wastes

    Debris contaminated with the hazardous wastes included in today's 
rule must be treated prior to land disposal. The hazardous debris may 
be treated to meet the treatment standards promulgated today for the 
constituents which are contaminating the debris, or it may be treated 
to meet the alternative debris standards promulgated in the LDR for 
Newly Listed Wastes and Hazardous Debris (57 FR 37194, August 18, 
1992).

A. Debris Treated To Meet the Phase II Treatment Standards

    Debris that is treated to meet the treatment standards promulgated 
in today's rule for newly listed wastes would remain subject to the 
hazardous waste management regulations (subtitle C) for as long as the 
debris ``contains'' the hazardous waste (see 57 FR 37625-26, August 18, 
1992). On the other hand, debris that is treated to meet the treatment 
standards promulgated in today's rule for newly identified TC organic 
wastes, including any underlying hazardous constituents the generator 
reasonably expects to be present in the waste, could be disposed in a 
nonhazardous waste (subtitle D) landfill because the characteristic 
identifying the waste as hazardous is removed through meeting the LDR 
treatment standards.

B. Debris Treated To Meet the Alternative Debris Treatment Standards

    The alternative treatment standards require the use of specific 
technologies from one or more of the following categories: extraction 
technologies, destruction technologies, or immobilization. Treatment 
must be performed in accordance with specified performance standards 
found in the regulations at 40 CFR 268.45. If one of the extraction or 
destruction technologies is used, and the debris does not display any 
characteristic of hazardous waste, then EPA would consider the treated 
debris to no longer contain hazardous waste. Such treated debris could, 
therefore, be reused, returned to the natural environment, or disposed 
in a nonhazardous waste (subtitle D) facility. Nondebris residuals 
generated from the treatment of debris contaminated with listed wastes 
would still be hazardous wastes by virtue of the derived-from rule and 
would be subject to the hazardous waste management system, including 
the treatment standards for newly listed wastes in today's rule.

VII. Response to Comments Regarding Exclusion of Hazardous Debris That 
Has Been Treated by Immobilization Technologies

A. Background

    The final Phase I Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) rule promulgated 
on June 30, 1992 (57 FR 37194, August 18, 1992), excludes from Subtitle 
C control hazardous debris that is treated using an extraction or 
destruction technology provided the treated debris meets the 
performance standards specified in Sec. 268.45 Table 1. Our basis for 
doing this is that the debris no longer contains the hazardous waste. 
On the other hand, hazardous debris treated by an immobilization 
technology is still subject to the hazardous waste regulations because 
the Agency has insufficient data or information to support that such 
treated debris would not leach Appendix VIII constituents over time in 
a manner that would be protective to human health and the environment. 
In our proposal to the Phase I LDR rule, the Agency solicited comment 
on whether immobilized hazardous debris should be excluded from 
Subtitle C control. While the Agency received favorable comments on 
excluding such treated debris from the hazardous waste regulations, no 
information or data was provided to support such a position. Therefore, 
the final rule requires that immobilized hazardous debris continue to 
be managed as a hazardous waste.
    The Agency decided to revisit the issue of whether immobilized 
hazardous debris, if treated in certain ways or is treated to meet 
certain limits, should be excluded from Subtitle C control. As a 
result, since the promulgation of the Phase I LDR rule, the Agency has 
undertaken a number of activities.

B. Roundtable Discussion

    In an attempt to gather information on the issue, the Agency 
sponsored a roundtable discussion on August 3, 1992. Participants at 
the meeting included persons who commented on the Phase I LDR rule, 
debris treatment vendors, hazardous waste treaters and disposers, state 
officials, and officials from the Department of Energy (see Docket for 
specific list of attendees). Representatives from the environmental 
interest groups were also invited but were unable to attend. The 
purpose of the meeting was to gather information and discuss various 
regulatory approaches that would allow the Agency to exclude 
immobilized hazardous debris from Subtitle C control. While no specific 
data was gathered, there was a general discussion on the types of 
standards that could be applied such as design and operating standards, 
leach test, structural integrity test, permeability test for 
encapsulating material, so as to exclude immobilized hazardous debris 
from hazardous waste control. Additionally, the following points were 
also made by one or more participants at the roundtable.
     A number of the attendees indicated that even if 
immobilized hazardous debris were excluded from hazardous waste 
control, it would continue to be managed as a hazardous waste due to 
CERCLA liability concerns.
     There was some question whether a specific exclusion for 
immobilized hazardous debris was necessary or whether the Hazardous 
Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) may be a more appropriate mechanism 
for addressing this issue.
     A representative from the glass industry suggested that 
glass cullet and vitreous materials should have a separate treatment 
standard. He indicated that the glass matrix would not leach lead at a 
higher rate than would an immobilized product--that is, it made little 
sense to grind up the glass material and then to stabilize it when the 
original matrix is just as sound.
    While no consensus was reached, the following principles were 
generally arrived at by most of the participants at the meeting.
    Microencapsulation: Participants at the meeting seem to believe 
that using a leach test may be more appropriate to demonstrate 
effective microencapsulation immobilization over an approach of 
developing design and operating standards. It was noted that treatment 
of hazardous debris is very waste and debris specific; if one could 
define design and operating standards that were generally applicable, 
they would likely be too burdensome in many cases.
    Macroencapsulation/Sealing: The participants seem to indicate that 
the grinding requirement in the TCLP leach test made it inappropriate 
for predicting performance of macroencapsulation/sealing immobilization 
technologies. These technologies rely on an impermeable coating applied 
to the outside of the debris. Rather, the participants suggested a 
structural test to determine whether the given debris/technology 
combination was sufficient to maintain the coating or a permeability 
test for the coating media. While the participants conceptually 
believed that such an approach was workable, no one was able to suggest 
a specific test or standard. In addition, it was felt by some of the 
participants that the development of such a test could be difficult to 
develop.
    While no data or information was provided at the meeting, it was 
indicated that if such information was submitted to the Agency, the 
Agency would consider such information in making its decision.

C. EPA Investigations

    In addition to the above roundtable discussions, EPA has also been 
reviewing the literature and talking to vendors in an effort to obtain 
sufficient information on how to propose standards that could allow the 
exclusion of immobilized hazardous debris. At the time the Phase II LDR 
rule was proposed, no useful insights had been gained on how to specify 
design and operating standards that would ensure that immobilized 
hazardous debris was nonhazardous; the reason for this was the paucity 
of experience in immobilizing hazardous debris. Nevertheless, the 
Agency expressed interest in pursuing this area and specifically sought 
assistance from the regulated community on this issue.

D. Specific Questions for Which Comments Were Solicited

    While the Agency had a better sense of the types of standards that 
may be appropriate for excluding immobilized hazardous debris from 
Subtitle C control at the time of the Phase II proposal, the Agency 
still did not have the data to propose specific exclusions. For 
microencapsulation in particular, if a leach test were the most 
appropriate mechanism for determining whether such treated debris is 
nonhazardous, the Agency expressed the belief that HWIR may be the most 
appropriate rulemaking to address this issue. The Agency had a series 
of studies underway, was evaluating comments, but was not in a position 
to determine what such levels were at that time. With respect to 
macroencapsulation/sealing, additional data or information needed to be 
gathered before the Agency would be in a position to exclude this type 
of immobilized hazardous debris. To assist the Agency in this effort, 
we specifically solicited comment on the following questions:
    Microencapsulation:
     Is the use of a leach test for excluding immobilized 
hazardous debris more appropriate than specification of design and 
operating standards?
     Is exclusion of immobilized hazardous debris using design 
and operating standards workable?
    Macroencapsulation/Sealing:
     What type of structural or other test could be used?
     What type of criteria should be applied in determining 
whether such debris is nonhazardous?
    The Agency is also considering allowing stabilization for soils 
containing low levels of organic constituents, and solicited comment on 
whether similar stabilization techniques or tests to ensure the 
effectiveness of such stabilization would be appropriate for excluding 
debris from Subtitle C control.
    In addition, the Agency specifically solicited comment on any 
available data or information to demonstrate that immobilized hazardous 
debris (if treated properly) would not pose a substantial hazard to 
human health and the environment, stating that if such information were 
submitted to the Agency, the Agency would exclude such debris from 
Subtitle C control.

E. Comments Received and Conclusions

    Microencapsulation: One commenter stated that specifying design and 
operating standards is appropriate for excluding immobilized hazardous 
debris from subtitle C, asserting that nothing is gained in performing 
a leach test on hazardous debris. Other commenters suggested that EPA 
consider a combination of a structural test combined with a leaching 
test conducted on a representative intact sample of the encapsulated 
waste. None of these commenters submitted any supporting information to 
substantiate these conflicting claims. However, the commenters did 
agree that if a leach test is used, the TCLP as it is now defined is 
inappropriate for immobilized debris.
    Macroencapsulation/Sealing: Several commenters claimed that the 
TCLP test is inappropriate for immobilized material because the size 
reduction required by the test protocol destroys the encapsulant, 
thereby defeating the purpose of the technology. These commenters 
suggested that EPA instead consider a combination of a structural test 
(a 50 psi standard was suggested) combined with a leaching test 
conducted on a representative intact sample of the encapsulated waste. 
These commenters did not submit any data to verify that a 50 psi 
standard would insure the integrity of the immobilized waste, and 
although some commenters recommended that a new leach test protocol be 
developed, they did not suggest any specific protocols for a leach test 
on the intact debris waste.
    Exclusion of Immobilized Debris from Subtitle C Regulation: Several 
commenters maintained that debris treated with an immobilization 
technology should be excluded from Subtitle C regulation. However, 
these commenters did not submit any supporting data to verify this 
claim.
    Two commenters claimed that a careful reading of 40 CFR 268.7(b) 
indicates that waste which is treated using a specified treatment 
technology is not subject to further testing to exit Subtitle C and 
claimed that the rules for debris treated in accordance with the 
alternative treatment standards specified in 40 CFR 268.45 should be 
the same. Their interpretation of this section of the CFR is incorrect. 
With regard to wastes for which technologies have been specified as the 
treatment standard, 40 CFR 268.7(b) contains the wording of the 
certification stating that the waste has been treated in accordance 
with Sec. 268.42; this certification must be signed before the waste 
may be land disposed. 40 CFR 268.7(b) does not say that this waste is 
no longer subject to subtitle C regulation.
    One commenter suggested that, at a minimum, EPA should establish 
health based numerical standards for exclusion of hazardous debris from 
subtitle C. This commenter made no suggestion as to what test method 
should be used. The issue of basing LDR standards on the basis of risk 
rather than technology performance is addressed in Section III A 2 a of 
this rule, ``Risk-based Universal Treatment Standards.''
    Finally, one commenter suggested that EPA allow the use of 
stainless steel as an encapsulant, claiming that its performance would 
be superior to that of other encapsulants, such as polymeric organics, 
which allegedly fail due to the radiation effects to their chemical 
bonds.
    Conclusions: Although commenters were in general agreement on a 
number of issues (e.g. inappropriateness of the TCLP for debris, use of 
a 50 psi structural test as a performance standard, use of a leach test 
performed on intact debris), no supporting data or other information 
was submitted to support their claims and requests. Therefore, the 
Agency is not promulgating any modifications to the debris rule at this 
time. The Agency is evaluating exclusions as part of the HWIR process 
and will reassess appropriate action on debris if HWIR does not 
adequately address debris.

VIII. Deep Well Injection Issues

A. Prohibition of Dilution of High TOC Ignitable and of TC Pesticide 
Wastes Injected Into Class I Deep Wells

    Today's rule prohibits the disposal of two types of waste into 
deep-well injection via Class I Underground Injection Control (UIC) 
wells unless the wastes first meet the land disposal restrictions 
promulgated in today's rule for these wastes, or the wastes are 
injected into a well that is subject to a no-migration determination. 
These wastes are nonwastewaters exhibiting the characteristic of 
ignitability at the point of generation and containing greater than 10 
percent Total Organic Carbon (``high TOC ignitable liquids 
subcategory'') and also TC toxic halogenated pesticide wastes (DO12-
D017). Thus, EPA is promulgating, as proposed, regulations excluding 
these two wastes from the portion of the rule at 40 CFR 268.1(c)(3) 
that allows a waste to be injected into a Class I deep injection well 
if the waste no longer exhibits a characteristic at the point of 
injection. Today's rule also includes a one-year capacity variance for 
these injected waste streams.
    For D001 High TOC ignitables, the treatment standard is expressed 
as methods of treatment that must be used prior to land disposal: 
combustion (i.e. incineration or fuel substitution) or recovery of 
organics. The preamble to the proposed rule stated that high TOC 
ignitable nonwastewaters contain high concentrations of organics that 
can either be recovered directly for reuse, or can be burned in 
combustion devices. These wastes are not injected in significant 
volumes, so that redirection of the wastes to treatment technologies 
will not have significant impact on well operators. 58 FR 48118-48119. 
EPA received no information to the contrary from commenters.
    The treatment standards for TC pesticide wastewaters are also 
expressed as methods of treatment: biodegradation or incineration. On 
the other hand, the treatment standards for EP pesticide nonwastewaters 
are expressed as levels that may be achieved by using any treatment 
technology, other than impermissible dilution. (The Third Third rule 
had already disqualified these wastes from the exception that allowed 
dilution of characteristic wastes that were to be managed in Clean 
Water Act treatment systems including surface land disposal units, 
Sec. 268.3(b) and 55 FR 22657.)
    As discussed at length in the preamble to the proposed rule, the 
Agency's initial reading of the D.C. Circuit Court's decision is that 
wastes that are characteristically hazardous at the point of generation 
must typically be treated to destroy or remove hazardous constituents 
before land disposal, or be disposed of in a no-migration unit. 976 
F.2d at 24. This is certainly a permissible interpretation of the 
opinion. Furthermore, the decision encompasses underground injection 
wells, specifically Class I deep wells, since they are permanent land 
disposal units. 976 F.2d at 25. Thus, under this reading of the court's 
opinion, these ignitable and pesticide wastes would have to be treated 
to remove hazardous constituents before injection.
    EPA's decision to prohibit injection of these untreated wastes, 
however, is based not only on its initial interpretation of the 
Chemical Waste Management opinion (which, as noted below, may still 
evolve), but also on the particular wastes involved here. The wastes at 
issue are ignitable wastes with potentially very high concentrations of 
hazardous constituents, and pesticide wastes containing very toxic 
constituents.
    Treatment is also warranted to reduce the amounts of these toxic 
wastes being land disposed. RCRA section 1003(a)(6) (``statutory goal 
of minimizing the . . . land disposal of hazardous waste by encouraging 
. . . properly conducted recycling and reuse, and treatment''); Steel 
Manufacturers' Association v. EPA, ______ F.3d ______, (D.C. Cir. July 
9, 1994) (``We conclude that minimizing the overall volume of slag that 
is to be disposed is by itself, a sufficient justification for the zinc 
treatment standard . . .'') (slip op. at 13). Finally, only small 
volumes of these wastes are injected, and segregation of the wastes 
should not prove to be unduly difficult. For all of these reasons, the 
Agency believes it appropriate to prohibit injection of these wastes at 
this time, unless the wastes are treated to satisfy section 3004(m) or 
are disposed in a no-migration unit. In this regard, the Agency 
emphasizes that no-migration petitions for Class I nonhazardous wells 
receiving decharacterized wastes may be submitted to EPA or the 
Authorized States for evaluation at this time. The petitions may 
encompass not only the pesticide and high-TOC ignitable wastes 
prohibited in this rule, but other types of decharacterized wastes 
(which are not yet prohibited but are scheduled to be addressed in 
Phase III) as well.
    Most comments to the proposed rule requested independent 
consideration of Class I injection wells, because they believed that 
underground injection differs from other forms of land disposal, such 
as landfills and impoundments. Other comments questioned EPA's 
interpretation of the Third Third court decision and the Agency's 
belief that treatment of these waste streams should be the preferred 
management approach for them. These commenters indicated that 
aggregation of waste streams meets the minimize threat standard and 
expressed their opinion that segregation of these wastes for treatment 
poses substantial risks to the environment and that underground 
injection is an inherently safer waste management practice. The Agency 
intends to consider all the above arguments (e.g., risks posed by 
wastes going to deep well injection) in the identification of 
alternatives for land disposal standards. The Agency will continue to 
investigate any and all information received concerning these comments, 
and intends to address land disposal standards for underground 
injection of characteristic wastes in a comprehensive manner in the 
Phase III rulemaking. Until these treatment standards become effective 
one year from the date of publication of this rule, they may continue 
to be injected into Class I injection wells without prior treatment.

B. Request for Comment on Petition From Chemical Manufacturer's 
Association Regarding Deep Well Injection of Ignitable and Corrosive 
Characteristic Wastes

    The proposed rule solicited comments on a request from the Chemical 
Manufacturer's Association (CMA) that EPA develop separate treatment 
standards intended for those wastes disposed in Class I deep injection 
wells. CMA requested a separate set of treatment standards for 
ignitable and corrosive wastes managed by deep well injection that, in 
view of the unique circumstances of deep well injection, meet the 
statutory ``minimize threats'' standard. Many comments received by EPA 
urged the Agency to develop so-called UIC-specific treatment standards 
in light of this petition. However, EPA received virtually no technical 
information to support these comments.
    Therefore, the Agency is not issuing a final response to CMA's 
request in today's rule. EPA continues to solicit information necessary 
to enable EPA to act on this petition in the future. These requests are 
documented in the rulemaking docket for today's rule. In particular, 
the Agency particularly requests data concerning waste volumes, waste 
transport, injection system integrity or the fate of disposed 
pollutants throughout the course of the injection procedure.

IX. Modifications to Hazardous Waste Recycling Regulations

A. Introduction

    Today's rulemaking finalizes the proposed changes to the hazardous 
waste recycling regulations, thus slightly broadening the scope of an 
existing exclusion (and related variance). This modification of the 
regulatory framework will allow for environmentally beneficial 
recycling to occur without unnecessary regulatory consequences.
    EPA wishes to note that the changes to the definition of solid 
waste being promulgated today are narrow in scope and will have minor 
impact. A more broad-ranged evaluation of the regulations applicable to 
the recycling of hazardous waste is being conducted by EPA's Definition 
of Solid Waste Task Force. This Task Force has been administering a 
public dialogue process to examine the overall impacts of the RCRA 
program on recycling, and will consider broader changes to the 
definition of solid waste as part of that process.

B. Modification of the Existing ``Closed-loop'' Recycling Exclusion and 
Related Case-specific Variance

1. ``Closed-loop'' Recycling Exclusion and Related Variance
    In the January 4, 1985 final rule, the Agency promulgated an 
exclusion from the definition of solid waste at Sec. 261.2(e)(1)(iii) 
for secondary materials that are recycled in a ``closed-loop,'' (i.e., 
returned to the original production process in which the material was 
generated (see preamble discussion at 50 FR 639)). To be considered 
such a ``closed-loop'' process, three conditions must be met. First, 
the secondary material must be returned to the original process without 
undergoing significant alteration or reprocessing (i.e., it must be 
returned without first being reclaimed. See 261.2(e)(3) and Table 1). 
Second, the production process to which the unreclaimed materials is 
returned must be a primary production process (i.e., a process that 
uses raw materials as the majority of its feedstock, as opposed to a 
secondary process that uses spent materials or scrap metal as the 
majority of its feedstock). And third, the secondary material must be 
returned as a feedstock to the original production process and must be 
recycled as part of that process (as opposed to an ancillary process 
such as degreasing). EPA believes that these conditions characterize a 
material that is part of an on-going production process, and as such, 
the management of the material should not be characterized as waste 
management (i.e., the material is not part of the waste management 
problem).
    Today's action addresses the second condition--that the production 
process to which a secondary material is returned be a primary process. 
This condition was part of the original exclusion due to considerations 
regarding jurisdiction, as it was understood in 1985, rather than to an 
evaluation of the potential impacts on the environment from such 
``closed-loop'' recycling involving secondary processes. This condition 
thus was established without a consideration of whether such secondary 
materials would be part of the waste management problem. By definition, 
a secondary process uses waste materials as its principal feedstock. 
The Agency therefore concluded that the process residue, which is 
returned to the original process as a substitute for feedstock that is 
itself waste, is no less a waste than the waste material originally 
introduced (see 50 FR 639). (The Agency notes that with few exceptions, 
this condition has no actual impact on the recycling of residues from 
secondary processes because such residues that exhibit a characteristic 
of hazardous waste (i.e., characteristic by-products and sludges) are 
likewise excluded from the definition of solid waste if reclaimed.)
    Although the Agency continues to believe that the jurisdictional 
logic behind this condition is sound, the judicial opinions regarding 
RCRA jurisdiction allow more weight to be given to environmental 
considerations. API v. EPA (API), 906 F.2d at 740-41; AMC v. EPA (AMC 
II), 907 F.2d 1179, 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Thus, EPA has reevaluated 
this condition of the exclusion from the definition of solid waste due 
to its impact on the recycling of residues from secondary processes, in 
particular secondary lead smelters, and has determined that the 
condition of a closed-loop involving only primary processes is not 
legally compelled, and that this condition is less relevant as an 
environmental consideration, assuming that the secondary material is 
well-managed prior to reprocessing in the primary or secondary process 
that generated it.
    Comments received on the Agency's proposal to remove this condition 
from the exclusion were favorable. Although several commenters said 
that the Agency should go further in modifying the existing regulations 
to encourage the recycling of hazardous wastes, such an action is 
beyond the scope of this proceeding. Such further action could result 
from the efforts currently underway to reevaluate the regulations 
applicable to hazardous waste recycling (i.e., the Roundtable 
discussions undertaken by the Definition of Solid Waste Task Force). 
One commenter also urged the Agency to make regulatory modifications 
only as part of the Definition of Solid Waste Task Force. EPA does not 
view the salutary and relatively modest change to the rules promulgated 
here as undermining the Task Force effort, and so is adopting the 
amendment.
    Thus, the Agency is today removing this condition (i.e., that the 
process be a primary production process) from the ``closed-loop'' 
recycling exclusion. By doing this, secondary materials that are 
recycled back into the secondary production process from which they 
were generated are excluded from the definition of solid waste.
    Following the same reasoning, the Agency proposed and is today 
finalizing a modification to section 260.30(b), a related case-by-case 
variance for materials that are reclaimed prior to reuse in the 
original primary production process from which they were generated (see 
50 FR 652 (January 4, 1985) for a discussion of the existing variance). 
This modification similarly expands the variance to make it available 
for materials that are returned to secondary processes, as well as 
those returned to primary processes.
2. Storage Prior to Recycling
    At proposal, the Agency proposed to condition the ``closed-loop'' 
exclusion (and the related 260.30(b) variance) such that secondary 
materials recycled back into secondary processes from which they were 
generated would continue to be managed in an environmentally sound 
manner. The Agency proposed this condition to address concerns that, 
absent this condition, a listed waste that would otherwise be required 
to be managed in a protective manner (e.g., without direct placement on 
the land) could begin to be managed in an unprotective manner because, 
as an excluded secondary material, no regulatory requirements would 
apply. Storage of hazardous secondary materials on the land can be 
deemed to be a type of discarding (``part of the waste disposal 
problem'' in the words of the D.C. Circuit), and hence provide a basis 
for classifying the materials as solid and hazardous wastes. AMC II, 
907 F.2d at 1187. The only comments received addressing this proposed 
condition asked for more clarification of what would be considered ``a 
protective manner.'' The Agency is promulgating the condition to the 
exclusion that such secondary materials be managed in a protective 
manner such that there is no placement on the land, that is no land 
disposal as defined in Sec. 3004(k). See Sec. 261.4(a)(10) and (11) 
where EPA has attached this same condition to comparable exclusions. 
Management that is designed to contain the material or otherwise 
prevent its release to the environment, such as in a containment 
building (see 40 CFR 264.1100) or tank, is permissible. The Agency 
believes that this condition will not require any changes in how these 
secondary materials are currently managed and will ensure that 
providing regulatory relief will not unintentionally increase risk to 
human health and the environment.
    Additional changes were proposed and are being promulgated in this 
rule in order to implement and be consistent with the changes in 
variances discussed above. Previously the Regional Administrator 
granted variances from classification as a solid waste in 40 CFR 
260.30, 260.31, 260.32, and 260.33. Today's rule transfers this 
authority to grant variances from the Regional Administrator to the 
Administrator. The changes in Secs. 260.30 and 260.31 are necessary 
because such variances involve determining RCRA jurisdiction over 
secondary materials going to secondary processes. The other changes in 
authority to grant variances in Secs. 260.32 and 260.33 are being made 
in order to be consistent with the provisions of Secs. 260.30 and 
260.31.

X. Compliance Monitoring and Notification

A. Compliance Monitoring

    As proposed, the Agency is adopting an approach that will allow 
generators and facilities that manage organic toxicity characteristic 
(TC) wastes in systems other than those regulated under the Clean Water 
Act (CWA), those engaged in CWA-equivalent treatment prior to land 
disposal, and those injecting into Class I deep injection wells, to 
monitor or otherwise determine the presence of underlying hazardous 
constituents ``reasonably expected to be present'' in their waste. (See 
definition at 268.2(i).) This means that regulated entities do not have 
to ascertain the presence of all hazardous constituents for which EPA 
is promulgating a universal treatment standard. Generators may base 
this determination on their knowledge of the raw materials they use, 
the process they operate, and the potential reaction products of the 
process, or upon the results of a one-time analysis for the entire list 
of constituents at Sec. 268.48.
    The Agency solicited comment on whether generators should be 
required to do some testing of organic TC wastes to determine what 
underlying hazardous constituents are present and whether they meet 
UTS. Furthermore, the Agency noted that generators who also treat 
(including generators who decharacterize their waste but do not treat 
for underlying hazardous constituents) are classified as treaters, and 
would therefore be required to do some analysis of their wastes 
pursuant to Sec. 268.7(b) and prepare a treater's certification 
pursuant to Sec. 268.9(d) (58 FR 48134). A few commenters believed that 
generators should have to test their organic TC wastes at least once. 
Most commenters on this issue, however, strongly opposed a generator 
testing requirement and said that generators should be allowed to use 
knowledge of their wastes to make such a determination. Based on these 
comments, and the Agency's reluctance to require generator testing of 
characteristic wastes but not listed wastes, the Agency is not imposing 
a testing requirement on generators of organic TC wastes at this time.
    The Agency believes, however, that certifications should identify 
which hazardous constituents may be present in the waste. This is 
necessary in order that there be some record that the waste indeed 
requires treatment of these constituents before it can be land 
disposed. As explained below, existing regulations already require 
mention of the presence of underlying hazardous constituents in some 
situations. EPA is slightly amending those regulations today to make 
the requirement uniform, as discussed below.
    If a generator does not treat a prohibited characteristic waste, 
then the generator must prepare the standard notification and 
certification required by Sec. 268.7(a)(1) (for wastes that have not 
been treated to meet the treatment standard) (see Sec. 268.9(d), first 
clause). These requirements explicitly require mention of underlying 
hazardous constituents (Sec. 268.7(a)(1)(ii)).
    If a generator partially treats a waste, however, for example by 
decharacterizing it but not treating the underlying hazardous 
constituents, there is a slight gap in the existing rules. Those rules 
require that a one-time notification and certification be prepared 
(Sec. 268.9(d)) and that the certification ``must state the language 
found in 268.7(b)(5)'' (Sec. 268.9(d)(2)). The Sec. 268.7(b)(5) 
certifications, however, do not contemplate the possibility that wastes 
may require additional treatment for underlying hazardous constituents. 
To allow for this possibility, EPA is amending Sec. 268.9(d) to state 
that in the event underlying hazardous constituents in a 
decharacterized waste have not been fully treated, the certification 
shall so state. EPA is also adding the following new certification to 
Sec. 268.7(b)(5) to account for this circumstance:

    I certify under penalty of law that the waste has been treated 
in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 268.40 to remove the 
hazardous toxicity characteristic or the characteristics of 
ignitability and corrosivity. This decharacterized waste contains 
underlying hazardous constituents that require further treatment to 
meet universal treatment standards. I am aware that there are 
significant penalties for submitting a false certification, 
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.

    The Agency proposed, alternatively, that generators could be 
required to certify what underlying hazardous constituents are in the 
organic TC waste and whether they meet treatment standards, in a manner 
similar to the existing certification requirement for generators of 
wastes that meet the treatment standards as generated (see 40 CFR 
268.7(a)(2)(ii)) (58 FR 48134). This suggestion was generally not 
supported by commenters, and EPA is not adopting this approach in this 
final rule. Before considering broader changes, EPA will see if the 
amended requirement in Sec. 268.9(d)(2)(i) discussed above is 
sufficient to create an adequate record.

B. LDR Notification

1. Constituents To Be Included on the LDR Notification
    EPA solicited comment on how to limit the underlying hazardous 
constituents that must be monitored in organic TC wastes, and 
consequently reported on the LDR notification. Commenters on this issue 
said that the regulated community should only be required to address 
those constituents which are in the organic TC wastes as generated, 
prior to any subsequent mixing with other wastes. This is the approach 
being adopted in this rule. Such an approach is identical to the 
approach adopted in the May 24, 1993 Interim Final Rule (58 FR 29873) 
and is supported by commenters.
    As a simplifying measure, EPA is also slightly amending the 
language of Sec. 268.7(a)(1)(ii) and Sec. 268.7(b)(4)(ii). The language 
in these paragraphs required that the hazardous constituents in F001-
F005 spent solvents, F039, wastes subject to the California list 
provisions of Sec. 268.32 or RCRA section 3004(d), and underlying 
hazardous constituents in characteristic wastes be listed on the LDR 
notification. This language is being changed so that if all the 
hazardous constituents are present in the waste (and thus the 
generator/treater will be treating all the constituents), then there is 
no longer a need to list all the constituents on the notification form. 
If, however, a subset of constituents are present in the waste (and 
thus the generator/treater will only be treating these constituents), 
the constituents in the waste must continue to be listed on the 
notification form.
2. Management in Subtitle C-Regulated Facilities
    The Agency has information that many of the organic TC wastes that 
are not managed in CWA, or SDWA systems are being treated in hazardous 
waste management units (primarily incinerators) subject to RCRA 
subtitle C. In such a case, the notification, certification, and 
recordkeeping requirements set out in 40 CFR 268.7 apply (which 
includes identification of the underlying hazardous constituents 
reasonably expected to be present in the organic TC waste). For organic 
TC wastes, once the waste is no longer hazardous, however, further 
recordkeeping and documentation requirements are set out in 40 CFR 
268.9. Section 268.9 requires that the generator or treater (including 
generators who treat, see 51 FR 40598, November 7, 1986) prepare a one-
time notification which is sent to the EPA Region or authorized state 
and also kept in the generator's or treater's files. Treaters must 
certify that they are familiar with the treatment process used at their 
facility and that the process can successfully treat the waste to meet 
the treatment standards without impermissible dilution. See 
Sec. 268.7(b)(5), which applies to persons who treat formerly 
characteristic wastes (see existing Sec. 268.9(d)(2)). The Agency 
believes that, normally, at least some waste analysis is needed to make 
a good faith showing for meeting the treatment standards, given the 
number of hazardous constituents that could be covered by those 
standards.
3. Potential Management of Decharacterized Wastes at a Subtitle D Waste 
Management Facility
    The Agency solicited information on certain potential waste 
management practices for decharacterized TC wastes to help determine 
whether new notification requirements are needed. In particular, EPA 
requested whether generators or treaters, after removing the 
characteristic, send the decharacterized TC waste off-site to a 
Subtitle D (nonhazardous waste) treatment facility for further 
treatment to address the underlying hazardous constituents (58 FR 
48134). The Agency solicited comment on potential enforcement concerns 
if there is not a federal requirement that generators notify Subtitle D 
treatment and disposal facilities receiving decharacterized wastes.
    One commenter stated that the generator of the waste should be made 
responsible through an EPA mandate to assure that treatment of 
underlying hazardous constituents at a subtitle D facility meets LDR 
treatment standards. Other commenters thought that the generator should 
notify the subtitle D facility of the underlying hazardous 
constituents, but they did not specify that a mandated notification 
should be required. However, other commenters said that existing 
arrangements between generators and off-site treatment facilities would 
suffice because EPA already requires generators to notify the EPA 
Regional office or Authorized State when it is sending decharacterized 
waste to a subtitle D facility under 40 CFR 268.9. One commenter 
pointed to the contract between the generator and the subtitle D 
facility as the mechanism by which generators would notify the 
treatment facility of what underlying hazardous constituents are in the 
waste.
    Only one commenter offered information on the extent that the 
practice of sending decharacterized wastes to a nonhazardous waste 
treater for treatment of underlying hazardous constituents is actually 
occurring. This commenter asked generators who send waste to their 
facilities how often they remove the characteristic prior to sending 
the decharacterized waste to a nonhazardous waste treatment facility 
for treatment of underlying hazardous constituents. They found that 
roughly 2-3 percent of the wastes from their survey group were 
decharacterized D001 and D002 wastes being sent off-site for further 
treatment at a nonhazardous waste treatment facility that employs CWA 
wastewater treatment or stabilization of underlying hazardous 
constituents. The commenter added, however, that there will be less 
decharacterized TC wastes going off-site for treatment of underlying 
hazardous constituents because these wastes require more sophisticated 
treatment systems to remove the characteristic than do the D001 and 
D002 wastes.
    Based on this information, the Agency has decided, for the time 
being, not to impose new notification requirements in today's final 
rule (a new certification is being added in this rule to 
Sec. 268.7(b)(5)(iv) as described above). The Agency continues to 
believe that very little decharacterized TC wastes will be sent to a 
subtitle D facility for treatment of underlying hazardous constituents. 
If such a practice should occur, generators and Subtitle D facilities 
have substantial incentives (such as CERCLA liability) to exchange and 
verify compliance with treatment standards for underlying hazardous 
constituents independent of federal notification requirements.
    If, however, information becomes available that generators are 
sending substantial amounts of decharacterized TC wastes off site to 
subtitle D facilities for treatment of underlying hazardous 
constituents, or that there is a paperwork loophole that existing 
arrangements between generators and treatment facilities do not 
address, today's approach will be revisited to determine whether such 
tracking is necessary to assure ``cradle to grave'' tracking of wastes 
and better informing subtitle D treatment and disposal companies of the 
requirements to which these decharacterized wastes remain subject.

XI. Implementation of the Final Rule

    This section presents flowcharts of what EPA expects will be the 
most frequent set of decisions that must be made to implement the 
regulations for TC organic wastes (including soils), mixtures of TC 
organic wastes with listed wastes, and mixtures of TC organic wastes 
with ignitable or corrosive wastes. A flowchart describing the 
decisions necessary to comply with treatment standards for Phase II 
newly listed wastes is also included. Additionally, a flowchart is 
presented that outlines the decisions necessary to comply with 
treatment standards for debris contaminated with Phase II wastes. And, 
as a reminder that TC metals are not regulated by today's rule, a 
flowchart is also included of the decisions that must be made to 
determine if a characteristic metal waste is subject to the LDRs at 
this time based on regulation of Extraction Procedure (EP) metals in 
the Third Third rule in 1990, or is not yet subject to LDR regulation 
because TC metals will not be addressed until a later rulemaking. These 
flowcharts present only the major decisions that must be made; a 
thorough reading of the regulations will be necessary to fully 
implement the LDRs. There are requirements for specific waste 
management scenarios that are not included in these flowcharts because 
they would have become too complex to be generally useful.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

TR19SE94.000


TR19SE94.001


TR19SE94.002


TR19SE94.003


TR19SE94.004


BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

XII. Guidance to Applicants for Treatability Variances for As- 
Generated Wastes

    The Agency's existing regulations provide for variances from 
treatment standards if a waste cannot be treated to the specified 
treatment standard or if the treatment technology on which the standard 
is based is inappropriate for the waste. Section 268.44 (a). For 
guidance on treatability variances for soil, including site-specific, 
non-rulemaking variances, see section I.E. ``Treatment Standards for 
Hazardous Soil'' in this rule. To be granted a treatability variance, a 
petitioner must show that ``because the physical or chemical properties 
of the waste differs significantly from wastes analyzed in developing 
the treatment standard, the waste cannot be treated to specified levels 
or by the specified methods.'' Id. A demonstration that the waste 
cannot be successfully treated can be made ``by showing that attempts 
to treat the waste by available technologies were not successful, or 
through appropriate analyses of the waste which demonstrate that the 
waste cannot be treated to the specified levels.'' 51 FR at 40606 (Nov. 
7, 1986). EPA evaluates treatability variance requests by ``first 
look[ing] at the design and operation of the treatment system being 
used. If EPA determines that the technology and operation are 
consistent with BDAT, the Agency will evaluate the waste to determine 
if the waste matrix and/or physical parameters are such [that] the BDAT 
properly reflects treatment of the waste.'' Id. The guidance set out 
below applies exclusively to treatability variances (for as-generated 
wastes) evaluated by EPA headquarters and processed pursuant to 
rulemaking procedures.
    In order to settle a lawsuit challenging the Agency's grant of 
treatability variances to two particular facilities, 56 FR 12351 (March 
25, 1991), the Agency has agreed to provide some clarifying guidance 
regarding treatability variances, which essentially restates existing 
Agency practice and does not call into question the validity of any 
treatability variance the Agency has issued. First, as stated in 1986, 
to support an application for a treatability variance pursuant to 
Sec. 268.44(a) for process waste, the applicant should collect and 
analyze a sufficient number of samples of the untreated waste to 
accurately characterize it. 51 FR at 40606 (Nov. 7, 1986). In general, 
the Agency would expect the applicant to collect and analyze four 
samples of its untreated and treated waste. (This corresponds to the 
minimum number of samples applicants for delisting pursuant to 260.20 
must submit.) However, the exact number of samples would be determined 
by EPA as part of the Agency's evaluation of each treatability variance 
application (and so could be less than four samples in a particular 
case).
    Second, the applicant should normally investigate and report on 
demonstrated and reasonably available pretreatment steps that could 
significantly improve the effectiveness of the treatment the applicant 
is conducting. 51 FR at 40606. What the Agency has in mind is that 
applicants not overlook potentially simple types of pretreatment to 
remove an interfering parameter; for example, settling to reduce excess 
total dissolved solids. The Agency does not intend that applicants 
perform an extensive or expansive engineering analysis. Nor does the 
Agency intend that applicants be required to utilize treatment systems 
significantly different from those the Agency evaluated when 
promulgating the treatment standard. Rather, the Agency wishes to 
assure that applicants not overlook some relatively obvious means of 
removing interferences. Again, in particular cases, it may not make 
sense to conduct this type of analysis, in which case no such 
evaluation would be necessary.
    Third, the applicant should make a good faith effort to explain why 
the treatment standard is not achievable for its waste. 51 FR at 40606. 
This good faith effort is to be based on the applicant's knowledge of 
its process, and is not to entail additional expense (such as a 
consultant's engineering analysis). As a general matter, the Agency 
simply believes that some thought should be given (and documented) as 
to what might be causing the problem.
    Finally, EPA's general policy has been and will be to publish a 
notice of its proposed decision on applications for treatability 
variances in the Federal Register, Sec. 261.44 (e), and to allow a 
minimum of 30 days for the public to comment on the proposal. 51 FR 
40607. All applicants will have the opportunity to comment on the 
reasonableness of applying one or more of these foregoing statements of 
guidance to their applications, and, as a result, EPA may decide not to 
apply them.
    EPA notes further that there have been only a handful (fewer than 
10) of applications for treatability variances since implementation of 
the land ban (aside from applications relating to contaminated media 
and debris), of which EPA has granted three. In the applications 
relating to electroplating wastes cited earlier, the Agency inferred 
that something about the applicants' wastes was making the wastes more 
difficult to treat than the waste EPA evaluated when promulgating the 
applicable treatment standard. This inference was based on the fact 
that the applicants were treating the waste with properly designed and 
operated BDAT treatment technology, namely the same type of treatment 
technology on which the treatment standard is based. 56 FR at 12352. 
EPA emphasizes that this type of inference was, and remains, 
permissible.

XIII. Clarifications and Corrections to Previous Rules

A. Corrections to the Interim Final Rule Establishing Land Disposal 
Restrictions for Certain Ignitable and Corrosive Wastes

    On May 24, 1993, the EPA published an interim final rule 
establishing treatment standards for ignitable and corrosive 
characteristic wastes except those disposed in facilities regulated 
under the Clean Water Act (CWA), or Class I injection wells subject to 
the Safe Drinking Water Act, or zero-discharge facilities engaged in 
CWA-equivalent treatment. In today's rule, the Agency is clarifying 
that the provisions of the interim final rule remain in effect unless 
and until they are superseded in future LDR rules. The Agency does not 
plan to issue a final rule at this time; however, it is using the 
comments received on the interim final rule in developing future rules 
concerning the portions of the Third Third Land Disposal Restrictions 
Rule which were remanded by the D.C. Circuit (for discussion of the 
court ruling, see 58 FR 29861).
    Among other things, the interim final rule established treatment 
standards for the underlying hazardous constituents reasonably expected 
to be present in the affected wastes at the point of generation. These 
treatment standards were the concentration levels for the constituents 
found in F039 (multisource leachate) wastewaters and nonwastewaters. 
The Agency is clarifying here that the universal treatment standards 
(UTS) established today supersede the F039 standards. Therefore, 
underlying hazardous constituents in the ignitable and corrosive wastes 
covered by the interim final rule must meet the 40 CFR 268.48, Table 
UTS--Universal Treatment Standards, levels before they can be land 
disposed. This change is being made simply so that the references to 
treatment standards for underlying hazardous constituents in ignitable 
and corrosive wastes in the interim final rule will be the same as 
those established for organic TC wastes in today's rule.
    Also in the interim final rule, the Agency promulgated requirements 
to address a concern raised by the court about the potential for 
volatile organic constituent (VOC) emissions to create violent 
reactions during the dilution of ignitable and reactive wastes (see 58 
FR 29873). The regulatory language in Secs. 264.1(g)(6) and 
265.1(c)(10), however, inadvertently promulgated requirements for 
ignitable (D001) wastes and corrosive (D002) wastes. These sections are 
being corrected in today's rule to indicate, rightly, that the 
requirements apply to ignitable (D001) and reactive (D003) wastes.

B. Corrections to the Phase I Rule Establishing Land Disposal 
Restrictions for Newly Listed Wastes and Hazardous Debris

    Today's rule clarifies several issues from the final rule 
establishing Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly Listed Wastes and 
Hazardous Debris (57 FR 37194, August 18, 1992).
    The first issue being corrected responds to questions over which 
treatment standards can be used for treating hazardous debris. It was 
stated clearly in the preamble to the August 18, 1992 rule that debris 
must be treated by either using one of the specified technologies in 
Sec. 268.45, or, as an alternative, by meeting LDRs for the specific 
prohibited listed or characteristic waste with which the debris is 
contaminated (57 FR 37221). Subsequent comment from the regulated 
community indicate that this fact was not made completely clear in the 
regulatory language of that rule. Certain commenters suggested that a 
revision of the paperwork requirements found in Sec. 268.7 indicating 
that generators have a choice as to which treatment standards they may 
use would help alleviate the confusion.
    EPA is, therefore, revising Sec. 268.7(a)(1)(iv) and 
Sec. 268.7(a)(3)(v) to reflect that it is not mandatory to meet the 
alternative debris standards in Sec. 268.45, and that generators have 
the option to meet the treatment standards for the as-generated wastes 
contaminating the debris. It should be noted that the paperwork 
requirements for meeting treatment standards for as-generated wastes 
contaminating debris are the same as those for as-generated wastes. A 
new paragraph is being added to the regulatory language to indicate 
this.
    In addition, consistent with EPA's effort to simplify LDR paperwork 
requirements, EPA is shortening the notification statement accompanying 
prohibited debris. In Sec. 268.7(a)(1)(iv) and Sec. 268.7(a)(3)(v), as 
promulgated on August 18, 1992, the statement ``This hazardous debris 
is subject to the alternative treatment standards of 40 CFR 268.45'' 
was required to be placed on the LDR notification, after listing the 
contaminants subject to treatment. EPA is revising that particular 
statement today so that merely referencing Sec. 268.45 after listing 
the contaminants subject to treatment is all that must be included on 
the LDR notification.
    The second issue the Agency wishes to clarify and correct today 
concerns the language in Sec. 268.45(b)(2) of the August 18, 1992 
Federal Register. This section states that the contaminants subject to 
the alternative treatment standards for hazardous debris, which were 
promulgated in the August 18, 1992 rule, are those constituents for 
which BDAT standards are established in Secs. 268.41 and 268.43. The 
Agency has received several letters asking why section 268.42 was not 
included in that language. Section 268.42 lists those wastes for which 
EPA established a treatment method as the standard. The reason section 
268.42 was not included in the language in Sec. 268.45(b)(2) is that 
only the wastes themselves, and not waste constituents, are listed in 
Sec. 268.42.
    The Agency fully intends, however, that debris contaminated with 
those wastes be subject to the alternate debris standards. Therefore, 
Sec. 268.45(b)(2) is being clarified today to read ``The contaminants 
subject to treatment for debris that is contaminated with a prohibited 
listed hazardous waste are those constituents or wastes for which BDAT 
standards are established for the wastes under Secs. 268.41, 268.42, 
and 268.43.''
    The third issue the Agency is clarifying concerns exactly when 
surface impoundments which are newly subject to RCRA section 3005(j)(1) 
are expected to be in compliance with the requirements of Sec. 265.221 
(a), (c), and (d). As is stated in Sec. 268.5(h)(2)(v) (as promulgated 
at 57 FR 37270, August 18, 1992), such surface impoundments must be in 
compliance within 48 months after the promulgation of additional 
listings or characteristics for the identification of hazardous waste. 
This is the maximum time allowed by RCRA section 3005(j)(6).
    EPA mistakenly stated in two separate places in the preamble to the 
August 18, 1992 rule that the compliance date was 48 months from the 
effective date of a waste identification or listing (57 FR 37220). The 
Agency wants to make it clear that the compliance date which was 
promulgated in the regulations, and which is mandated by RCRA 
3005(j)(6), is correct (57 FR 37270). These surface impoundments are 
thus required to be in compliance 48 months from the promulgation date 
of a new identification or listing. Sec. 268.5(h)(2)(v).
    The promulgation date is the date the Administrator signs the rule 
which lists the new waste(s). The effective date is the date the new 
waste must come into compliance with hazardous waste management 
requirements, and may be six months from the promulgation date. The 
Agency believes that 48 months to retrofit a surface impoundment is a 
reasonable amount of time, and believes that effort should begin as 
soon as the listing of a waste is published in the Federal Register; 
there is no reason to wait to begin retrofitting until a new listing or 
identification actually becomes effective. In any case, section 
3005(j)(6) allows no other option.
    Finally, in Sec. 268.38(a) of this rule, EPA is prohibiting debris 
that is contaminated with the wastes that were prohibited in the Phase 
I rule. EPA inadvertently omitted to include such contaminated debris 
in the August 18, 1992 rule.

C. Amendment of Boiler and Industrial Furnace Rules for Certain 
Mercury-Containing Wastes

1. The Proposal
    The Agency proposed a technical clarification to the Boiler and 
Industrial Furnace (BIF) rules on July 21, 1994 (59 FR 31964), that 
would exempt certain mercury-bearing hazardous wastes generated by the 
Chlorine Industry from the provisions of 266.100(c). Under this 
provision, owners and operators of smelting, melting, and refining 
furnaces that process hazardous wastes solely for metal recovery are 
conditionally exempt from regulation. To be exempt, the owner or 
operator must comply with certain notification, sampling and analysis, 
and recordkeeping provisions (see 266.100(c)(1)(i)). In addition, as 
indicated above, the waste must be processed solely for metal recovery; 
to be processed solely for metal recovery, the waste can not have a 
heating value greater than 5000 BTU/lb or have a total concentration of 
organic compounds listed in Appendix VIII of Part 261 greater than 500 
ppm by weight. Wastes that have a heating value greater than 5000 BTU/
lb or have a total concentration of hazardous organic compounds 
exceeding 500 ppm are considered by EPA to be burned for energy 
recovery and destruction, respectively and, thus, are subject to the 
BIF rules.
    The Agency generally believes that most wastes that meet these 
criteria are appropriately subject to the BIF regulations. However, in 
certain instances, wastes that are burned for legitimate metal recovery 
can also exceed the 5000 BTU/lb and 500 ppm organic compound limits, in 
which case standards other than those in the BIF rules are likely more 
appropriate. (See 59 FR at 29776 (June 9, 1994) proposing CAA MACT 
standards for secondary lead smelters and indicating why RCRA air 
emission standards are not needed.) In fact, the Agency has specified a 
set of lead and nickel-bearing hazardous wastes that exceed the energy 
recovery or destruction limits, but are still conditionally exempt from 
the BIF rules if these wastes are legitimately burned for metal 
recovery (see 266.100(c)(3) and Appendices XI and XII to Part 266).
    In the proposed technical clarification, the Agency defined some 
additional hazardous wastes--specifically, those generated by the 
Chlorine Industry and which are suitable for mercury recovery--that 
could be recovered in mercury retorting units without those units being 
subject to the BIF rules (provided the owners or operators of these 
units meet certain conditions). The Agency proposed this change based 
on the fact that these wastes contain high levels of mercury (from 
hundreds of parts per million to as much as 45%) and, thus are 
appropriate for recovery; in addition, the retort units in which these 
wastes are processed must be subject to emissions controls under the 
Clean Air Act. See Sec. 268.42 (treatment standards for high mercury 
subcategory wastes that require retorting units to be subject to the 
CAA or comparable standards for control of mercury). It should also be 
noted that the Chlorine Institute, as part of their comments on the 
Phase II LDR proposal, requested that the Agency exempt these wastes 
from the BIFs rules. The remainder of this section of the preamble 
discusses the comments received and our response to those comments.
2. Comments and the Final Rule
    The Agency received comments from five parties, Borden Chemical and 
Plastics (BCP), Bethlehem Apparatus (BA), PPG Industries (PPG), Olin 
Chemicals (Olin), and the Chlorine Institute (CI). Their collective 
comments and the Agency's response follows.
    The proposal limited the conditional exemption to certain mercury-
bearing hazardous wastes generated by the Chlorine Institute. BCP, BA, 
and CI argued that the proposed change was too narrow, and that other 
mercury recovery units may also process combustible materials for 
legitimate metals recovery. Commenters thus recommended that the 
exemption should apply to all processors of mercury wastes. The Agency 
generally agrees with this position. Upon reevaluation, EPA believes 
there is no need to differentiate between units in the Chlorine 
Industry and similar units outside the Chlorine Industry. Therefore, 
the Agency is promulgating a rule which includes units operated by 
manufacturers and users of mercury or mercury products.
    BCP addressed a second option for broadening the exemption so that 
devices other than those operated in the Chlorine Industry could 
process combustible wastes for legitimate metals recovery. BCP 
suggested EPA define mercury as a precious metal and allow processors 
to burn mercury laden hazardous wastes subject to the Agency's BIF 
precious metals exemption (see Sec. 266.100(f)). EPA does not agree 
with BCP's contention that mercury is a precious metal. Mercury is not 
considered a precious metal by EPA or other Agencies or organizations. 
Precious metals are defined by the Bureau of Mines to include gold, 
silver, platinum, and palladium (Mineral Commodity Summary, 1993), and 
by EPA at 40 CFR 266.70 to include gold, silver, platinum, palladium, 
iridium, osmium, rhodium, and ruthenium, all metals whose value assures 
adequate control. Therefore, EPA rejects the approach suggested by BCP.
    BCP, PPG, Olin, and CI also commented that the list of materials in 
the proposed technical clarification should be broadened to include the 
following additional items:

Sweepings
Respiratory Cartridge Filters
Cleanup Articles
Plastic Bags and Other Contaminated Containers
Laboratory and Process Control Samples
Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludge and Filter Cake
Mercury cell process sump and tank sludges
Mercury cell process solids
K106
Recoverable levels of mercury contained in soil

Upon evaluation, the Agency agrees that of these materials are 
appropriate for an exemption as long as they have recoverable levels of 
mercury. However, many mercury units, e.g., retorters, are not 
combustion devices and organic emissions may not be controlled in these 
units. Therefore, the Agency is concerned that materials with 
recoverable levels of mercury, but laden with hazardous organics, may 
not provide adequate destruction of the hazardous organics in exempt 
retorters, and thus, may not be protective of human health and the 
environment. For that reason, the Agency is promulgating a broadened 
list of materials but is limiting the exemption to these wastes 
specifically identified and that contain less than 500 ppm of part 261, 
appendix VIII organics.
    Finally, there appears to be some confusion by the Chlorine 
Industry about their status under the BIF rules (collectively, those 
regulations set forth in 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart H). CI, PPG, and Olin 
argued that they are not subject to BIF because they do not ``burn'' or 
``combust'' anything and the BIF rules are written for combustion 
devices. The Agency agrees that many mercury recovery devices do not 
``burn'' or ``combust'' by design; however, these units are Industrial 
Furnaces as defined in Sec. 260.10 and, thus, are subject to the 
appropriate BIF rules. In particular, Sec. 260.10 defines Industrial 
Furnaces as ``devices * * * that use thermal treatment to accomplish 
recovery of materials'' and that these include ``refining furnaces''. 
[Emphasis added.] Mercury recovery units raise the temperature of the 
waste to aid in the recovery and refining of mercury. Therefore, they 
are refining furnaces. In addition, Sec. 266.100(c) states that 
``smelting, melting and refining furnaces * * * that process hazardous 
waste solely for metals recovery are conditionally exempt * * *.'' 
[Emphasis added.] This language includes all refining furnaces that 
process hazardous waste, irrespective of whether the process to achieve 
this end is combustion or not. Therefore, mercury recovery devices are 
BIFs, and come within the terms of Sec. 266.100(c). EPA is using the 
term ``mercury recovery furnace'' in today's amended rule to further 
clarify this point. (It should be noted that compliance with the BIF 
rules for these devices are not rigorous. It requires sending a one 
time written notification to the regional Director and following the 
provisions set forth in Sec. 266.100(c).)
    Mercury recovery operators should note that the changes discussed 
in this section of the preamble only apply to units which have a metals 
recovery exemption. Units which process these wastes without the proper 
exemption are in violation of the BIF rules and subject to enforcement 
action.

D. Amendment of Rules on Use Constituting Disposal

    In 1985, EPA created a separate regulatory regime for hazardous 
wastes that are recycled by being used in a manner constituting 
disposal. Part 266 subpart C.\1\ These rules provide, in essence, that 
the wastes can be so used without being subject to the RCRA facility 
standards if the waste-derived product (i.e. the hazardous wastes that 
is being used by being applied to the land (i.e. used in a manner 
constituting disposal)) has been ``produced for the general public's 
use,'' has undergone a chemical change so as to be inseparable by 
physical means, and if it meets the applicable LDR treatment standard. 
See Sec. 266.20(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\These rules apply, of course, only if the recycling is 
legitimate, and not a form of surrogate disposal. Sec. 266.20(a) 
applies only to ``recyclable materials'', which are hazardous wastes 
being recycled. Sec. 261.6(a)(1). This does not include wastes that 
are abandoned by being disposed of. Sec. 261.2(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hazardous wastes used in a manner constituting disposal that do not 
satisfy these conditions are subject to all of the subtitle C 
standards. See Sec. 266.23(a). In promulgating this provision in 1985, 
however, the Agency neglected to mention the then newly-enacted land 
disposal restriction requirements as among the standards to which the 
wastes were subject. The Agency obviously was not intending to amend 
the statute, and cannot override an express statutory requirement by 
regulation. The Agency only recently noticed this omission, and is 
using this opportunity to correct the error. Consequently, the Part 268 
requirements will be added to the list of requirements in 
Sec. 266.23(a) for those hazardous wastes not satisfying the conditions 
of Sec. 266.20(b). This amendment is effective 90 days after 
publication of today's rule.

XIV. Capacity Determinations

    This section presents the data sources, methodology, and results of 
EPA's capacity analysis for today's rule. Section A summarizes the 
results of the capacity analysis for the wastes covered by this rule; 
Section B summarizes the analysis of available capacity; Section C 
summarizes the capacity analysis for those newly identified and listed 
wastes that are land disposed in units other than deep injection wells; 
Section D summarizes the capacity analysis for wastes mixed with 
radioactive contaminants; Section E summarizes the results of the 
capacity analysis for high TOC ignitable and TC pesticide wastes and 
newly listed and identified wastes injected into Class I deep wells; 
and Section F presents the results of the capacity analysis for 
hazardous soil and debris contaminated with the newly listed and 
identified wastes covered in this rule.
    In general, EPA's capacity analysis methodologies focus on the 
amount of waste currently land disposed that will require alternative 
commercial treatment as a result of the LDRs. Land-disposed wastes that 
do not require alternative commercial treatment (e.g., those that are 
currently treated using an appropriate treatment technology or that 
will be treated using an alternative on-site treatment system) are 
excluded from the quantity estimates. In addition, wastes managed in 
CWA, SDWA, CWA-equivalent systems are not included in this rule and 
will be addressed in an upcoming rulemaking.
    EPA's decisions on whether to grant a national capacity variance 
are based on the demand for commercial treatment or recovery 
technologies. Consequently, the methodology focuses on deriving 
estimates of the quantity of wastes that will require commercial 
treatment as a result of the LDRs; quantities of waste that will be 
treated on-site or by facilities owned by the same company as the 
generator are omitted from the required commercial capacity estimates.
    The major capacity information collection initiative for this rule 
was an EPA survey of all land disposal facilities that manage newly 
identified TC organic wastes (including TC-contaminated soil and 
debris) in land-based units (TC Survey). The survey, conducted in the 
spring of 1992, is a census of approximately 140 facilities. EPA 
identified the universe primarily based on those facilities that had 
submitted permit modifications or received interim status for managing 
these wastes. For each facility, EPA requested waste-stream specific 
data on newly identified TC organic wastes and information on on-site 
land disposal units and treatment and recovery systems.
    EPA developed a data set of the information on the TC Survey 
results. Specifically, the data set contains information on the 
quantities of newly-identified organic TC wastes that will require 
commercial treatment capacity as a result of the LDRs. The data 
collected and the survey used for the required capacity estimates are 
part of the docket for today's final rule.

A. Capacity Analysis Results Summary

    For the organic TC wastes (D018-D043), EPA estimates that 220,000 
tons of newly identified organic TC sludges and solids will require 
alternative commercial treatment as a result of today's final rule.
    EPA estimates that much smaller quantities of the other listed 
wastes included in today's rule will require alternative commercial 
treatment. Fewer than 100 tons of chlorinated toluene (K149-K151) 
nonwastewaters are currently being land disposed and will require 
alternative treatment due to the LDRs. Approximately 4,600 tons of coke 
by-product (K141-K145, K147 and K148) nonwastewaters are currently 
being land disposed. However, comments to EPA indicate that the 
majority of the nonwastewaters are recycled or used for energy recovery 
and, therefore, alternative treatment may not be required. No K141-
K145, K147 and K148 wastewaters are currently being land disposed. No 
K149-K151 wastewaters are currently being land disposed.
    The quantities of radioactive wastes mixed with wastes included in 
today's final rule and currently being land disposed are generated 
primarily by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). EPA estimates that 
1,300 m\3\ of high-level waste, 380 m\3\ of mixed transuranic waste, 
and 1,100 m\3\ of mixed low-level waste containing wastes covered in 
today's rule will be generated annually by DOE. These estimates exclude 
mixed wastes currently in storage, environmental restoration wastes, 
and soil and debris. DOE currently faces treatment capacity shortfalls 
for some high-level wastes and for all projected mixed transuranic 
waste generation. In addition, although the annual DOE treatment 
capacity for mixed low-level wastes exceeds the estimated annual 
generation, most of this capacity is limited to treatment of 
wastewaters with less than one percent total suspended solids, and is 
not readily adaptable for other waste forms. Consequently, DOE also 
faces a treatment capacity shortfall for mixed low-level 
nonwastewaters. Furthermore, DOE has indicated that it will generally 
give treatment priority to mixed wastes that are already restricted 
under previous LDR rules.
    With respect to certain wastes being injected into deep wells, EPA 
has very limited information that differentiates high TOC D001 
ignitable wastes from low TOC D001 ignitable wastes, particularly with 
reference to the type of Class I injection well (i.e., nonhazardous 
versus hazardous) the wastes are ultimately disposed into. The 
information the Agency does have indicates that both D001 ignitable 
wastes and D012-D017 TC pesticide wastes are deep well injected into 
Class I hazardous wells with no-migration exemptions. However, several 
commenters to the proposed rule, and other industries with Class I 
injection wells, indicated that it would be extremely difficult to 
identify, segregate, treat, and/or arrange for disposal of these waste 
streams in a short time frame. Consequently, EPA is granting these 
wastes a one-year national capacity variance.
    The Agency also estimates that up to 120,000 tons of hazardous soil 
and 34,000 tons of hazardous debris contaminated with the newly 
identified organic TC wastes are expected to require alternative 
commercial treatment.
    Table 1 lists each waste code for which EPA is promulgating LDR 
standards today. For each code, this table indicates whether EPA is 
granting a national capacity variance for land-disposed wastes. As 
indicated, EPA is not granting a two-year national capacity variance 
for the newly identified organic TC wastes, including soil and debris, 
nor for the listed wastes covered under this rule. Rather, EPA is 
granting a three-month variance. (This extension does not apply to 
wastes with a specified longer national capacity variance.) EPA is 
delaying the effective date because the Agency realizes that even where 
data indicate that sufficient treatment capacity exists, such capacity 
may not be immediately available. Additional time may be required to 
determine what compliance entails, redesign tracking documents, 
possibly adjust facility operations, and possibly segregate waste 
streams. EPA believes these legitimate delays can be encompassed within 
a short-term capacity variance because the ability to get wastes to the 
treatment capacity in a lawful manner is an inherent part of assessing 
available capacity. However, the Agency is granting a two-year national 
capacity variance for mixed radioactive wastes (i.e., radioactive 
wastes mixed with newly identified TC organic constituents D018-D043), 
including soil and debris contaminated with mixed radioactive wastes.
    EPA also is granting a one-year national capacity variance to allow 
the Class I injection facilities an appropriate lead time to identify 
and then manage their high TOC D001 and D012-D017 waste streams by 
developing practical and sound treatment and/or disposal options and 
ultimately to come into compliance with today's rule.

 Table 1.--Capacity Variances for Newly Listed and Identified Wastes\1\ 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Variance for   Variance for
                                               surface-      deep well- 
                Waste type                     disposed       disposed  
                                                wastes         wastes   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High TOC D001 Wastes......................  No...........  One year     
D012-D017 Wastes\2\.......................  No...........  One year     
D018-D043 Nonwastewaters..................  No...........  N/A          
K141-K145 Wastes..........................  No...........  No           
K147-K148 Wastes..........................  No...........  No           
K149-K151 Wastes..........................  No...........  No           
Soil (Phase II Wastes)....................  No...........  N/A          
Debris (Phase II Wastes)..................  No...........  N/A          
Mixed Radioactive.........................  Two years....  N/A          
Mixed Radioactive Soil and Debris (with     Two years....  N/A          
 Phase II Wastes).                                                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A=Not applicable.                                                     
\1\EPA is granting a three month national capacity variance for all the 
  newly identified and listed wastes covered in this rule to handle     
  logistical problems associated with complying with the new standards. 
\2\Newly identified TC wastes that were not previously hazardous by the 
  old EP Leaching Procedure.                                            

B. Analysis of Available Capacity

    The analysis of commercial capacity for newly identified and listed 
wastes is based primarily on data received in voluntary data 
submissions. These data include estimates of available capacity at 
commercial combustion facilities provided by the Hazardous Waste 
Treatment Council (HWTC) on incinerators and the Cement Kiln Recycling 
Coalition (CKRC) on cement kilns that burn hazardous wastes. Capacity 
for other conventional treatment processes (e.g., stabilization) is 
based on the 1990 TSDR Survey Capacity Data Set, which contains results 
from the National Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, 
Disposal and Recycling Survey (the TSDR Survey), and required capacity 
information from prior LDR rules.
    Combustion Capacity. Combustion capacity for liquid hazardous 
wastes has historically been more readily available than capacity for 
sludges and solids. EPA estimates commercial combustion capacity for TC 
organic liquids to be about 1,267,000 tons per year. Commercial 
capacity for combustion of sludges and solids is available at both 
incinerators and industrial furnaces (primarily cement kilns that are 
authorized to burn hazardous wastes as fuel).
    Cement kiln capacity for hazardous waste is limited by air emission 
limits (e.g., boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) limits under 40 CFR 
266 subpart H), feed system limitations (e.g., particle size and 
viscosity limits), and product (i.e., cement clinker) quality 
considerations. For instance, cement quality considerations may require 
that wastes burned in cement kilns have a heating value of at least 
5,000 BTU/lb to ensure adequate temperatures in the kiln. (Comments 
received by EPA, however, indicate that some kilns accept wastes below 
this heating value.) Incineration capacity is also limited by air 
emission limits, other permit limits (such as heat release limits), and 
feed system limits. EPA has taken these limitations into account in its 
estimates of available commercial combustion capacity.
    Information available to EPA indicates that approximately 438,000 
tons/year of commercial combustion capacity are available for newly 
identified TC organic sludges and solids, including soil and debris.\2\ 
EPA primarily derived this estimate primarily from survey data compiled 
by the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC) and Cement Kiln 
Recycling Coalition (CKRC). These surveys contained detailed 
information on the amount and types of waste burned at each commercial 
facility in 1992, and the maximum amount of waste that could 
practically be burned in light of technical, operational, and 
regulatory constraints. In deriving this estimate, EPA first reviewed 
each survey response to confirm that the information provided was based 
on technically valid assumptions. To be conservative in its national 
estimate, EPA only included facilities and units that are presently 
capable of operating at or near full capacity under current permit and 
operational constraints. EPA then derived a national baseline estimate 
of available capacity by subtracting the amount of waste (hazardous and 
nonhazardous) burned in 1992 from the maximum practical capacity at 
each facility. Several cement kilns that burn hazardous waste were not 
included in the CKRC survey results. For these facilities, EPA obtained 
maximum practical capacity estimates from other sources (e.g., past 
data submittals or general trade literature), and derived available 
capacity estimates by assuming that these kilns are utilized at the 
average rate of those included in the CKRC survey. EPA's methodology 
for deriving its baseline capacity estimate is described in greater 
detail in the capacity background document for today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\This estimate includes solids and nonpumpable sludges, but 
excludes pumpable sludges. Pumpable sludge capacity in general is 
grouped with liquid capacity because of its limitations in particle 
size, solids content, and viscosity, and because pumpable sludges 
are often fed through the same feed ports that are used for liquids.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once EPA obtained its baseline available commercial combustion 
capacity estimate, it estimated available capacity for wastes affected 
by today's rule by subtracting required capacity for routinely 
generated F037 and F038 (69,000 tons/year) from its baseline estimate. 
This adjustment was needed because these wastes were not regulated 
during most of the 1992 base year (refer to 57 FR 37194, August 18, 
1992). EPA did not adjust its capacity estimate to account for one-time 
generation of F037 and F038 because the Agency understands that these 
wastes were generally removed prior to the June 1994 effective date of 
the LDR standards or are being left in place when the surface 
impoundments that contain them are being closed.
    EPA's estimate of available capacity takes into account capacity 
that will be required for Phase I wastes that were granted a national 
capacity variance, ignitable and corrosive wastes whose treatment 
standards were vacated (58 FR 29860, May 24, 1993), waste 
characteristics that affect the ability for a particular facility(s) to 
treat the wastes, and other factors that may limit capacity.
    EPA is also considering the capacity effects of recent court 
decisions regarding the regulation of hazardous constituents other than 
those for which the waste fails the TC test. EPA solicited comments on 
the treatment capacity effects of requiring facilities to treat the 
underlying hazardous constituents in TC organic hazardous wastes to 
meet the then-proposed universal treatment standards. Although several 
commenters submitted comments in support of or in opposition to 
requirements for treatment of underlying hazardous constituents, few 
comments were received on the specific issue of the effects of this 
requirement on treatment capacity. EPA has concluded that sufficient 
combustion capacity exists to treat underlying hazardous organic 
constituents. One commenter indicated that few facilities could achieve 
the universal treatment standards (UTS) for some metals (which may be 
present as underlying constituents) in incinerator ash without further 
treatment. However, EPA believes that stabilization should generally be 
able to achieve the UTS levels for metal underlying constituents 
present in residuals from the treatment of organic TC wastes.
    Stabilization Capacity. Stabilization may be required to treat the 
residuals of wastes covered in today's rule that contain metal 
underlying constituents. EPA estimates that over 1 million tons of 
stabilization capacity is currently available. In analyzing alternative 
treatment capacity for stabilization of newly identified and listed 
wastes, the Agency built on the capacity analysis conducted for the 
Third Third LDR rule. This analysis was based on data contained in the 
TSDR Capacity Data Set.
    Innovative (Non-combustion) Technologies. There are several non-
combustion technologies for the treatment of soil contaminated with 
RCRA hazardous wastes, including hydrolysis, vacuum extraction, 
photolysis, and oxidation. To the extent that these technologies can be 
used to treat hazardous soil on-site, the required capacity for 
combustion will decrease.
    EPA has limited information on innovative technologies with regard 
to both available capacity and to limitations of the technologies or 
constraints on the use of these technologies. EPA solicited comments on 
the use of innovative technologies for the treatment of soil 
contaminated with RCRA hazardous wastes. Specifically, EPA requested 
information regarding constraints on the use of these technologies both 
on- and off-site, including physical or chemical characteristics of the 
soils, and logistical constraints such as permitting and scheduling. 
EPA also solicited data on volumes of contaminated soil currently being 
treated by these technologies, current available capacity, and 
estimates of future capacity. EPA received two comments regarding 
innovative technologies. One commenter noted that to treat soil on-site 
requires permitting and approval by local, state, and federal agencies, 
which may be a problem for some innovative technologies. Another 
commenter stated that the chemical concentration to which a soil can be 
biotreated is influenced by the particular chemical, the soil type, the 
age of the contaminated media, and the bioremediation process. EPA 
encourages the use of innovative technologies when feasible, and 
realizes that--in some cases--use of these technologies may be limited 
by technical and non-technical considerations. Sufficient conventional 
treatment capacity is available, however, such that these limitations 
do not affect capacity determinations.

C. Surface Disposed Newly Identified and Listed Wastes

1. Required Capacity for Newly Identified TC Organics (D018-D043)
    The Agency is promulgating treatment standards for TC organic 
nonwastewaters based primarily on incineration performance data. 
Treatment standards for some newly identified organic TC wastewaters 
are also being promulgated in today's rule. (Organic TC wastewaters 
managed in systems regulated under the CWA, those injected into Class I 
injection wells as regulated under the SDWA, and those zero discharge 
facilities that engage in CWA-equivalent treatment prior to land 
disposal will be addressed in future rulemakings. EPA will make 
variance determinations for these wastes at that time.) For the 
proposed rule, the Agency did not have data indicating that facilities 
managing organic TC wastewaters would be impacted. Thus, EPA solicited 
comments in the proposed rule on the quantities of newly identified 
organic TC wastewaters affected by the rule. However, no comments were 
received on this issue. The Agency has concluded that facilities 
managing organic TC wastewaters will not be affected by this rule 
(i.e., no organic TC wastewaters will likely require alternative 
commercial treatment as a result of today's rule).
    EPA developed estimates of the quantities of newly identified TC 
organic wastes based on current management options to comply with the 
LDR requirements. EPA did not receive any data in public comments on 
the quantities of organic TC nonwastewaters containing underlying metal 
constituents. EPA estimates that approximately 220,000 tons of organic 
TC nonwastewaters are subject to this rule. (See Table 2 which presents 
the quantities of TC nonwastewaters (except for liquid nonwastewaters) 
requiring off-site treatment by waste code.) Even if all this quantity 
contained underlying metal constituents, the residuals from the 
treatment of organics could not be higher than 220,000 tons. Underlying 
metal constituents are, by definition, at levels that are below TC 
levels for metals. Stabilization is an appropriate technology for 
treating low level metal wastes. Given that ample treatment capacity 
exists for stabilization (over 1 million tons), EPA believes that 
sufficient treatment capacity exists for residuals of organic TC wastes 
containing underlying metal constituents.

 Table 2.--Quantities of TC Nonwastewaters Requiring Off-Site Commercial
                                Treatment                               
                    [Surface disposed wastes in tons]                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Nonwastewaters
                          Code                                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D018....................................................        126,000 
D019....................................................          8,700 
D020....................................................          6,300 
D021....................................................          8,500 
D022....................................................          8,400 
D023....................................................          3,900 
D024....................................................            520 
D025....................................................            310 
D026....................................................          1,500 
D027....................................................          1,200 
D028....................................................         10,800 
D029....................................................          3,800 
D030....................................................            510 
D031....................................................            200 
D032....................................................          3,300 
D033....................................................            450 
D034....................................................            410 
D035....................................................          4,200 
D036....................................................            260 
D037....................................................            600 
D038....................................................          3,600 
D039....................................................          6,900 
D040....................................................          6,600 
D041....................................................            110 
D042....................................................            120 
D043....................................................         16,500 
                                                         ---------------
TOTAL\1\................................................       220,000  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total may not sum due to rounding.                                   

    The Agency also developed estimates of available commercial 
treatment capacity. Table 3 summarizes available capacity for each 
alternative treatment technology required for the newly identified TC 
nonwastewaters. The table also summarizes the required capacity for 
each technology. A comparison of required and available treatment 
capacity indicates that adequate combustion capacity exists for TC 
nonwastewaters. Therefore, in the proposed rule, EPA indicated they 
would not be granting a national capacity variance for D018-D043 
nonwastewaters. EPA requested comments and any additional data on its 
assessment that there is adequate treatment capacity for these wastes. 
EPA received one comment on this issue. The commenter supported EPA's 
determination that sufficient capacity exists to treat D018-D043 
nonwastewaters. Thus, EPA has not changed its assessment and is not 
granting a variance for these nonwastewaters.

 Table 3.--Required and Available Capacity for Newly Identified Organic 
                              TC Wastes\1\                              
                      [All quantities are in tons]                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Available    Required
             Treatment technology                  capacity    capacity 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid Combustion..............................     1,267,000  \2\11,000
Sludge/Solid Combustion........................       438,000    220,000
Stabilization..................................  \3\1,127,000     (\4\) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Does not include hazardous soil and debris, mixed radioactive wastes,
  or deep well injected wastes.                                         
\2\These are liquid nonwastewaters.                                     
\3\Capacity analysis for the Phase I Newly Listed and Newly Identified  
  Waste rule.                                                           
\4\Stabilization capacity may be required to treat underlying metal     
  constituents in organic TC wastes after combustion.                   

2. Used Oil
    EPA's capacity assessment does not include specific quantities of 
used oil which might be subject to this rule. Absent data to the 
contrary, EPA believes that the quantities of used oil that are land 
disposed and hazardous for TC organics are relatively small. (Used oil 
that is recycled and that exhibits the TC is not subject to the land 
disposal restrictions. See 261.6(a)(4).)
    EPA has requested information and conducted various studies of 
generation, management and characteristics of used oil. Although the 
data are not comprehensive, based on all indications, most used oil is 
either recycled or reused as fuel.
    In its May 20, 1992 (57 FR 21524) final listing determination for 
used oil, the Agency concluded that only a small portion of used oil is 
land disposed (less than 10 percent of the amount generated). Although 
in general used oil could be hazardous for TC organics (benzene) and 
metals (lead), the Agency furthermore observed that the trend of 
increased recycling and the phase down of lead in gasoline under the 
Clean Air Act would decrease both the quantity of used oil that is land 
disposed and the proportion of it that is hazardous.
    To update and refine its capacity analysis for this rule, EPA 
requested comments in the September 14, 1993 proposed rule (58 FR 
48092) and reviewed available data sources. The Agency requested 
comments on the quantities of used oil that exhibit the toxicity 
characteristic and is subject to the LDRs. EPA received only one 
comment from a firm that collected over 113 million gallons of used oil 
for re-refining in 1992, but did not receive any comments on the 
amounts of used oil subject to the LDRs.
    To gain a broader perspective of used oil generation and management 
EPA examined 1991 data from the national Biennial Reporting System 
(BRS). EPA did not expect to obtain comprehensive total quantities of 
hazardous used oil generation and management; however, EPA was able to 
get the proportional management of reported waste oils. The BRS shows 
that less than one percent of all waste oil reported is landfilled. For 
example, in the `waste oil from changes' category of the 1991 BRS, 
approximately 1,400 tons was reported as landfilled. Although EPA 
believes the proportionate disposal (percent) is nationally 
representative, the total quantity was reported for waste streams from 
only a few states which indicates that the total is not comprehensive.
    We have received preliminary data from the State of New Jersey 
Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Commission. New Jersey treats used 
oil as state hazardous waste and the Commission tracks generation and 
shipping/manifest data. In the oil category, approximately 1 percent of 
used oil generated is identified as land disposed (landfilled). Of this 
1 percent we do not know how much would be hazardous for TC organics.
    Therefore, EPA believes that the quantities of used oil that are 
land disposed and are also hazardous for TC organics are small and 
sufficient reuse-as-fuel, energy recovery, and/or incineration capacity 
exists. EPA believes that a capacity variance is not warranted for 
these wastes.
3. Required Capacity for Other Newly Listed Organic Wastes
    This section presents EPA's analysis of required capacity for other 
listed organic wastes including coke by-product wastes and chlorinated 
toluene production wastes.

a. Surface Disposed Coke By-Product Wastes

K141--Process residues from the recovery of coal tar, including, but 
not limited to, tar collecting sump residues from the production of 
coke from coal or the recovery of coke by-products produced from 
coal. This listing does not include K087 (decanter tank tar sludge 
from coking operations).
K142--Tar storage tank residues from the production of coke from 
coal or the recovery of coke by-products produced from coal.
K143--Process residues from the recovery of light oil, including, 
but not limited to, those generated in stills, decanters, and wash 
oil units from the recovery of coke by-products produced from coal.
K144--Wastewater sump residues from light oil refining, including, 
but not limited to, intercepting or contamination sump sludges from 
the recovery of coke by-products produced from coal.
K145--Residues from naphthalene collection and recovery operations 
from the recovery of coke by-products produced from coal.
K147--Tar storage tank residues from coal tar refining.
K148--Residues from coal tar distillation, including but not limited 
to still bottoms.

    For coke by-product nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating 
concentration-based standards based on incineration. Under the 
authority of section 3007 of RCRA, EPA collected generation and 
management information concerning coke by-product wastes; this 
information was collected in 1985 and 1987. The majority of K141 to 
K145 nonwastewaters generated during that timeframe were recycled or 
used for energy recovery. Tar storage tank and tar distillation bottoms 
may be removed periodically. The Agency identified the following 
annualized land-disposed quantities of wastes: 49 tons of K141 
nonwastewaters, 2,750 tons of K142 nonwastewaters, 10 tons of K143 
nonwastewaters, 304 tons of K144 nonwastewaters, 1,408 tons of K147 
nonwastewaters, and less than 100 tons of K148 nonwastewaters. EPA 
identified no K145 nonwastewaters that were being land disposed. The 
Agency solicited comments on the above estimated quantities that may 
require alternative treatment as a result of the LDRs. However, no 
comments were received on this issue. Thus, EPA is using the estimates 
shown above for the quantities of these wastes that may require 
treatment capacity as a result of the LDRs.
    Current management practices indicate that the majority of the 
newly listed coke by-product wastes are amenable to recycling, and 
therefore alternative treatment may not be required as a result of 
today's final rule. Thus, EPA believes that adequate capacity exists to 
treat the small amount of wastes that require alternative treatment.
    EPA does not have any information that coke by-product wastewaters 
are currently generated. The quantity of these wastewaters is assumed 
to be zero. EPA solicited comments on changes of management practices 
or generation data on these wastes. No comments were received on this 
issue. Consequently, EPA concludes that the quantity of these 
wastewaters is zero.
    As a result of this analysis, EPA is not granting a national 
capacity variance to K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, and K148 
nonwastewaters and wastewaters; however, the Agency is granting a 
three-month variance as described in Section A for the reason described 
therein.

b. Surface Disposed Chlorinated Toluene Wastes

K149--Distillation bottoms from the production of alpha (methyl) 
chlorinated toluene, ring-chlorinated toluene, benzoyl chlorides, 
and compound with mixtures of these functional groups. (This waste 
does not include still bottoms from the distillation of benzyl 
chloride.)
K150--Organic residuals, excluding spent carbon adsorbent, from the 
spent chlorine gas and hydrochloric acid recovery processes 
associated with the production of alpha (methyl) chlorinated 
toluene, ring-chlorinated toluene, benzoyl chlorides and compounds 
with mixtures of these functional groups.
K151--Wastewater treatment sludges, excluding neutralization and 
biological sludges, generated during the treatment of wastewaters 
from the production of alpha (methyl) chlorinated toluene, ring-
chlorinated toluene, benzoyl chlorides and compounds with mixtures 
of these functional groups.

    For wastes generated during the production of chlorinated toluene, 
EPA is promulgating concentration-based treatment standards based on 
incineration for nonwastewaters. EPA collected generation and 
management information on wastes generated from the production of 
chlorinated toluene. EPA collected this information under the authority 
of section 3007 of RCRA during engineering site visits in 1988. This 
capacity analysis incorporates data from the section 3007 information 
request and engineering site visits. EPA identified four facilities 
that produce chlorinated toluene wastes.
    The Agency has identified no K149 nonwastewaters, no K150 
nonwastewaters, and less than 100 tons of K151 nonwastewaters that were 
being land disposed. For the capacity analysis, EPA assumes that these 
quantities are currently being land disposed and will require treatment 
capacity as a result of today's final rule.
    EPA solicited comments on management practices and generation data 
on these wastes. One commenter requested a variance because high 
concentrations of salt and halogenated compounds make these wastes 
difficult to incinerate. EPA contacted a commercial incineration 
facility that stated that with proper management they could treat these 
wastes. Therefore, EPA believes that a capacity variance is not 
warranted for these wastes.
    EPA does not have any information that chlorinated toluene 
wastewaters are currently generated. EPA solicited comments on changes 
of management practices or generation data on these wastes. No comments 
were received on this issue. Thus, EPA concludes that the quantity of 
these wastewaters is zero.
    Because adequate capacity exists to treat these wastes, EPA is not 
granting a national capacity variance for K149, K150, and K151 
nonwastewaters and wastewaters; however, like the other newly listed 
and identified wastes, EPA is granting a three-month variance as 
described in Section A for the reason described therein.
4. Newly Identified TC Wastes That Were Not Previously Hazardous by the 
Old EP Leaching Procedure
    In the Third Third LDR rule (55 FR 22520, June 1, 1990), EPA 
promulgated treatment standards for D012 through D017 wastes, but only 
for those wastes that were previously hazardous by the old EP leaching 
procedure and remain hazardous under the new TCLP. D012 through D017 
wastes that were not hazardous by the old EP leaching procedure but are 
now hazardous using the new TCLP are considered newly-identified D012 
through D017 wastes.
    In response to the ANPRM (56 FR 55160, October 24, 1991), EPA did 
not receive any estimates for additional waste quantities (or newly-
identified wastes) due to the use of the TCLP rather than the EP 
leaching procedure. Similarly, no estimates were received in response 
to the proposed rule. EPA believes that the quantities of the newly-
identified D012 through D017 wastes due to the use of the TCLP rather 
than the EP leaching procedure are small, if any, and, hence, expects 
little or no additional demand for commercial treatment capacity as a 
result of the LDRs. Because sufficient capacity exists to treat these 
wastes, EPA is not granting the newly-identified D012 through D017 
wastes a national capacity variance. However, the Agency is granting a 
three-month variance as described in Section A of the preamble.

D. Required and Available Capacity for Newly Listed and Identified 
Wastes Mixed with Radioactive Components

    EPA has defined a mixed RCRA/radioactive waste as any matrix 
containing a RCRA hazardous waste and a radioactive waste subject to 
the Atomic Energy Act (53 FR 37045-37046, September 23, 1988). These 
mixed wastes are subject to RCRA hazardous waste regulations, including 
the LDRs, regardless of the type of radioactive constituents contained 
in these wastes.
    Radioactive wastes that are mixed with spent solvents, dioxins, 
California list wastes, First Third, Second Third, or Third Third 
wastes, and Phase I wastes, are subject to the LDRs already promulgated 
for these hazardous wastes. EPA granted national capacity variances for 
all of these mixed wastes because of a lack of national treatment 
capacity. Today's rule addresses the radioactive wastes that contain 
newly listed and identified hazardous wastes being restricted in 
today's rulemaking.
    Based on comments received by EPA in response to the proposed rule, 
the ANPRM (56 FR 55160, October 24, 1991), and previous rulemakings, 
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is the primary generator of mixed 
RCRA/radioactive wastes. A variety of non-DOE facilities also generate 
mixed wastes, including nuclear power plants, academic and medical 
institutions, and industrial facilities.
1. Waste Generation

a. Non-soil and Non-debris Mixed Radioactive Wastes

    In April 1993, DOE released the Interim Mixed Waste Inventory 
Report (IMWIR), which included a national inventory of all mixed wastes 
that were being stored or would be generated over the next five years 
and a national inventory of mixed waste treatment capacities and 
technologies. The report provides waste stream-specific and treatment 
facility-specific information for each site managing DOE wastes. This 
report is currently being updated; however the Final Mixed Waste 
Inventory Report (MWIR) Data Base that will be used to develop the 
Final MWIR was made public in May, 1994. This Data Base was used to 
determine the quantity of DOE-generated mixed waste requiring 
treatment.
    Based on the MWIR data, EPA estimates that DOE generates 1,700 
m3/yr of non-soil, non-debris mixed radioactive waste contaminated 
with TC organic constituents. In addition, DOE currently has 19,000 
m3 of these wastes in storage. Table 4 lists the quantities of 
each category of non-soil, non-debris mixed waste that DOE expects to 
generate annually, as well as the amount currently in storage.

  Table 4.--Quantities of DOE Non-soil, Non-debris Newly Identified TC  
                    Organic Mixed Radioactive Wastes                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Current     Annual  
               Mixed waste category                inventory  generation
                                                      (m3)      (m3/yr) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-level waste (HLW)...........................     11,000       1,300
Mixed transuranic waste (MTRU)...................      4,700           1
Mixed low-level waste (MLLW).....................      3,400        400 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Mixed Radioactive Soil

    EPA derived data on the quantities of DOE mixed radioactive soils 
using MWIR data. Table 5 lists the quantities of each category of mixed 
radioactive soil that is expected to be generated annually, as well as 
the amount currently in storage. The quantity of hazardous soil in 
storage, or projected to be generated annually, is very small. This can 
be attributed to the fact that the MWIR Data Base generally does not 
include DOE environmental restoration wastes. When these wastes are 
generated they will increase the quantity of newly identified mixed 
wastes, particularly soil, that require treatment. Although these 
wastes are not included in the Final MWIR Data Base, the IMWIR 
estimates that DOE will generate a total of approximately 600,000 
m3 of mixed environmental restoration wastes over the period from 
1993 to 1997. Some of these wastes will likely be newly identified 
organic TC mixed wastes. 

      Table 5.--Quantities of DOE Newly Identified TC Organic Mixed     
                           Radioactive Soils                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Current     Annual  
              Mixed waste category                 inventory  generation
                                                     (m3)       (m3/yr) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-level waste (HLW)...........................          0           0
Mixed transuranic waste (MTRU)...................          0           0
Mixed low-level waste (MLLW).....................         20          10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Mixed Radioactive Debris

     EPA derived data on quantities of DOE mixed radioactive debris 
using MWIR data. Table 6 lists the quantities of each category of mixed 
radioactive debris that is expected to be generated annually, as well 
as the quantity currently in storage.

      Table 6.--Quantities of DOE Newly Identified TC Organic Mixed     
                           Radioactive Debris                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Current     Annual  
              Mixed waste category                 inventory  generation
                                                     (m3)       (m3/yr) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-level waste (HLW)...........................          0           0
Mixed transuranic waste (MTRU)...................     18,000         380
Mixed low-level waste (MLLW).....................     14,000         650
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Available Capacity and Capacity Implications

a. Non-soil and Non-debris Mixed Radioactive Wastes

    EPA's review of IMWIR data indicates that 4,000 m3 of 
treatment capacity are available annually for HLW at three DOE 
treatment systems. The available capacity appears sufficient to treat 
the estimated average annual generation. However, the IMWIR indicates 
that the current national inventory of HLW is greater than 280,000 
m3. This quantity dwarfs DOE's annual available treatment capacity 
for HLW. Consequently, DOE faces a treatment capacity shortfall for 
high-level radioactive wastes.
    DOE is developing the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in New 
Mexico as a permanent repository for DOE TRU wastes, including MTRU 
wastes. However, DOE is not yet authorized to begin the placement of 
TRU wastes in the WIPP. In addition, wastes received at the WIPP must 
meet DOE's WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria (WIPP-WAC). DOE is still in 
the planning stages for facilities designed to prepare MTRU wastes for 
shipment to the WIPP. As a result, DOE faces a capacity shortfall for 
treatment of MTRU wastes.
    EPA's review of the IMWIR data indicates that 340 m3/yr of 
currently available capacity exists at four DOE treatment systems for 
the treatment of alpha MLLW (i.e., MLLW with an alpha particle content 
between 10 and 100 nCi/g). However, the available capacity is greatly 
exceeded by the estimated quantity of alpha MLLW requiring treatment 
annually over the next five years, 3,700 m3. Consequently, DOE 
faces a treatment capacity shortfall for non-soil, non-debris alpha 
MLLW.
    According to IMWIR, 1,000,000 m3/yr of treatment capacity 
among 26 systems are currently available to treat non-alpha MLLW. 
However, IMWIR states that most of DOE's currently available treatment 
capacity for MLLW is represented by facilities limited to the treatment 
of wastewaters (defined by DOE as less than 1 percent total suspended 
solids (TSS)). While these treatment facilities provide excess capacity 
for MLLW wastewaters, they cannot process wastes with high TSS and are 
not readily adaptable for other waste forms. Thus, although the 
quantity of MLLW treatment capacity is greater than the total quantity 
of mixed wastes, DOE faces a treatment capacity shortfall for 
nonwastewater MLLW, and thus non-alpha MLLW.
     While DOE has provided its best available data on mixed waste 
generation, uncertainty remains about mixed waste generation at DOE 
(and non-DOE) facilities. For example, not all DOE Field Organizations 
responded to DOE's request for information following publication of the 
ANPRM. In addition, the data submitted to EPA generally did not include 
DOE environmental restoration wastes which, when generated, will 
increase the quantity of newly identified mixed wastes that require 
treatment. The IMWIR estimates that DOE will generate a total of 
600,000 m3 of mixed environmental restoration wastes over the 
period from 1993 to 1997. Although the IMWIR notes that the estimates 
of DOE environmental restoration wastes are preliminary, the quantities 
noted above will place additional strains on DOE's limited available 
mixed waste treatment capacity.
    Although DOE is in the process of increasing its capacity to manage 
mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes, information supplied by DOE indicates 
that a significant capacity shortfall currently exists for the 
treatment of mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes, much of which are in 
storage facilities awaiting treatment. DOE has indicated that it will 
generally give treatment priority to mixed wastes that are already 
restricted under previous LDR rules (e.g., radioactive wastes mixed 
with solvents, dioxins, California list wastes, First Third, Second 
Third, or Third Third wastes, and Phase I wastes). DOE is also 
concerned about the availability of treatment capacity for mixed wastes 
that will be generated as a result of site remediation activities. 
EPA's review of non-DOE data sources also showed a significant lack of 
commercial treatment capacity.
    In response to the Phase II proposed rule, EPA received six 
comments concerning the proposal to grant a two-year national capacity 
variance for non-soil, non-debris TC organic mixed radioactive wastes. 
All six commenters, including DOE, were in favor of the two-year 
national capacity variance. Furthermore, none of the commenters 
identified any additional treatment capacity for the wastes. Thus, 
despite the uncertainty about the exact quantities of mixed radioactive 
wastes containing newly listed and identified wastes that will require 
treatment as a result of today's rule, the quantities appear to exceed 
available capacity. In addition, any new commercial capacity that does 
become available will be needed for mixed radioactive wastes that were 
regulated in previous LDR rulemakings and whose variances have already 
expired. Therefore, EPA has determined that sufficient alternative 
treatment capacity is not available for mixed radioactive wastes 
contaminated with newly listed and identified wastes whose standards 
are being promulgated today, and thus is granting a two-year national 
capacity variance for these wastes.

b. Mixed Radioactive Soil

    EPA's review of IMWIR data indicates that no available treatment 
capacity exists at DOE facilities for mixed radioactive soils. As 
indicated earlier, a preliminary estimate of mixed radioactive soil is 
approximately 10 m3/yr. Therefore, EPA is granting a two-year 
national capacity variance for mixed radioactive soils.

c. Mixed Radioactive Debris

    EPA's review of IMWIR data indicates that less than 2 m\3\/yr of 
treatment capacity is available that can accept mixed low-level debris, 
an amount that exceeds the estimated annual generation. In addition, 
DOE has not yet been authorized to begin placement of MTRU wastes into 
the WIPP. As a result, DOE faces a treatment capacity shortfall for 
mixed transuranic debris. Therefore, EPA is granting a two-year 
national capacity variance to debris contaminated with mixed 
radioactive wastes.

E. Required and Available Capacity for High TOC Ignitable, TC 
Pesticide, and Newly Listed Wastes Injected Into Class I Deep Wells

    As explained in previous rules concerning 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 allocating 
available capacity first to those wastes disposed in surface units, 
second to wastes resulting from CERCLA and RCRA clean ups, and finally 
to underground injected wastes. Based on this hierarchical approach, 
the Agency is promulgating the following effective dates for injected 
wastes.
    EPA still has very limited information which differentiates high 
TOC D001 ignitable wastes from low TOC D001 ignitable wastes, 
particularly with reference to the type of Class I injection well 
(i.e., nonhazardous versus hazardous) into which the wastes are 
disposed. The information the Agency does have indicates that both D001 
ignitable wastes and D012-D017 TC pesticide wastes are deep well 
injected into Class I hazardous wells with no-migration variances. EPA 
is concerned that since these wastes are being generated, the potential 
exists that diluted D001 ignitable wastes and D012-D017 TC pesticide 
wastes are also being injected into Class I nonhazardous wells. In the 
proposed rule, EPA estimated that, based on management practices, low 
volumes of diluted high TOC ignitable waste were injected into Class I 
nonhazardous wells, and less than 420 tons of D012-D017 pesticide 
wastes are deep well injected into Class I nonhazardous wells. However, 
several commenters to the proposed rule, and other industries with 
Class I injection wells, have indicated that it would be extremely 
difficult to identify, segregate, treat, and/or arrange for disposal of 
these waste streams in a short time frame. This may be particularly 
true if waste volumes for high TOC D001 ignitable wastes are discovered 
to greatly exceed earlier estimates. The facilities, depending on their 
Class I injection wells, would have to reconfigure their disposal 
systems, which may include the construction or rearrangement of 
wastelines or piping.
    To allow sufficient time to address these logistical problems, EPA 
is granting a one-year national capacity variance to allow the Class I 
injection facilities an appropriate lead time to identify their 
decharacterized high TOC D001 and D012-D017 waste streams and to create 
an infrastructure that allows their alternative management consistent 
with today's rule and the statute. This may include installation of 
equipment to segregate wastes. For operators applying for no-migration 
petitions, the variance will allow time for conducting the modelling or 
other analysis, for EPA review, and for the operators to make 
alternative arrangements if the petitions are not granted.
    The following wastes are the newly listed wastes for which 
numerical standards are being promulgated, and which current data 
indicate are not being underground injected:

Coke By-Product Wastes: K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, K148
Chlorotoluene Production Wastes: K149, K150, K151

    The Agency requested further comment on whether any of these wastes 
are being injected. Comment was also requested on what quantities of 
wastes are being injected, and on the characteristics of these wastes. 
However, no comments were received on this issue. EPA is therefore not 
granting a national capacity variance for coke production wastes (K141-
K145, K147, K148) and for chlorotoluene production wastes (K149-K151) 
injected into Class I deep wells.

F. Required and Available Capacity for Hazardous Soil and Debris 
Contaminated with Newly Listed and Identified Wastes

    This capacity analysis focuses on hazardous soil and debris 
contaminated with wastes whose treatment standards are promulgated in 
today's rule.
    EPA used several data sources to estimate the total quantity of 
land-disposed hazardous soil and debris. These sources include: 
responses to the Advance Notice to the Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for 
the newly identified wastes (56 FR 55160); the TC Survey; information 
provided during a series of roundtable meetings held by the Agency in 
May and June of 1991 with representatives of companies involved in the 
management and disposal of hazardous debris and soil; the Biennial 
Reporting System (BRS); Records of Decision (RODs) of Superfund sites; 
the TSDR Survey; and the National Survey of Hazardous Waste 
Generators.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\EPA conducted the surveys during 1987 and 1988 to obtain 
comprehensive data on the nation's capacity for managing hazardous 
waste and the volumes of hazardous waste being land disposed as well 
as data on waste generation, waste characterization, and hazardous 
waste treatment capacity in units exempt from RCRA permitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Waste Generation

a. Hazardous Soil

    The hazardous soil covered by this rule includes soil contaminated 
with D018-D043 organic TC wastes, and soils contaminated with coke by-
product wastes and chlorinated toluene wastes. The largest quantity of 
hazardous soil affected by today's rulemaking is hazardous soil 
contaminated with D018-D043 organic TC wastes. At the time of the 
proposal, the Agency estimated that approximately 233,000 tons per year 
of TC soils would require off-site treatment and the majority of these 
TC soils was expected to be generated from surface impoundment 
closures. Based on new data received from owners/operators concerning 
surface impoundment closure practices, the Agency now estimates that 
the annual quantities of TC soil that is land disposed and subject to 
the LDRs ranges from 70,000 to 120,000 tons. Because TC soil generation 
from surface impoundment closures is somewhat discretionary, decisions 
by owners/operators of facilities concerning closure methods 
significantly changed the generation rates previously estimated in the 
TC Survey.
    The Agency contacted facilities expected to generate TC soils from 
surface impoundment closures in 1993, 1994, and 1995 to confirm 
generation rates. Nearly all of the owners/operators revised their 
estimates for TC soil generation downward. Most owners/operators 
revised their closure practices to minimize or eliminate TC soil 
generation. Some facilities closed impoundments prior to today's 
rulemaking and other facilities are closing their impoundments as 
landfills. In closing as a landfill, a facility closes the impoundment 
with the waste in place. The facility owners/operators remove all free 
liquids, stabilize the sludges, cap the impoundment, and establish a 
ground water monitoring system. Therefore, for these facilities, no LDR 
treatment capacity would be necessary for TC soils. Of the facilities 
that predicted TC soil generation in 1994 and 1995, no facility 
currently expects to ship TC soils generated from a surface impoundment 
closure off-site for LDR treatment.
    However, for at least two facilities, some uncertainty existed 
concerning the ability of these facilities to ship all of their TC 
soils off-site prior to today's rulemaking. Nevertheless, even if these 
facilities generated all their TC soils after today's rulemaking, the 
impact on LDR treatment capacity would be minimal because these 
facilities were expected to generate only 5,300 tons of TC soils. 
Therefore, only 5,300 tons of TC soils generated by surface impoundment 
closures might require off-site treatment.
    The Agency also reviewed the TC data base and public information on 
specific facilities to assess the TC soil generation rate from routine 
and sporadic activities that might require off-site disposal. For this 
analysis, the Agency assumed that routine activities and the quantity 
of soil generated should be considered constant over time when 
analyzing the generator population as a whole. However, for sporadic 
activities (e.g. surface impoundment closures), which by their nature 
occur infrequently, the year in which they occur is critically 
important in determining the required capacity for soil when the rule 
becomes effective.
    In the TC Survey, some TC wastes were only characterized as a 
mixture of soil and debris. For the lower bound estimate (70,000 tons), 
the Agency assumed a 50-50 ratio of soil and debris in mixtures 
characterized as soil and debris. Using this assumption, EPA estimates 
that approximately 70,000 tons of TC soils generated by routine and 
sporadic activities will require additional treatment annually. In 
addition, in this lower bound estimate, the Agency assumed that all 
facilities were able to manage the TC soils generated from surface 
impoundment closures prior to the effective date of today's rule. 
Therefore, for the lower bound estimate, no TC soils from surface 
impoundment closures are expected to require additional treatment 
capacity. Based on these assumptions, the Agency calculates that the 
lower bound estimate is 70,000 tons of TC soils per year.
    For the upper bound estimate, the Agency assigned the entire 
quantity of mixtures of soil and debris reported in the TC survey as TC 
soils. As a result, the TC soil generation rate for routine and 
sporadic activities increased by about 20,000 tons. The Agency 
conducted a similar review of facilities that submitted confidential 
business information (CBI) concerning TC soil generation rates. When 
assuming a 100 percent of mixtures were TC soils, these facilities were 
estimated to generate an additional 53,000 tons of TC soils for a total 
of 143,000 tons.
    To verify the accuracy of the upper bound estimate, the Agency 
contacted individual facilities to determine actual TC soil generation 
rates. Based on these contacts, the TC data base overestimated TC soil 
generation from routine and sporadic activities. Many facilities stated 
that actual generation rates were lower or that the estimate included 
one time wastes from surface impoundment closures that already 
occurred. Therefore, when the Agency revised the upper bound estimates, 
TC soil generation rates for routine and sporadic activities at all 
facilities (non-CBI and CBI facilities) were approximately 114,000 
tons. After adding the 5,300 tons of TC soils generated by surface 
impoundment closures, the estimated upper bound quantity of TC soil 
requiring additional treatment is approximately 120,000 tons per year.
    Due to reduced generation of TC soils from surface impoundment 
closures in 1994 and 1995 and overestimations of TC soil generation 
rates from routine and sporadic activities, the Agency estimates that 
between 70,000 and 120,000 tons per year of TC soils will require off-
site treatment.
    At the time of the proposed rulemaking, the Agency was uncertain 
concerning the quantities of TC soil generated from manufactured gas 
plants (MGP). Most of the soil generated at these plants is expected to 
be contaminated with benzene. EPA requested updated information on the 
generation and management of these wastes and on whether there will be 
sufficient commercial treatment services to treat these wastes on-site. 
No comments were received that specified quantities of soil generated 
or discussed commercial capacity for contaminated soils. While EPA 
acknowledges that generation of TC-contaminated soil from MGP will 
occur, the Agency expects that most of this quantity will be managed 
on-site and will not require off-site or commercial treatment capacity. 
Therefore, EPA has concluded that TC-contaminated soil from MGPs will 
not significantly affect the required treatment capacity for soil.
    Similarly, several commenters to the ANPRM indicated that EPA may 
have underestimated the annual quantities of hazardous soil generated. 
Some commenters provided site specific data on the quantities of soil 
generated during remedial actions. The Agency incorporated these data 
in its analysis of the required capacity for hazardous soil.
    In the proposed rule, EPA requested comments on the use of 
innovative technologies for hazardous soil. Specifically, EPA requested 
information on constraints to the use of these technologies both on- 
and off-site, including physical or chemical characteristics of the 
wastes, and logistical constraints such as permitting and scheduling. 
One commenter noted that to treat soil on-site requires permitting and 
approval by local, state, and federal agencies, which may be a problem 
for some innovative technologies. Another said that the chemical 
concentration to which a soil can be biotreated is influenced by the 
particular chemical, the soil type, the age of the contaminated media, 
and the bioremediation process. EPA has taken these comments into 
account in estimating the available capacity provided by innovative 
technologies for the treatment of hazardous soil.

b. Hazardous Debris

    This rule covers debris contaminated with the newly listed and 
identified wastes covered in this rule. As shown in Table 7, data from 
the TC Survey indicates that approximately 34,000 tons of debris 
contaminated with D018-D043 wastes may be currently land disposed. 

    Table 7.--Quantities of TC-Contaminated Debris Requiring Off-Site   
                                Treatment                               
                   [Surface disposed wastes in tons]                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Code                                 Debris  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D018.......................................................       26,400
D019.......................................................          220
D020.......................................................           20
D021.......................................................          210
D022.......................................................           80
D023.......................................................           60
D024.......................................................           60
D025.......................................................           60
D026.......................................................          700
D027.......................................................          290
D028.......................................................          280
D029.......................................................          330
D030.......................................................           90
D031.......................................................           10
D032.......................................................           70
D033.......................................................          110
D034.......................................................           40
D035.......................................................          300
D036.......................................................           70
D037.......................................................          130
D038.......................................................          570
D039.......................................................          970
D040.......................................................          890
D041.......................................................           20
D042.......................................................           20
D043.......................................................        1,700
                                                            ------------
Total\1\...................................................      34,000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total may not sum due to rounding.                                   

2. Current Management Practices
    Waste generators and TSDFs report that most of the soils 
contaminated with D018-D043 newly identified organic TC wastes are 
currently landfilled without prior treatment. Incineration is the 
commercial off-site treatment technology reportedly available for these 
wastes.
    Other than incineration for treating organic TC-contaminated soil, 
EPA has no information on the commercial off-site availability of other 
treatment technologies (e.g., low temperature thermal desorption, 
bioremediation, solvent extraction). Although several commenters to the 
ANPRM mentioned bioremediation as an alternative to incineration for 
the treatment of TC-contaminated soils, no commenter provided facility 
specific information on commercially available off-site treatment 
capacity for this technology. The lack of off-site commercial capacity 
for technologies other than incineration was confirmed by responses to 
EPA's request for voluntary information from vendors of innovative 
technologies provided in the Vendor Information System for Innovative 
Treatment Technologies (VISITT). At the time of the proposed rule, EPA 
had received no information that special-handling problems may limit 
the quantity of hazardous soil that currently can be treated by 
incineration, and EPA requested information on special-handling 
concerns with managing these wastes. No comments were received on this 
issue. Thus, EPA has concluded that the quantity of hazardous soil that 
can be treated by incineration will not be limited by special-handling 
problems.
3. Available Capacity and Capacity Implications

a. Hazardous Soil

    EPA is requiring that hazardous soil be treated prior to land 
disposal. EPA has determined that available destruction (e.g., 
incineration) and immobilization (e.g., stabilization) capacity exists. 
Some additional capacity also exists from many of the technologies in 
the extraction family (e.g., soil washing, chemical extraction). 
However, some of the capacity of extraction technologies currently used 
to decontaminate soils, such as soil washing, may not have received 
requisite permits by the effective date of this rule, although EPA is 
exploring the various opportunities for these technologies to become 
operational in an expedited manner. (Please contact the appropriate EPA 
regional office or the state hazardous waste program.) Thus, EPA 
anticipates that the off-site commercial capacity available to treat 
hazardous soils at the time this rule becomes effective will be limited 
to incineration and stabilization.
    EPA recognizes that innovative technologies are also available to 
treat hazardous soil. Performance of these technologies also may be the 
basis for treatability variances pursuant to Sec. 268.44(h). EPA 
requested comments on the practicality and current availability of 
these technologies. EPA received comments that the proposed soil 
standards cannot be met by bioremediation, but may be met by innovative 
technologies such as thermal desorption and soil vapor extraction. 
However, EPA did not receive any comments on the current availability 
of these technologies. Thus, EPA has concluded that the off-site 
treatment capacity for hazardous soils will initially be limited to 
incineration and stabilization.
    The Agency also solicited comments on the need for a capacity 
variance and on estimates of available treatment capacity. One 
commenter opposed the proposed capacity variance for soils and said 
that EPA should--at the very least--require treatment of ``hot spots.'' 
Several commenters supported the two-year national capacity variance. 
However, EPA has determined that a national capacity variance is 
unnecessary for hazardous soils.

b. Hazardous Debris

    EPA estimates that approximately 34,000 tons of debris contaminated 
with newly identified organic TC wastes are currently land disposed and 
require off-site commercial treatment capacity. The capacity analysis 
conducted for debris contaminated with Phase II wastes indicates that 
sufficient capacity exists to treat debris contaminated with organics. 
Therefore, EPA is not granting a national capacity variance for 
hazardous debris contaminated with organic TC wastes and other listed 
organic wastes covered in this rule.

XV. State Authority

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to 
administer and enforce the RCRA program within the State. Following 
authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under sections 3008, 
3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized States have primary 
enforcement responsibility. The standards and requirements for 
authorization are found in 40 CFR part 271.
    Prior to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a 
State with final authorization administered its hazardous waste program 
in lieu of EPA administering the Federal program in that State. The 
Federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized State, and EPA 
could not issue permits for any facilities that the State was 
authorized to permit. When new, more stringent Federal requirements 
were promulgated or enacted, the State was obliged to enact equivalent 
authority within specified time frames. New Federal requirements did 
not take effect in an authorized State until the State adopted the 
requirements as State law.
    In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new 
requirements and prohibitions imposed by HSWA take effect in authorized 
States at the same time that they take effect in nonauthorized States. 
EPA is directed to carry out these requirements and prohibitions in 
authorized States, including the issuance of permits, until the State 
is granted authorization to do so. While States must still adopt HSWA-
related provisions as State law to retain final authorization, HSWA is 
implemented Federally in authorized States in the interim.
    Certain portions of today's rule are being promulgated pursuant to 
sections 3004 (d) through (k), and (m), of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6924 (d) 
through (k), and (m)). These will be added to Table 1 in 40 CFR 
271.1(j), which identifies the Federal program requirements that are 
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and that take effect in all States, 
regardless of their authorization status. States may apply for either 
interim or final authorization for the HSWA provisions in Table 1, as 
discussed in the following section of this preamble. Table 2 in 40 CFR 
271.1(j) is also modified to indicate that this rule is a self-
implementing provision of HSWA.

B. Effect on State Authorization

    As noted above, today's rule, with the exception of the changes in 
the definition of solid waste (see preamble section IX, and further 
discussion in this section, below), will be implemented in authorized 
States until their programs are modified to adopt these rules and the 
modification is approved by EPA. Because the rule is promulgated 
pursuant to HSWA, a State submitting a program modification may apply 
to receive either interim or final authorization under RCRA section 
3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on the basis of requirements that 
are substantially equivalent or equivalent to EPA's. The procedures and 
schedule for State program modifications for either interim or final 
authorization are described in 40 CFR 271.21. On December 18, 1992, EPA 
extended the period allowing interim authorization to January 1, 2003 
(see 40 CFR 271.24(c) and 57 FR 60129).
    Section 271.21(e)(2) requires that States that have final 
authorization must modify their programs to reflect Federal program 
changes and must subsequently submit the modification to EPA for 
approval. The deadline by which the State would have to modify its 
program to adopt these regulations is specified in section 271.21(e). 
Once EPA approves the modification, the State requirements become 
Subtitle C RCRA requirements.
    States with authorized RCRA programs may already have requirements 
similar to those in today's rule. These State regulations have not been 
assessed against the Federal regulations being promulgated today to 
determine whether they meet the tests for authorization. Thus, a State 
is not authorized to implement these requirements in lieu of EPA until 
the State program modifications are approved. Of course, states with 
existing standards could continue to administer and enforce their 
standards as a matter of State law. In the period between the effective 
date of today's rule and the approval of state program modifications, 
the regulated communities in authorized states generally must comply 
with state regulations in addition to the provisions in today's rule. 
The regulated community should continue to consult with state agencies 
authorized to administer LDRs. In implementing the Federal program, EPA 
will work with States under agreements to minimize duplication of 
efforts. In many cases, EPA will be able to defer to the States in 
their efforts to implement their programs rather than take separate 
actions under Federal authority.
    States that submit official applications for final authorization 
less than 12 months after the effective date of these regulations are 
not required to include standards equivalent to these regulations in 
their application. However, the State must modify its program by the 
deadline set forth in Sec. 271.21(e). States that submit official 
applications for final authorization 12 months after the effective date 
of these regulations must include standards equivalent to these 
regulations in their application. The requirements a state must meet 
when submitting its final authorization application are set forth in 40 
CFR 271.3.
    The regulations promulgated today need not affect the State's 
Underground Injection Control (UIC) primacy status. A State currently 
authorized to administer the UIC program under the Safe Drinking Water 
Act (SDWA) could continue to do so without seeking authority to 
administer the amendments that will be promulgated at a future date. 
However, a State which wished to implement Part 148 and receive 
authorization to grant exemptions from the land disposal restrictions 
would have to demonstrate that it had the requisite authority to 
administer sections 3004 (f) and (g) of RCRA. The conditions under 
which such an authorization may take place are summarized below and are 
discussed in a July 15, 1985 final rule (50 FR 28728).
    The modifications to the definition of solid waste in this rule 
(see preamble section IX) are based on non-HSWA authority. This portion 
of the rule, because it is not based on HSWA authority, will be 
applicable immediately only in those States that do not have final RCRA 
authorization. In authorized States, these requirements will not apply 
until the States revise their programs to adopt equivalent requirements 
under State law. In addition, this modification broadens the ``closed-
loop'' recycling exclusion from the definition of solid waste. The 
modification to this rule is less stringent, or reduces the scope of, 
the Federal program. Therefore, although EPA strongly encourages timely 
adoption, authorized States are not required to modify their programs 
to adopt regulations consistent with and equivalent to this provision.

XVI. Regulatory Requirements

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866

     Executive Order No. 12866 requires agencies to determine whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant.'' The Order defines a 
``significant'' regulatory action as one that ``is likely to result in 
a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a 
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities; (2) create serious inconsistency or 
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; 
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user 
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients; or 
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, 
the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the 
Executive Order.''
    The Agency estimated the costs of today's final rule to determine 
if it is a significant regulation as defined by the Executive Order. 
The incremental compliance costs for today's rule were estimated as a 
range from $194 to $219 million per year. Therefore, today's final rule 
is considered an economically significant rule, having an annual effect 
on the economy of over $100 million. The Agency prepared a regulatory 
impact analysis which analyzed the costs, economic impacts, and 
benefits of today's final rule.
    This section of the preamble for today's final rule provides a 
discussion of the methodology used for estimating the costs, economic 
impacts and the benefits attributable to today's final rule, followed 
by a presentation of the cost, economic impact and benefit results. 
Limitations to these estimates are described in the results section. 
More detailed discussions of the methodology and results may be found 
in the background document, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Land 
Disposal Restrictions Final Rule for the Phase 2 Newly Listed and 
Identified Wastes,'' which has been placed in the docket for today's 
final rule.
1. Methodology Section
    In today's final rule, the Agency is establishing treatment 
standards for newly identified and listed wastes, as well as any soils 
and debris which are contaminated with such wastes. (The Agency plans 
to develop alternative standards for hazardous soils as a part of the 
Hazardous Wastes Identification Rule (HWIR).) The newly identified 
wastes covered under today's rule include wastes displaying the organic 
toxicity characteristic (TC), and pesticide wastes that were not 
previously hazardous by the EP leaching procedure. The newly listed 
wastes are Coke By-product wastes and Chlorotoluene wastes.
    Of the newly regulated hazardous soil in today's rule, the only 
existing volumes are soils contaminated with TC wastes. (Any volumes of 
soil contaminated with F037 and F038 listed wastes which exist are not 
covered in today's rule, but are being covered in a future Agency 
rulemaking.) Finally, the Agency is promulgating new testing and 
recordkeeping requirements, as well as reducing other recordkeeping 
requirements.
    Furthermore, today's final rule proposes Universal Treatment 
Standards (UTS) for wastes already regulated under the LDRs. The 
Agency's analysis includes an analysis of the volumes affected by this 
change in treatment levels. (In the switch to UTS levels there are 
cases where the new UTS level is less stringent than the existing 
listing levels, as well as cases where the UTS is more stringent than 
existing levels. Either of these cases would have the potential to 
change the costs associated with treatment of these wastes.)

a. Methodology for Estimating the Affected Universe

    In determining the costs, economic impacts, and benefits associated 
with today's rule, the Agency estimated the volumes of TC 
nonwastewaters, Coke By-Product wastes, and Chlorotoluene wastes 
affected by today's rule. For the TC wastes, the Agency employed the 
1995 volume estimates presented for each affected waste in the Agency's 
1992 TC Census Database (hereafter referred to as the ``TC Survey''). 
(There are several ways in which the volumes employed for the capacity 
determinations differ from those used in the RIA.) The capacity 
determinations section of the preamble describes the methods used there 
to determine volumes. The scope of the RIA differs from that of the 
capacity determination in the ``time window'' analyzed. The RIA 
examines the short- and long-term impacts from the rule. Capacity 
determinations, on the other hand, are made for a two year time frame 
beginning at the promulgation of today's rule.
    The Agency employed the volumes of Coke By-Products and 
Chlorotoluene wastes estimated in their respective listing analyses. 
For Coke By-Products, current management practices suggest that no 
volumes will be land disposed.

b. Cost Methodology

     The cost analysis estimates the national level incremental costs 
which will be incurred as a result of today's rule. The cost estimates 
for both the baseline and post-regulatory scenarios are calculated 
employing: (i) The facility wastestream volume, (ii) the management 
practice (baseline or post-regulatory) assigned to that wastestream, 
and (iii) the unit cost associated with that practice. Summing the 
costs for all facilities produces the total costs for the given waste 
and scenario. Subtracting the baseline cost from the post-regulatory 
cost produces the national incremental cost associated with today's 
rule for the given waste. The unit costs include costs for Subtitle D 
and Subtitle C disposal (as appropriate), and transportation costs 
where necessary; all dollar estimates are in 1993 dollars (unless 
otherwise noted.)
    Each section below summarizes the baseline and post-regulatory 
management practices assignments for each waste. The unit costs 
employed for the management practices are summarized in the RIA 
background document for today's rule.
    The cost methodology section includes three sub-sections: (i) TC 
organic wastes, (ii) Other newly identified wastes, (iii) Testing, 
record-keeping, and permit modification costs.

i. Organic Toxicity Characteristic Wastes (D018-D043)

    The standards established in today's rule for the organic TC wastes 
require the treatment of all underlying hazardous constituents. The 
affected TC wastes can be divided into three groups: TC nonwastewaters, 
TC soils, and TC debris. While TC wastewaters which are not managed in 
CWA or CWA-equivalent units are being regulated in today's rule, the 
current management practices for these volumes do not trigger land 
disposal (RCRA exempt tanks, etc.), and therefore are not subject to 
the LDRs. Below, EPA describes the method of estimating the costs 
incurred in complying with the TC standards in today's rule.
    In establishing a baseline for the TC nonwastewaters, TC hazardous 
soils, and TC hazardous debris affected by today's rule, the Agency 
assumed Subtitle C landfilling as the current management practice. The 
Agency believes that there are TC wastes which are not affected by 
today's rule because they are already being treated to comply with the 
standards established in today's rule (e.g.: wastes with high BTU value 
which are being used as fuel, etc.). The Agency assumed that 
landfilling was occurring on-site for noncommercial (company captive) 
facilities, and off-site for commercial facilities. Employing today's 
requirement of treating for all underlying constituents reasonably 
expected to be present, the Agency developed technology assignments for 
the wastes at each facility. The assignments include a treatment 
technology (or treatment train where required), and subsequent Subtitle 
D disposal. These assignments were based on waste characterization and 
constituent concentration data. Where little or no such data were 
available for a wastestream, the weighted average unit cost was 
assigned (the weighted average unit cost was calculated separately for 
nonwastewaters, soils, and debris).
    The Agency allows a generator of hazardous soil to apply for a 
treatability variance. The Agency, however, has not analyzed the 
potential short-term savings which could be realized in the management 
of hazardous soil, and therefore may have overestimated the cost 
impacts of the rule in the short-term. There is also some uncertainty 
where certain technologies will be available to treat TC 
nonwastewaters. The Agency performed a sensitivity analysis to 
characterize this uncertainty, which is included in the RIA Background 
Document.

ii. Other Newly Identified Wastes

    In addition to organic TC wastes, the wastes affected by today's 
final rule include coke by-product and chlorotoluene wastes. Based on 
an economic analysis conducted by the Agency for the listing of coke 
by-product waste, generators recycle these wastes rather than disposing 
of them in Subtitle C landfills. Therefore, EPA estimates that 
negligible volumes of coke by-product wastes would be affected by this 
rule. For the chlorotoluene waste volumes, EPA conducted a detailed 
cost analysis using site specific data.

iii. Testing, Recordkeeping, and Permit Modification Costs

    In addition to the costs for treatment of wastes, EPA estimated the 
incremental costs of the testing and recordkeeping requirements in 
today's rule. Testing and recordkeeping costs were developed for all 
wastes addressed in today's rule.
    The Agency examined the incremental cost of the testing 
requirements under today's rule. The Agency considered the baseline 
scenario to include testing for waste identification. The post-
regulatory scenario would include testing for waste identification, 
testing to determine the number and concentration of constituents 
requiring treatment, and testing following treatment to ensure 
compliance with the standards.
    For the analysis of recordkeeping costs, the Agency employed the 
estimates developed in the Information Collection Request (ICR) for 
today's rule. These estimates were employed in a facility specific 
analysis to develop a total incremental cost associated with the 
testing and recordkeeping requirements in today's rule.
    The Agency also performed a sensitivity analysis on potential 
permit modification costs for facilities which may switch to on-site 
treatment. EPA applied a schedule of payments based on the costs of 
permit modifications to a group of nine facilities. The results of this 
analysis are provided in the Background Document RIA.

c. Waste Minimization Methodology

    Since reducing waste generation may be less costly than treating 
these wastes to LDR standards, the Agency performed an analysis 
examining the potential waste minimization alternatives available to 
facilities. The analysis followed a multi-step methodology which 
included: (1) Develop a profile of the industries which indicated plans 
for waste minimization in the 1992 TC Survey Database, (2) select 
industries to examine which would be representative of the TC waste 
universe, (3) make telephone data verification calls to facilities 
within these industries, (4) determine the cost components for the 
post-regulatory and waste minimization scenarios for all wastestreams 
for those facilities, (5) estimate whether potential total costs/cost 
savings for the waste minimization and the post-regulatory (i.e., 
without waste minimization) scenarios would be a profitable investment 
for the firms, and (6) extrapolate results to the TC waste universe, 
and determine overall cost/cost savings.

d. Economic Impact Methodology

    The economic effects of today's final rule are defined as the 
difference between the industrial activity under post-regulatory 
conditions and the industrial activity in the absence of regulation 
(i.e., baseline conditions). It should be noted that the volumes used 
for the economic impacts analysis do not include the reduction in 
volumes, and thus in costs, from waste minimization practices.
    The Agency has evaluated the economic impacts for facilities 
managing organic TC wastes on a facility specific basis, limited only 
by the extent that data were available. EPA estimated the economic 
effects by comparing incremental annual compliance costs to a number of 
company financial measures, such as revenues, cost of operations, 
operating income, and net income. Financial data were obtained from 
Standard & Poor's Corporation Descriptions for the last fiscal year 
reported.
    Since EPA believes that no costs will be associated with the 
treatment standards for coke by-products in the final rule, no economic 
impacts will be associated with regulation of these wastes. Economic 
impacts of compliance for facilities currently land disposing 
chlorotoluenes were evaluated in aggregated form, as information 
relating to these wastes are proprietary.

e. Benefits Methodology

    This section discusses the benefit estimates for today's rule. The 
section includes: i. Analysis of the universal treatment standards, ii. 
hazardous waste recycling exemption, iii. groundwater pathway benefits, 
and iv. air pathway benefits.

i. Analysis of the Impact of the Universal Treatment Standards

    To determine the cost implications of the Universal Treatment 
Standards (UTS), the Agency compared the UTS levels for each 
constituent to those levels established for each constituent in each 
waste code in the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program to date.
    The Agency assumed that there would only be a cost impact when the 
levels were sufficiently different to require a change in the treatment 
technology used in order to meet the new UTS levels. The comparison of 
levels rendered three results: (a) No cost impact because the 
constituent levels were the same, (b) no cost impact because the 
constituent levels were within one order of magnitude of each other, or 
(c) a potential cost impact because the constituent levels were greater 
than one order of magnitude apart.
    Upon identifying those waste code/constituent pairs which were 
significantly different (i.e., greater than one order of magnitude), 
the Agency developed an estimate of the costs/cost savings based on the 
incremental difference in the previous technology required and the new 
technology required to meet the specified levels.

ii. Hazardous Waste Recycling Exemption

    The Agency also estimated the potential cost savings resulting from 
the hazardous waste recycling exemption for K069 wastes. Obtaining 
volumes data from the Biennial Reporting System (BRS), and employing 
unit cost data, the Agency calculated the cost savings associated with 
the change allowed in management practices. The Agency limited the 
analysis to K069 wastestreams that are not mixed with other hazardous 
waste codes, since these mixtures may not be amenable or legal for 
recycling.

iii. Human Health Risk Reduction--Groundwater Pathway

    The Agency evaluated two types of human health benefits for today's 
rule: reduction in human health risks via the groundwater pathway, and 
reduction in human health risks via the air pathway. EPA's analysis of 
the benefits of today's rule covers TC wastes only. These wastes 
dominate the other wastestreams covered by today's rule in terms of 
volume. Moreover, these are the only wastes for which the Agency had 
the data necessary to conduct a benefits assessment, in terms of 
attributes such as constituent concentrations and facility-specific 
wastestream volumes.
    The fundamental assumption underlying EPA's approach for assessing 
groundwater risk reduction is that Subtitle C containment is completely 
effective in the short-term, i.e., over a period of about 30 years, but 
that in the longer term, containment systems will fail. The benefits 
analysis performed for today's rule examines this potential long-term 
risk which would be avoided under today's rule (i.e., only occurring at 
least 30 years into the future). The difference in risks from the 
baseline to the post-regulatory condition is the measure of incremental 
benefit associated with today's rule.
    The basic approach involves the following steps (which are 
elaborated upon in the RIA background document, which has been placed 
in the docket for today's rule). (1) The Agency employed waste 
concentration data from the TC Survey to represent waste 
concentrations. (2) EPA calculated the mean concentration of each 
constituent at each facility, weighted across the volume of all TC 
wastes managed at that facility. (3) EPA calculated the risk that would 
be posed by consumption of leachate, for both cancer and non-cancer 
effects, at each facility. (4) EPA developed a set of dilution/
attenuation factors (DAF) to represent the effect of fate and transport 
processes in a homogeneous ground-water system. For each facility, the 
Agency divided the risk posed by the consumption of leachate by the DAF 
(expressed as a probability distribution) to yield the risk posed by 
predicted concentrations in water from hypothetical exposure wells. (5) 
EPA then summed the predicted risks across all facilities to develop an 
estimate of the distribution of individual risk at facilities managing 
untreated TC wastes. In addition, the Agency simulated the post-
regulatory scenario, and summed the predicted risks across facilities, 
and developed the incremental risk reduction attributable to today's 
rule. (6) EPA subsequently developed an estimate of the potential 
incremental population risk using 1990 population estimates around each 
site. The Agency used standard assumptions for body weight (70 kg) and 
water intake (2 liters per day) for 9 years.

v. Human Health Risk Reduction--Air Pathway

    Constituents contained in TC waste, soil, and debris may be emitted 
to air through volatilization and dust entrainment. Reducing the 
concentrations of TC constituents through the treatment standards set 
in today's rule reduces the potential for air emissions, and the risks 
posed by those air emissions. The goal of the air pathway risk analysis 
was to characterize baseline (pre-LDR) risk and the reduction in 
baseline risk resulting from regulatory requirements in today's rule.
    The Agency's basic approach for the air pathway risk analysis 
involves the following steps (which are elaborated upon in the RIA 
background document, which has been placed in the docket for today's 
rule). (1) EPA used bulk waste concentration data from the TC Survey to 
represent waste concentrations. (2) the Agency calculated the mean 
concentration of each constituent at each facility, weighted across the 
volume of all TC wastes managed at that facility. (3) EPA calculated 
the unit area managing TC wastes. (4) EPA estimated emissions due to 
volatilization and dust entrainment for each constituent at each 
facility. (5) The Agency evaluated the atmospheric transport for each 
constituent. EPA then estimated exposure concentrations at several 
downwind points corresponding to potential exposure locations. The 
Agency employed standard high-end assumptions of body weight (70 kg) 
and 70-year lifetime. (6) The Agency calculated individual cancer risk 
and non-cancer risk across the facilities, using the modeled exposure 
assumptions. (7) EPA calculated population risk for exposed 
populations. (8) The Agency then simulated the risk under the 
regulatory requirements in today's rule, and determined the incremental 
risk reduction.
2. Results Section

a. Volume Results

    The Agency has estimated the volumes affected by today's rule. A 
total of 295,000 tons per year of organic TC wastes (D018-D043) are 
affected by today's rule; this volume includes 167,000 tons per year of 
nonwastewaters, 94,000 tons per year of hazardous soil, and 34,000 tons 
per year of hazardous debris. The volume estimates used in the capacity 
analysis differ, as described above, from those estimates employed in 
the regulatory analysis. See the regulatory analysis background 
document for a more detailed discussion of these differences.
    In addition, there are 30 tons per year of Chlorotoluene wastes 
affected by today's rule. The Agency also estimates that 9,760 tons per 
year of K069 waste will be affected as a result of the hazardous waste 
recycling exemption.

b. Cost Results

    Exhibit XVI-1 summarizes the results of the cost analysis for 
today's final rule. In total, today's final rule would have an 
incremental annual cost of between $194 and $219 million. The lower 
bound cost estimate represents the effects of waste minimization 
compliance cost savings. In addition, there is a potential cost savings 
associated with the UTS standards and the hazardous waste recycling 
exemption of $2.1 million per year.

                Exhibit XVI-1.--Summary of Cost Impacts                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Post-                         
                                       regulatory  Baseline  Incremental
             Waste type                   cost       cost        cost   
                                       (million $/ (million  (million $/
                                          yr)        $/yr)       yr)    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic TC Wastes (D018-D043):                                          
  Nonwastewaters.....................        175         30       145   
  Soil...............................         52         17        35   
  Debris.............................         44          8        36   
   Waste Minimization................  ..........  ........       (25)  
Chlorotoluenes.......................        0.1       <0.1      <0.1   
Test & Recordkeeping.................  ..........  ........         3   
                                      ----------------------------------
    Subtotal for All Newly Regulated                                    
     Wastes..........................        272         56       194   
                                                               to 219   
                                      ==================================
Previously Regulated Wastes Affected                                    
 by Rule:                                                               
  K069 Recycling Wastes..............          0        2.0      (2.0)  
  Cyanide Wastes (UTS Analysis)......       66.5       66.6      (0.1)  
                                      ----------------------------------
    Subtotal for All Previously                                         
     Regulated Wastes................       66.5       68.6      (2.1)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The cost impact shown for waste minimization reflects a potential 
  compliance cost savings, and therefore is shown as a range. See the   
  write up of the waste minimization results for more details.          

i. Organic TC Wastes

    As described above, EPA conducted a facility specific cost analysis 
for those facilities managing organic TC waste. The incremental costs 
for the TC wastes, presented in Exhibit XVI-1, are between $191 and 
$216 million per year. Sixty-seven percent of the total cost, in the 
upper bound, is for the treatment of organic TC nonwastewaters, and 16 
percent and 17 percent is for the treatment of organic TC contaminated 
soil and debris, respectively.

ii. Other Newly Regulated Wastes

    Since current management practices show that no coke by-product 
wastes are landfilled, as a result of the coke by-product listing rule 
(August 18, 1992, at 57 FR 37284), EPA estimates that there are no cost 
impacts associated with the treatment standards for coke by-product 
wastes. The incremental cost for chlorinated toluenes is estimated to 
be less than $0.1 million annually.

iii. Testing, Recordkeeping, Permit Modification Costs

    The analysis of the testing requirements in today's rule estimates 
incremental costs of approximately $3 million per year. The costs for 
the recordkeeping requirements were estimated to be approximately 
$490,000 per year. These costs are described in more detail in the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis background document developed for today's 
rule, which has been placed in the Agency's docket.

c. Waste Minimization

    Through the methodology outlined above, the Agency analyzed the 
cost implications of waste management alternatives involving waste 
minimization in today's rule. The analysis shows that there is a 
potential savings of $25 million per year quantifiable in comparing 
current management practices to waste minimization activities which 
could be implemented. The Agency presents the cost impact of today's 
rule as a range from $0 to $25 million per year, representing the cost 
savings possible through waste minimization activities.
    In performing the waste minimization analysis, the Agency focused 
on specific process for two industries for which data were available. 
This approach allowed the analysis to be detailed in nature, providing 
a close examination of facility compliance alternatives. However, in 
doing so, the Agency believes it has underestimated the potential 
savings due to waste minimization. In addition, the Agency has not 
attempted to address any further source reduction, waste minimization, 
or innovative technology development which may result from today's 
rule.

d. Economic Impact Results

    For the 14 companies with non-commercial, or captive, landfills 
that receive the company's waste (from the TC Survey), only one company 
would have a ratio of incremental compliance cost to cost of operations 
greater than one-half percent; all other facilities would experience 
even lower economic impacts resulting from today's rule.
    Since no costs are associated with the treatment standards for coke 
by-products, no economic impacts are expected. Based on a ratio 
analysis of incremental cost to total sales, none of the chlorinated 
toluene generating facilities is expected to experience significant 
impacts as a result of the final rule.

e. Benefit Estimate Results

    The benefit estimates for today's rule include both reduction in 
risk to human health, as well as incremental cost savings. Cost savings 
are estimated for the Universal Treatment Standards (UTS), cost savings 
resulting from changes to the hazardous waste recycling exemptions. 
Human health benefits are estimated for cancer and non-cancer risks.
    However, there are some benefits which the Agency has not attempted 
to quantify which are potentially attributable to today's rule. For 
example, the Agency has not attempted to quantify any potential non-use 
value benefits from protection of resources through treatment of 
hazardous wastes.
    Furthermore, the risk analysis performed by the Agency for today's 
rule does not account for many other potential benefits from today's 
rule. Ecological risk reduction from treatment of wastes under today's 
rule has not been quantified. Nor do the Agency's air and groundwater 
benefit estimates account for karst terrain, complex flow situations, 
or other factors which could contribute to underestimates of benefits. 
These unquantified benefits are discussed at greater length in the 
regulatory impact background document for today's rule.

i. Universal Treatment Standards Analysis

    The Agency's analysis of the cost impacts realized due to the 
Universal Treatment Standards requiring/allowing a change in treatment 
technology from that required under the existing standards produced a 
cost savings of approximately $100,000 per year. The only wastes for 
which the Agency found that the UTS standards required/allowed a change 
in treatment were the cyanide wastes.
    The Agency received a number of favorable comments on the adoption 
of the UTS standards. These commenters stated that the UTS would allow 
them to save much more in operation costs than the Agency has 
quantified in the above analysis. One commenter stated that they would 
save approximately $366,000 annually and 1736 hours per year in manhour 
savings associated with the UTS for F024. And another commenter stated 
that they would save approximately $740,000 per year as a result of the 
UTS. A more thorough description of these cost savings is shown in the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis background document developed for today's 
rule, which has been placed in the Agency's docket.

ii. Hazardous Waste Recycling Exemption

    The analysis performed by the Agency for the cost impacts 
associated with the recycling exemption for K069 produced a savings of 
approximately $2 million per year. A detailed description of the cost 
savings for K069 is shown in the Regulatory Impact Analysis background 
document developed for today's rule, which has been placed in the 
Agency's docket.

iii. Results--Groundwater Pathway

    This section presents results for the baseline and post-regulatory 
risk analyses. For each case, results for individual cancer and non-
cancer risk are presented for both high end (i.e. the 90th percentile 
of the distribution) and central tendency (i.e. 50th percentile of the 
distribution) risk estimates. The section concludes with population 
risk estimates for cancer risks.
    The results, presented in full in the RIA background document which 
is included in the docket for today's rule, show that the central 
tendency cancer risk estimate is expected to be zero. The high-end 
individual cancer risk is 4  x  10-7. For the post-regulatory 
scenario, EPA assumed that all constituents would be treated to 
universal standards. For the post-regulatory case, the central tendency 
risk estimate is zero, and the high-end risk estimate is 3  x  
10-6.
    Using the distribution of individual risks, the Agency calculated 
baseline and post-regulatory cancer population risks. Based on these 
assumptions, EPA estimates the baseline population cancer risk to be 
0.24 cases per year in the central tendency. The post-regulatory 
population cancer risk is about 0.02 cases per year in the central 
tendency. In other words, the regulatory option reduces 0.22 cases per 
year in the central tendency.
    For the non-cancer risks, the analysis shows that the 99th 
percentile baseline exposure level is less than the reference dose, 
using central tendency assumptions. The population risk estimates show 
2000 people, in the central tendency scenario, who are exposed to non-
cancer risk above the threshold.
    There are a number of limitations to the groundwater pathway 
analysis. The timeframe to which these benefits are attributable begins 
30 years following promulgation of the rule. The analysis does not 
account for any existing regulations which would mitigate risks from 
groundwater (e.g., Clean Water Act). In addition, one of the 
wastestreams which contributes a large proportion of the groundwater 
population risk is made up primarily of PCBs, which are not expected to 
migrate any appreciable distance in groundwater. The DAF used in the 
analysis was calculated based on drinking wells being within one mile 
of the facility, and was not adjusted to accord with the population 
estimates used in the analysis which are based on a two-mile distance. 
The DAF distribution is not constituent-specific and accounts only for 
homogeneous flow situations.

iv. Results--Air Pathway

    This section provides results for the air pathway, for the baseline 
and post-regulatory scenarios.
    It should be noted that the high end scenario models hypothetical 
receptors. Approximately 26 of the 35 modeled facilities (74 percent) 
have individual cancer risks exceeding 10-6 for the high end 
scenario in the baseline. For the high end scenario, the non-cancer 
risk ratio exceeds one at one facility.
    In the post-regulatory scenario, individual cancer risk is lowered 
considerably, indicating that at most of the facilities risk is driven 
by TC constituents. In the high end scenario, eight facility(s) have 
risks exceeding 10-6. Doses of all non-carcinogens are well below 
reference doses.
    For the population risk estimates, the Agency determined that the 
central tendency incremental benefits are approximately 0.037. For the 
incremental benefits of today's rule, the Agency performed a 
sensitivity analysis, described in the RIA background document, which 
examines the risk implications of changing volatilization rates under 
different assumptions of landfill cover and frequency of waste 
placement.
    There are a number of limitations to the air pathway analysis. 
Facilities which were modeled in the analysis were assumed to continue 
to dispose of treated waste on-site, which, for some facilities, may 
not be the case. In addition, due to limitations in the model employed, 
wastes were assumed to be disposed of only one time per year. A 
sensitivity analysis was conducted and is included in the RIA 
Background Document, which examines the effect on the emissions rate 
from this assumption. Finally, only wastestreams with all the necessary 
information were analyzed. This limitation could have the effect of 
either under- or overestimating the risks from the air pathway.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq., when an agency publishes a notice of rulemaking, for a rule that 
will have a significant effect on a substantial number of small 
entities, the agency must prepare and make available for public comment 
a regulatory flexibility analysis that considers the effect of the rule 
on small entities (i.e.: small businesses, small organizations, and 
small governmental jurisdictions). Under the Agency's Revised 
Guidelines for Implementing The Regulatory Flexibility Act, dated May 
4, 1992, the Agency committed to considering regulatory alternatives in 
rulemakings when there were any economic impacts estimated on any small 
entities. Previous guidance required regulatory alternatives to be 
examined only when significant economic effects were estimated on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    In assessing the regulatory approach for dealing with small 
entities in today's final rule, for both surface disposal of wastes and 
underground injection control, the Agency considered two factors. 
First, data on potentially affected small entities are unavailable. 
Second, due to the statutory requirements of the RCRA LDR program, no 
legal avenues exist for the Agency to provide relief from the LDR's for 
small entities. The only relief available for small entities is the 
existing small quantity generator provisions and conditionally exempt 
small quantity generator exemptions found in 40 CFR 262.11-12, and 
261.5, respectively. These exemptions basically prescribe 100 kilograms 
(kg) per calendar month generation of hazardous waste as the limit 
below which one is exempted from complying with the RCRA standards.
    Given these two factors, the Agency was unable to frame a series of 
small entity options from which to select the lowest cost approach; 
rather, the Agency was legally bound to regulate the land disposal of 
the hazardous wastes covered in today's rule without regard to the size 
of the entity being regulated.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have been assigned 
control number 2050-0085. This rule will reduce the average reporting 
burden an estimated 0.75 hours per response, due to decreased paperwork 
requirements. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other 
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for 
reducing this burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M 
St., S.W. (Mail Code 2138); Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 148

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water 
supply.

40 CFR Part 260

    Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste.

40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 264

    Hazardous waste, Packaging and containers, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 265

    Hazardous waste, Packaging and containers.

40 CFR Part 266

    Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 268

    Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 271

    Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials 
transportation, Hazardous waste, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: July 29, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 148--HAZARDOUS WASTE INJECTION RESTRICTIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 148 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Section 3004, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 
42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq.

    2. Section 148.17 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b) as (d), 
redesignating paragraph (c) as (e), and by adding paragraphs (b) and 
(c) to read as follows:


Sec. 148.17  Waste specific prohibitions; newly listed wastes.

* * * * *
    (b) Effective December 19, 1994 the wastes specified in 40 CFR 
261.32 as EPA Hazardous waste numbers K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, 
K147, K148, K149, K150, and K151, are prohibited from underground 
injection.
    (c) Effective September 19, 1995 the wastes specified in 40 CFR 
261.23 as D001 (High TOC Subcategory as specified at 40 CFR 268.40), 
and in 40 CFR 261.24 as EPA Hazardous waste numbers D012, D013, D014, 
D015, D016, and D017 are prohibited from underground injection.
* * * * *

PART 260--HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

    3. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 
6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974.

    4. In Sec. 260.30, the introductory text and paragraph (b) are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 260.30  Variances from classification as a solid waste.

    In accordance with the standards and criteria in Sec. 260.31 and 
the procedures in Sec. 260.33, the Administrator may determine on a 
case-by-case basis that the following recycled materials are not solid 
wastes:
* * * * *
    (b) Materials that are reclaimed and then reused within the 
original production process in which they were generated; and
* * * * *
    5. In Sec. 260.31, the introductory text of both paragraph (a) and 
(b), is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 260.31  Standards and criteria for variances from classification 
as a solid waste.

    (a) The Administrator may grant requests for a variance from 
classifying as a solid waste those materials that are accumulated 
speculatively without sufficient amounts being recycled if the 
applicant demonstrates that sufficient amounts of the material will be 
recycled or transferred for recycling in the following 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. The 
Administrator's decision will be based on the following criteria:
* * * * *
    (b) The Administrator may grant requests for a variance from 
classifying as a solid waste those materials that are reclaimed and 
then reused as feedstock within the original production process in 
which the materials were generated if the reclamation operation is an 
essential part of the production process. This determination will be 
based on the following criteria:
* * * * *
    6. In Sec. 260.32, the introductory text is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 260.32  Variance to be classified as a boiler.

    In accordance with the standards and criteria in Sec. 260.10 
(definition of ``boiler''), and the procedures in Sec. 260.33, the 
Administrator may determine on a case-by-case basis that certain 
enclosed devices using controlled flame combustion are boilers, even 
though they do not otherwise meet the definition of boiler contained in 
Sec. 260.10, after considering the following criteria:
* * * * *
    7. Sec. 260.33 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 260.33  Procedures for variances from classification as a solid 
waste or to be classified as a boiler.

    The Administrator will use the following procedures in evaluating 
applications for variances from classification as a solid waste or 
applications to classify particular enclosed controlled flame 
combustion devices as boilers:
    (a) The applicant must apply to the Administrator for the variance. 
The application must address the relevant criteria contained in 
Sec. 260.31 or Sec. 260.32.
    (b) The Administrator will evaluate the application and issue a 
draft notice tentatively granting or denying the application. 
Notification of this tentative decision will be provided by newspaper 
advertisement or radio broadcast in the locality where the recycler is 
located. The Administrator will accept comment on the tentative 
decision for 30 days, and may also hold a public hearing upon request 
or at his discretion. The Administrator will issue a final decision 
after receipt of comments and after the hearing (if any).

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    8. The authority citation for Part 261 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

    9. Section 261.2 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(1)(iii) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 261.2  Definition of solid waste.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Returned to the original process from which they are 
generated, without first being reclaimed or land disposed. The material 
must be returned as a substitute for feedstock materials. In cases 
where the original process to which the material is returned is a 
secondary process, the materials must be managed such that there is no 
placement on the land.
* * * * *

PART 264--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

    10. The authority citation for Part 264 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and 6925.

    11. In Sec. 264.1, paragraph (g)(6) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 264.1  Purpose, scope and applicability.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (6) The owner or operator of an elementary neutralization unit or a 
wastewater treatment unit as defined in Sec. 260.10 of this chapter, 
provided that if the owner or operator is diluting hazardous ignitable 
(D001) wastes (other than the D001 High TOC Subcategory defined in 
Sec. 268.40 of this chapter, Table Treatment Standards for Hazardous 
Wastes), or reactive (D003) waste, to remove the characteristic before 
land disposal, the owner/operator must comply with the requirements set 
out in Sec. 264.17(b).
* * * * *

PART 265--INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF 
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

    12. The authority citation for part 265 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, 6925, 6935, and 6936.

    13. In Sec. 265.1, paragraph (c)(10) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 265.1  Purpose, scope, and applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (10) The owner or operator of an elementary neutralization unit or 
a wastewater treatment unit as defined in Sec. 260.10 of this chapter, 
provided that if the owner or operator is diluting hazardous ignitable 
(D001) wastes (other than the D001 High TOC Subcategory defined in 
Sec. 268.40 of this chapter, Table Treatment Standards for Hazardous 
Wastes), or reactive (D003) waste, to remove the characteristic before 
land disposal, the owner/operator must comply with the requirements set 
out in Sec. 265.17(b).
* * * * *

PART 266--STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES 
AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

    14. The authority citation for part 266 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and 6934.

Subpart C--Recyclable Materials Used in a Manner Constituting 
Disposal

    15. In Sec. 266.23, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 266.23  Standards applicable to users of materials that are used 
in a manner that constitutes disposal.

    (a) Owners or operators of facilities that use recyclable materials 
in a manner that constitutes disposal are regulated under all 
applicable provisions of subparts A through N of parts 124, 264, 265, 
268, and 270 of this chapter and the notification requirement under 
section 3010 of RCRA. (These requirements do not apply to products 
which contain these recyclable materials under the provisions of 
Sec. 266.20(b) of this chapter.)
* * * * *

Subpart H--Hazardous Waste Burned in Boilers and Industrial 
Furnaces

    16. In Sec. 266.100, the introductory text in paragraphs (c)(1), 
(c)(3), (c)(3)(i), and (c)(3)(ii); and paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 266.100  Applicability

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) To be exempt from Secs. 266.102 through 266.111, an owner or 
operator of a metal recovery furnace or mercury recovery furnace, must 
comply with the following requirements, except that an owner or 
operator of a lead or a nickel-chromium recovery furnace, or a metal 
recovery furnace that burns baghouse bags used to capture metallic 
dusts emitted by steel manufacturing, must comply with the requirements 
of paragraph (c)(3) of this section:
* * * * *
    (3) To be exempt from Secs. 266.102 through 266.111, an owner or 
operator of a lead or nickel-chromium or mercury recovery furnace, or a 
metal recovery furnace that burns baghouse bags used to capture 
metallic dusts emitted by steel manufacturing, must provide a one-time 
written notice to the Director identifying each hazardous waste burned 
and specifying whether the owner or operator claims an exemption for 
each waste under this paragraph or paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 
The owner or operator must comply with the requirements of paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section for those wastes claimed to be exempt under that 
paragraph and must comply with the requirements below for those wastes 
claimed to be exempt under this paragraph (c)(3).
    (i) The hazardous wastes listed in appendices XI, XII, and XIII, 
part 266, and baghouse bags used to capture metallic dusts emitted by 
steel manufacturing are exempt from the requirements of paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section, provided that:
    (A) A waste listed in appendix IX of this part must contain 
recoverable levels of lead, a waste listed in appendix XII of this part 
must contain recoverable levels of nickel or chromium, a waste listed 
in appendix XIII of this part must contain recoverable levels of 
mercury and contain less than 500 ppm of 40 CFR part 261, appendix VIII 
organic constituents, and baghouse bags used to capture metallic dusts 
emitted by steel manufacturing must contain recoverable levels of 
metal; and
* * * * *
    (ii) The Director may decide on a case-by-case basis that the toxic 
organic constituents in a material listed in appendix XI, XII, or XIII 
of this part that contains a total concentration of more than 500 ppm 
toxic organic compounds listed in appendix VIII, part 261 of this 
chapter, may pose a hazard to human health and the environment when 
burned in a metal recovery furnace exempt from the requirements of this 
subpart. In that situation, after adequate notice and opportunity for 
comment, the metal recovery furnace will become subject to the 
requirements of this subpart when burning that material. In making the 
hazard determination, the Director will consider the following factors:
* * * * *

Appendix XIII to Part 266 [Added]

    17. Appendix XIII is added to read as follows:

Appendix XIII to Part 266--Mercury Bearing Wastes That May Be Processed 
in Exempt Mercury Recovery Units

    These are exempt mercury-bearing materials with less than 500 
ppm of 40 CFR Part 261, appendix VIII organic constituents when 
generated by manufacturers or users of mercury or mercury products.

1. Activated carbon
2. Decomposer graphite
3. Wood
4. Paper
5. Protective clothing
6. Sweepings
7. Respiratory cartridge filters
8. Cleanup articles
9. Plastic bags and other contaminated containers
10. Laboratory and process control samples
11. K106 and other wastewater treatment plant sludge and filter cake
12. Mercury cell sump and tank sludge
13. Mercury cell process solids
14. Recoverable levels or mercury contained in soil

PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS

    18. The authority citation for Part 268 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, and 6924.

Subpart A--General

    19. In Sec. 268.1, paragraphs (c)(3)(ii), (e)(4), and (e)(5) are 
revised, and paragraph (c)(3)(iii) is added, to read as follows:


Sec. 268.1  Purpose, scope and applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Do not exhibit any prohibited characteristic of hazardous 
waste at the point of injection; and
    (iii) If at the point of generation the injected wastes include 
D001 High TOC subcategory wastes or D012-D017 pesticide wastes that are 
prohibited under Sec. 148.17(c) of this chapter, those wastes have been 
treated to meet the treatment standards of Sec. 268.40 before 
injection.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) De minimis losses to wastewater treatment systems of commercial 
chemical product or chemical intermediates that are ignitable (D001), 
corrosive (D002), or are organic constituents that exhibit the 
characteristic of toxicity (D012-D043), and that contain underlying 
hazardous constituents as defined in Sec. 268.2(i), are not considered 
to be prohibited wastes. De minimis is defined as losses from normal 
material handling operations (e.g. spills from the unloading or 
transfer of materials from bins or other containers, leaks from pipes, 
valves or other devices used to transfer materials); minor leaks of 
process equipment, storage tanks or containers; leaks from well-
maintained pump packings and seals; sample purgings; and relief device 
discharges; discharges from safety showers and rinsing and cleaning of 
personal safety equipment; and rinsate from empty containers or from 
containers that are rendered empty by that rinsing; or
    (5) Land disposal prohibitions for hazardous characteristic wastes 
do not apply to laboratory wastes displaying the characteristic of 
ignitability (D001), corrosivity (D002), or organic toxicity (D012--
D043), that are mixed with other plant wastewaters at facilities whose 
ultimate discharge is subject to regulation under the CWA (including 
wastewaters at facilities which have eliminated the discharge of 
wastewater), provided that the annualized flow of laboratory wastewater 
into the facility's headworks does not exceed one per cent, or provided 
that the laboratory wastes' combined annualized average concentration 
does not exceed one part per million in the facility's headworks.
    20. In Sec. 268.2, paragraphs (g) and (i) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 268.2  Definitions applicable in this part.

* * * * *
    (g) Debris means solid material exceeding a 60 mm particle size 
that is intended for disposal and that is: A manufactured object; or 
plant or animal matter; or natural geologic material. However, the 
following materials are not debris: Any material for which a specific 
treatment standard is provided in Subpart D, Part 268, namely lead acid 
batteries, cadmium batteries, and radioactive lead solids; Process 
residuals such as smelter slag and residues from the treatment of 
waste, wastewater, sludges, or air emission residues; and Intact 
containers of hazardous waste that are not ruptured and that retain at 
least 75% of their original volume. A mixture of debris that has not 
been treated to the standards provided by Sec. 268.45 and other 
material is subject to regulation as debris if the mixture is comprised 
primarily of debris, by volume, based on visual inspection.
* * * * *
    (i) Underlying hazardous constituent means any constituent listed 
in Sec. 268.48, Table UTS--Universal Treatment Standards, except zinc, 
which can reasonably be expected to be present at the point of 
generation of the hazardous waste, at a concentration above the 
constituent-specific UTS treatment standard.
    21. Section 268.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and 
(b)(4)(ii), and by adding paragraph (b)(5)(iv) to read as follows:


Sec. 268.7  Waste analysis and recordkeeping.

    (a) Except as specified in Sec. 268.32, if a generator's waste is 
listed in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D, the generator must test his 
waste, or test an extract using test method 1311 (the Toxicity 
Characteristic Leaching Procedure, described in ``Test Methods for 
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication 
SW-846 as incorporated by reference in Sec. 260.11 of this chapter), or 
use knowledge of the waste, to determine if the waste is restricted 
from land disposal under this part. Except as specified in Sec. 268.32, 
if a generator's waste exhibits one or more of the characteristics set 
out at 40 CFR part 261, subpart C, the generator must test an extract 
using test method 1311 (the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, 
described in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods'' (SW-846)), or use knowledge of the waste, to 
determine if the waste is restricted from land disposal under this 
Part. If the generator determines that his waste exhibits the 
characteristic of ignitability (D001) (and is not in the High TOC 
Ignitable Liquids Subcategory or is not treated by CMBST or RORGS of 
Sec. 268.42, Table 1), or the characteristic of corrosivity (D002), and 
is prohibited under Sec. 268.37; and/or the characteristic of organic 
toxicity (D012-D043), and is prohibited under Sec. 268.38, the 
generator must determine the underlying hazardous constituents (as 
defined in Sec. 268.2, in the D001, D002, or D012-D043 wastes.
    (1) If a generator determines that he is managing a restricted 
waste under this part and the waste does not meet the applicable 
treatment standards set forth in Subpart D of this part or exceeds the 
applicable prohibition levels set forth in Sec. 268.32 or RCRA section 
3004(d), with each shipment of waste the generator must notify the 
treatment or storage facility in writing of the appropriate treatment 
standards set forth in Subpart D of this part and any applicable 
prohibition levels set forth in Sec. 268.32 or RCRA section 3004(d). 
The notice must include the following information:
    (i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
    (ii) The waste constituents that the treater will monitor, if 
monitoring will not include all regulated constituents, for wastes 
F001-F005, F039, D001, D002, and D012-D043. Generators must also 
include whether the waste is a nonwastewater or wastewater (as defined 
in Sec. 268.2(d) and (f), and indicate the subcategory of the waste 
(such as ``D003 reactive cyanide''), if applicable;
    (iii) The manifest number associated with the shipment of waste;
    (iv) For hazardous debris when using the alternative treatment 
technologies provided by Sec. 268.45:
    (A) The contaminants subject to treatment, as described in 
Sec. 268.45(b); and
    (B) An indication that these contaminants are being treated to 
comply with Sec. 268.45.
    (v) For hazardous debris when using the treatment standards for the 
contaminating waste(s) in Sec. 268.40: the requirements described in 
paragraphs (a)(1) (i), (ii), (iii), and (vi) of this section.
    (2) If a generator determines that he is managing a restricted 
waste under this Part, and determines that the waste can be land 
disposed without further treatment, with each shipment of waste he must 
submit, to the treatment, storage, or land disposal facility, a notice 
and a certification stating that the waste meets the applicable 
treatment standards set forth in subpart D of this part and the 
applicable prohibition levels set forth in Sec. 268.32 or RCRA section 
3004(d). Generators of hazardous debris that is excluded from the 
definition of hazardous waste under Sec. 261.3(e)(2) of this chapter 
(i.e., debris that the Director has determined does not contain 
hazardous waste), however, are not subject to these notification and 
certification requirements.
    (i) The notice must include the following information:
    (A) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
    (B) The waste constituents that the treater will monitor, if 
monitoring will not include all regulated constituents, for wastes 
F001-F005, F039, D001, D002, and D012-D043. Generators must also 
include whether the waste is a nonwastewater or wastewater (as defined 
in Sec. 268.2 (d) and (f)), and indicate the subcategory of the waste 
(such as ``D003 reactive cyanide''), if applicable;
    (C) The manifest number associated with the shipment of waste;
    (D) Waste analysis data, where available.
    (ii) The certification must be signed by an authorized 
representative and must state the following:

    I certify under penalty of law that I personally have examined 
and am familiar with the waste through analysis and testing or 
through knowledge of the waste to support this certification that 
the waste complies with the treatment standards specified in 40 CFR 
Part 268 Subpart D and all applicable prohibitions set forth in 40 
CFR 268.32 or RCRA section 3004(d). I believe that the information I 
submitted is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are 
significant penalties for submitting a false certification, 
including the possibility of a fine and imprisonment.

    (3) If a generator's waste is subject to an exemption from a 
prohibition on the type of land disposal method utilized for the waste 
(such as, but not limited to, a case-by-case extension under 
Sec. 268.5, an exemption under Sec. 268.6, or a nationwide capacity 
variance under subpart C of this part), with each shipment of waste he 
must submit a notice to the facility receiving his waste stating that 
the waste is not prohibited from land disposal. The notice must include 
the following information:
    (i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
    (ii) The waste constituents that the treater will monitor, if 
monitoring will not include all regulated constituents, for wastes 
F001-F005, F039, D001, D002, and D012-D043. Generators must also 
include whether the waste is a nonwastewater or wastewater (as defined 
in Sec. 268.2 (d) and (f)), and indicate the subcategory of the waste 
(such as ``D003 reactive cyanide''), if applicable;
    (iii) The manifest number associated with the shipment of waste;
    (iv) Waste analysis data, where available;
    (v) For hazardous debris when using the alternative treatment 
technologies provided by Sec. 268.45:
    (A) The contaminants subject to treatment, as described in 
Sec. 268.45(b); and
    (B) An indication that these contaminants are being treated to 
comply with Sec. 268.45.
    (vi) For hazardous debris when using the treatment standards for 
the contaminating waste(s) in Sec. 268.40: the requirements described 
in paragraphs (a)(1) (i), (ii), (iii), and (vi) of this section.
    (4) If a generator is managing prohibited waste in tanks, 
containers, or containment buildings regulated under 40 CFR 262.34, and 
is treating such waste in such tanks, containers, or containment 
buildings to meet applicable treatment standards under subpart D of 
this part, the generator must develop and follow a written waste 
analysis plan which describes the procedures the generator will carry 
out to comply with the treatment standards. (Generators treating 
hazardous debris under the alternative treatment standards of Table 1, 
Sec. 268.45, however, are not subject to these waste analysis 
requirements.) The plan must be kept on site in the generator's 
records, and the following requirements must be met:
    (i) The waste analysis plan must be based on a detailed chemical 
and physical analysis of a representative sample of the prohibited 
waste(s) being treated, and contain all information necessary to treat 
the waste(s) in accordance with the requirements of this Part, 
including the selected testing frequency.
    (ii) Such plan must be filed with the EPA Regional Administrator 
(or his designated representative) or State authorized to implement 
Part 268 requirements a minimum of 30 days prior to the treatment 
activity, with delivery verified.
    (iii) Wastes shipped off-site pursuant to this paragraph must 
comply with the notification requirements of Sec. 268.7(a)(2).
    (5) If a generator determines whether the waste is restricted based 
solely on his knowledge of the waste, all supporting data used to make 
this determination must be retained on-site in the generator's files. 
If a generator determines whether the waste is restricted based on 
testing this waste or an extract developed using the test method 
described in Appendix I of this part, all waste analysis data must be 
retained on-site in the generator's files.
    (6) If a generator determines that he is managing a restricted 
waste that is excluded from the definition of hazardous or solid waste 
or exempt from Subtitle C regulation, under 40 CFR 261.2 through 261.6 
subsequent to the point of generation, he must place a one-time notice 
stating such generation, subsequent exclusion from the definition of 
hazardous or solid waste or exemption from RCRA Subtitle C regulation, 
and the disposition of the waste, in the facility's file.
    (7) Generators must retain on-site a copy of all notices, 
certifications, demonstrations, waste analysis data, and other 
documentation produced pursuant to this section for at least five years 
from the date that the waste that is the subject of such documentation 
was last sent to on-site or off-site treatment, storage, or disposal. 
The five year record retention period is automatically extended during 
the course of any unresolved enforcement action regarding the regulated 
activity or as requested by the Administrator. The requirements of this 
paragraph apply to solid wastes even when the hazardous characteristic 
is removed prior to disposal, or when the waste is excluded from the 
definition of hazardous or solid waste under 40 CFR 261.2 through 
261.6, or exempted from RCRA Subtitle C regulation, subsequent to the 
point of generation.
    (8) If a generator is managing a lab pack waste and wishes to use 
the alternative treatment standard under Sec. 268.42(c), with each 
shipment of waste the generator must submit a notice to the treatment 
facility in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except 
that underlying hazardous constituents need not be determined. The 
generator must also comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(5) 
and (a)(6) of this section and must submit the following certification, 
which must be signed by an authorized representative:

    I certify under penalty of law that I personally have examined 
and am familiar with the waste and that the lab pack contains only 
wastes which have not been excluded under appendix IV to 40 CFR part 
268 or solid wastes not subject to regulation under 40 CFR part 261. 
I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting a 
false certification, including the possibility of fine or 
imprisonment.

    (9) [Reserved]
    (10) Small quantity generators with tolling agreements pursuant to 
40 CFR 262.20(e) must comply with the applicable notification and 
certification requirements of paragraph (a) of this section for the 
initial shipment of the waste subject to the agreement. Such generators 
must retain on-site a copy of the notification and certification, 
together with the tolling agreement, for at least three years after 
termination or expiration of the agreement. The three-year record 
retention period is automatically extended during the course of any 
unresolved enforcement action regarding the regulated activity or as 
requested by the Administrator.
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) The waste constituents to be monitored, if monitoring will not 
include all regulated constituents, for wastes F001-F005, F039, D001, 
D002, and D012-D043. Generators must also include whether the waste is 
a nonwastewater or wastewater (as defined in Sec. 268.2 (d) and (f), 
and indicate the subcategory of the waste (such as D003 reactive 
cyanide), if applicable.
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iv) For characteristic wastes D001, D002, and D012-D043 that are: 
subject to the treatment standards in Sec. 268.40 (other than those 
expressed as a required method of treatment); that are reasonably 
expected to contain underlying hazardous constituents as defined in 
Sec. 268.2(i); are treated on-site to remove the hazardous 
characteristic; and are then sent off-site for treatment of underlying 
hazardous constituents, the certification must state the following:

    I certify under penalty of law that the waste has been treated 
in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 268.40 to remove the 
hazardous characteristic. This decharacterized waste contains 
underlying hazardous constituents that require further treatment to 
meet universal treatment standards. I am aware that there are 
significant penalties for submitting a false certification, 
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.
* * * * *
    22. In Sec. 268.9, paragraph (a), (d)(1)(i), and (d)(1)(ii) are 
revised, (d)(1)(iii) is removed and (d)(2) (i) and (ii) are added to 
read as follows:


Sec. 268.9  Special rules regarding wastes that exhibit a 
characteristic.

    (a) The initial generator of a solid waste must determine each EPA 
Hazardous Waste Number (waste code) applicable to the waste in order to 
determine the applicable treatment standards under subpart D of this 
part. For purposes of part 268, the waste will carry the waste code for 
any applicable listing under 40 CFR part 261, subpart D. In addition, 
the waste will carry one or more of the waste codes under 40 CFR part 
261, subpart C, where the waste exhibits a characteristic, except in 
the case when the treatment standard for the waste code listed in 40 
CFR part 261, subpart D operates in lieu of the treatment standard for 
the waste code under 40 CFR part 261, subpart C, as specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section. If the generator determines that his 
waste displays the characteristic of ignitability (D001) (and is not in 
the High TOC Ignitable Liquids Subcategory or is not treated by CMBST, 
or RORGS), or the waste code listed in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D 
operates in lieu of the treatment standard for the waste code under 40 
CFR part 261, subpart C, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. 
If the generator determines that his waste displays the characteristic 
of ignitability (D001) (and is not in the High TOC Ignitable Liquids 
Subcategory or is not treated by CMBST, or RORGS), or the 
characteristic of corrosivity (D002), and is prohibited under 
Sec. 268.37; or that his waste displays the characteristic of toxicity 
(D012-D043), and is prohibited under Sec. 268.38, the generator must 
determine the underlying hazardous constituents (as defined in 
Sec. 268.2), in the D001, D002, or D012-D043 wastes.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Name and address of the RCRA Subtitle D facility receiving the 
waste shipment; and
    (ii) A description of the waste as initially generated, including 
the applicable EPA Hazardous Waste Number(s), treatability group(s), 
and underlying hazardous constituents (as defined in Sec. 268.2(i) in 
D001 and D002 wastes prohibited under Sec. 268.37, or D012-D043 wastes 
under Sec. 268.38.
    (2) * * *
    (i) If treatment removes the characteristic but does not treat 
underlying hazardous constituents, then the certification found in 
Sec. 268.7 (b)(5)(v) apply.
    (ii) [Reserved]

Subpart C--Prohibitions on Land Disposal

    23. In subpart C, Sec. 268.38 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 268.38  Waste specific prohibitions--newly identified organic 
toxicity characteristic wastes and newly listed coke by-product and 
chlorotoluene production wastes.

    (a) Effective December 19, 1994, the wastes specified in 40 CFR 
261.32 as EPA Hazardous Waste numbers K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, 
K147, K148, K149, K150, and K151 are prohibited from land disposal. In 
addition, debris contaminated with EPA Hazardous Waste numbers F037, 
F038, K107-K112, K117, K118, K123-K126, K131, K132, K136, U328, U353, 
U359, and soil and debris contaminated with D012-D043, K141-K145, and 
K147-K151 are prohibited from land disposal. The following wastes that 
are specified in 40 CFR 261.24, Table 1 as EPA Hazardous Waste numbers: 
D012, D013, D014, D015, D016, D017, D018, D019, D020, D021, D022, D023, 
D024, D025, D026, D027, D028, D029, D030, D031, D032, D033, D034, D035, 
D036, D037, D038, D039, D040, D041, D042, D043 that are not 
radioactive, or that are managed in systems other than those whose 
discharge is regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA), or that are 
zero dischargers that do not engage in CWA-equivalent treatment before 
ultimate land disposal, or that are injected in Class I deep wells 
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), are prohibited from 
land disposal. CWA-equivalent treatment means biological treatment for 
organics, alkaline chlorination or ferrous sulfate precipitation for 
cyanide, precipitation/ sedimentation for metals, reduction of 
hexavalent chromium, or other treatment technology that can be 
demonstrated to perform equally or better than these technologies.
    (b) On September 19, 1996, radioactive wastes that are mixed with 
D018-D043 that are managed in systems other than those whose discharge 
is regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA), or that inject in Class I 
deep wells regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), or that 
are zero dischargers that engage in CWA-equivalent treatment before 
ultimate land disposal, are prohibited from land disposal. CWA-
equivalent treatment means biological treatment for organics, alkaline 
chlorination or ferrous sulfate precipitation for cyanide, 
precipitation/ sedimentation for metals, reduction of hexavalent 
chromium, or other treatment technology that can be demonstrated to 
perform equally or greater than these technologies. Radioactive wastes 
mixed with K141-K145, and K147-K151 are also prohibited from land 
disposal. In addition, soil and debris contaminated with these 
radioactive mixed wastes are prohibited from land disposal.
    (c) Between December 19, 1994 and September 19, 1996, the wastes 
included in paragraphs (b) of this section may be disposed in a 
landfill or surface impoundment, only if such unit is in compliance 
with the requirements specified in Sec. 268.5(h)(2) of this Part.
    (d) The requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this 
section do not apply if:
    (1) The wastes meet the applicable treatment standards specified in 
Subpart D of this part;
    (2) Persons have been granted an exemption from a prohibition 
pursuant to a petition under Sec. 268.6, with respect to those wastes 
and units covered by the petition;
    (3) The wastes meet the applicable alternate treatment standards 
established pursuant to a petition granted under Sec. 268.44;
    (4) Persons have been granted an extension to the effective date of 
a prohibition pursuant to Sec. 268.5, with respect to these wastes 
covered by the extension.
    (e) To determine whether a hazardous waste identified in this 
section exceeds the applicable treatment standards specified in 
Sec. 268.40, the initial generator must test a sample of the waste 
extract or the entire waste, depending on whether the treatment 
standards are expressed as concentrations in the waste extract or the 
waste, or the generator may use knowledge of the waste. If the waste 
contains constituents in excess of the applicable Subpart D levels, the 
waste is prohibited from land disposal, and all requirements of part 
268 are applicable, except as otherwise specified.

Subpart D--Treatment Standards

    24. Section 268.40 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 268.40  Applicability of Treatment Standards.

    (a) A waste identified in the table ``Treatment Standards for 
Hazardous Wastes'' may be land disposed only if it meets the 
requirements found in the table. For each waste, the table identifies 
one of three types of treatment standard requirements:
    (1) All hazardous constituents in the waste or in the treatment 
residue must be at or below the values found in the table for that 
waste (``total waste standards''); or
    (2) The hazardous constituents in the extract of the waste or in 
the extract of the treatment residue must be at or below the values 
found in the table (``waste extract standards''); or
     (3) The waste must be treated using the technology specified in 
the table (``technology standard''), which are described in detail in 
Sec. 268.42, Table 1--Technology Codes and Description of Technology-
Based Standards.
     (b) For wastewaters, compliance with concentration level standards 
is based on maximums for any one day, except for D004 through D011 
wastes for which the previously promulgated treatment standards based 
on grab samples remain in effect. For all nonwastewaters, compliance 
with concentration level standards is based on grab sampling. For 
wastes covered by the waste extract standards, the test Method 1311, 
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure found in ``Test Methods 
for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods'', EPA 
Publication SW-846, as incorporated by reference in Sec. 260.11, must 
be used to measure compliance. An exception is made for D004 and D008, 
for which either of two test methods may be used: Method 1311, or 
Method 1310, the Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test. For wastes covered 
by a technology standard, the wastes may be land disposed after being 
treated using that specified technology or an equivalent treatment 
technology approved by the Administrator under the procedures set forth 
in Sec. 268.42(b).
     (c) When wastes with differing treatment standards for a 
constituent of concern are combined for purposes of treatment, the 
treatment residue must meet the lowest treatment standard for the 
constituent of concern.
     (d) Notwithstanding the prohibitions specified in paragraph (a) of 
this section, treatment and disposal facilities may demonstrate (and 
certify pursuant to 40 CFR 268.7(b)(5)) compliance with the treatment 
standards for organic constituents specified by a footnote in the table 
``Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes'' in this section, provided 
the following conditions are satisfied:
     (1) The treatment standards for the organic constituents were 
established based on incineration in units operated in accordance with 
the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O, or based on 
combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with 
applicable technical requirements;
     (2) The treatment or disposal facility has used the methods 
referenced in paragraph (d)(1) of this section to treat the organic 
constituents; and
     (3) The treatment or disposal facility may demonstrate compliance 
with organic constituents if good-faith analytical efforts achieve 
detection limits for the regulated organic constituents that do not 
exceed the treatment standards specified in this section by an order of 
magnitude.
     (e) For characteristic wastes (D001, D002, and D012-D043 that are 
subject to treatment standards in the following table ``Treatment 
Standards for Hazardous Wastes,'' all underlying hazardous constituents 
(as defined in Sec. 268.2(i)) must meet Universal Treatment Standards, 
found in Sec. 268.48, Table UTS, prior to land disposal.
     (f) The treatment standards for F001-F005 nonwastewater 
constituents carbon disulfide, cyclohexanone, and/or methanol apply to 
wastes which contain only one, two, or three of these constituents. 
Compliance is measured for these constituents in the waste extract from 
test Method 1311, the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure found 
in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical 
Methods'', EPA Publication SW-846, as incorporated by reference in 
Sec. 260.11. If the waste contains any of these three constituents 
along with any of the other 25 constituents found in F001-F005, then 
compliance with treatment standards for carbon disulfide, 
cyclohexanone, and/or methanol are not required.

Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes

    Note: The treatment standards that heretofore appeared in tables 
in Secs. 268.41, 268.42, and 268.43 of this part have been 
consolidated into the table ``Treatment Standards for Hazardous 
Wastes'' in this section.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

TR19SE94.005


TR19SE94.006


TR19SE94.007


TR19SE94.008


TR19SE94.009


TR19SE94.010


TR19SE94.011


TR19SE94.012


TR19SE94.013


TR19SE94.014


TR19SE94.015


TR19SE94.016


TR19SE94.017


TR19SE94.018


TR19SE94.019


TR19SE94.020


TR19SE94.021


TR19SE94.022


TR19SE94.023


TR19SE94.024


TR19SE94.025


TR19SE94.026


TR19SE94.027


TR19SE94.028


TR19SE94.029


TR19SE94.030


TR19SE94.031


TR19SE94.032


TR19SE94.033


TR19SE94.034


TR19SE94.035


TR19SE94.036


TR19SE94.037


TR19SE94.038


TR19SE94.039


TR19SE94.040


TR19SE94.041


TR19SE94.042


TR19SE94.043


TR19SE94.044


TR19SE94.045


TR19SE94.046


TR19SE94.047


TR19SE94.048


TR19SE94.049


TR19SE94.050


TR19SE94.051


TR19SE94.052


TR19SE94.053


TR19SE94.054


TR19SE94.055


TR19SE94.056


TR19SE94.057


TR19SE94.058


TR19SE94.059


TR19SE94.060


BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    25. Section 268.41 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 268.41  Treatment standards expressed as concentrations in waste 
extract.

    For the requirements previously found in this section and for 
treatment standards in Table CCWE--Constituent Concentrations in Waste 
Extracts, refer to Sec. 268.40.
    26. Section 268.42 is amended by removing Table 2 and Table 3; 
revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (c)(2), and (d); adding a 
note before paragraph (a); and adding the entry ``CMBST'' into Table 
1.--Technology Codes and Description of Technology-Based Standards in 
alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec. 268.42  Treatment standards expressed as specified technologies.

    Note: For the requirements previously found in this section in 
Table 2--Technology-Based Standards By RCRA Waste Code, and Table 
3--Technology-Based Standards for Specific Radioactive Hazardous 
Mixed Waste, refer to Sec. 268.40.

    (a) The following wastes in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this 
section and in the table in Sec. 268.40 ``Treatment Standards for 
Hazardous Wastes,'' for which standards are expressed as a treatment 
method rather than a concentration level, must be treated using the 
technology or technologies specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) 
and Table 1 of this section.
* * * * * 

Table 1.--Technology Codes and Description of Technology-Based Standards
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology code          Description of technology-based standards      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  *****                                 
CMBST...........  Combustion in incinerators, boilers, or industrial    
                   furnaces operated in accordance with the applicable  
                   requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O, or 40 CFR
                   part 266, subpart H.                                 
                                  *****                                 
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) The lab pack does not contain any of the wastes listed in 
Appendix IV to part 268.
* * * * *
    (d) Radioactive hazardous mixed wastes are subject to the treatment 
standards in Sec. 268.40. Where treatment standards are specified for 
radioactive mixed wastes in the Table of Treatment Standards, those 
treatment standards will govern. Where there is no specific treatment 
standard for radioactive mixed waste, the treatment standard for the 
hazardous waste (as designated by EPA waste code) applies. Hazardous 
debris containing radioactive waste is subject to the treatment 
standards specified in Sec. 268.45.
    28. Section 268.43 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 268.43  Treatment standards expressed as waste concentrations.

    For the requirements previously found in this section and for 
treatment standards in Table CCW--Constituent Concentrations in Wastes, 
refer to Sec. 268.40.
    29. Section 268.45(b)(2) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 268.45  Treatment standards for hazardous debris.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Debris contaminated with listed waste. The contaminants subject 
to treatment for debris that is contaminated with a prohibited listed 
hazardous waste are those constituents or wastes for which treatment 
standards are established for the waste under Sec. 268.40.
    30. Section 268.46 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 268.46  Alternative treatment standards based on HTMR.

    For the treatment standards previously found in this section, refer 
to Sec. 268.40.
    31. In Subpart D, Sec. 268.48 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 268.48  Universal Treatment Standards

    (a) Table UTS identifies the hazardous constituents, along with the 
nonwastewater and wastewater treatment standard levels, that are used 
to regulate most prohibited hazardous wastes with numerical limits. For 
determining compliance with treatment standards for underlying 
hazardous constituents as defined in Sec. 268.2(i), these treatment 
standards may not be exceeded. Compliance with these treatment 
standards is measured by an analysis of grab samples, unless otherwise 
noted in the following Table UTS.

                              Sec. 268.48 Table UTS--Universal Treatment Standards                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Wastewater      Nonwastewater standard.  
                                                                        standard.     Concentration in mg/kg\3\ 
         Regulated constituent--common name             CAS\1\ No.    Concentration     unless noted as ``mg/l  
                                                                       in mg/\2\                TCLP''          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acenaphthylene.......................................      208-96-8        0.059     3.4                        
Acenaphthene.........................................       83-32-9        0.059     3.4                        
Acetone..............................................       67-64-1        0.28      160                        
Acetonitrile.........................................       75-05-8        5.6       1.8                        
Acetophenone.........................................       96-86-2        0.010     9.7                        
2-Acetylaminofluorene................................       53-96-3        0.059     140                        
Acrolein.............................................      107-02-8        0.29      NA                         
Acrylamide...........................................       79-06-1       19         23                         
Acrylonitrile........................................      107-13-1        0.24      84                         
Aldrin...............................................      309-00-2        0.021     0.066                      
4-Aminobiphenyl......................................       92-67-1        0.13      NA                         
Aniline..............................................       62-53-3        0.81      14                         
Anthracene...........................................      120-12-7        0.059     3.4                        
Aramite..............................................      140-57-8        0.36      NA                         
alpha-BHC............................................      319-84-6        0.00014   0.066                      
beta-BHC.............................................      319-85-7        0.00014   0.066                      
delta-BHC............................................      319-86-8        0.023     0.066                      
gamma-BHC............................................       58-89-9        0.0017    0.066                      
Benzene..............................................       71-43-2        0.14      10                         
Benz(a)anthracene....................................       56-55-3        0.059     3.4                        
Benzal chloride......................................       98-87-3        0.055     6.0                        
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (difficult to distinguish from        205-99-2        0.11      6.8                        
 benzo(k)fluoranthene).                                                                                         
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (difficult to distinguish from        207-08-9        0.11      6.8                        
 benzo(b)fluoranthene).                                                                                         
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene.................................      191-24-2        0.0055    1.8                        
Benzo(a)pyrene.......................................       50-32-8        0.061     3.4                        
Bromodichloromethane.................................       75-27-4        0.35      15                         
Methyl bromide (Bromomethane)........................       74-83-9        0.11      15                         
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether...........................      101-55-3        0.055     15                         
n-Butyl alcohol......................................       71-36-3        5.6       2.6                        
Butyl benzyl phthalate...............................       85-68-7        0.017     28                         
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (Dinoseb)..............       88-85-7        0.066     2.5                        
Carbon disulfide.....................................       75-15-0        3.8       4.8 mg/l TCLP              
Carbon tetrachloride.................................       56-23-5        0.057     6.0                        
Chlordane (alpha and gamma isomers)..................       57-74-9        0.0033    0.26                       
p-Chloroaniline......................................      106-47-8        0.46      16                         
Chlorobenzene........................................      108-90-7        0.057     6.0                        
Chlorobenzilate......................................      510-15-6        0.10      NA                         
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene...............................      126-99-8        0.057     0.28                       
Chlorodibromomethane.................................      124-48-1        0.057     15                         
Chloroethane.........................................       75-00-3        0.27      6.0                        
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane...........................      111-91-1        0.036     7.2                        
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether..............................      111-44-4        0.033     6.0                        
Chloroform...........................................       67-66-3        0.046     6.0                        
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether..........................      108-60-1        0.055     7.2                        
p-Chloro-m-cresol....................................       59-50-7        0.018     14                         
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether............................      110-75-8        0.062     NA                         
Chloromethane (Methyl chloride)......................       74-87-3        0.19      30                         
2-Chloronaphthalene..................................       91-58-7        0.055     5.6                        
2-Chlorophenol.......................................       95-57-8        0.044     5.7                        
3-Chloropropylene....................................      107-05-1        0.036     30                         
Chrysene.............................................      218-01-9        0.059     3.4                        
o-Cresol.............................................       95-48-7        0.11      5.6                        
m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from p-cresol)....      108-39-4        0.77      5.6                        
p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from m-cresol)....      106-44-5        0.77      5.6                        
Cyclohexanone........................................      108-94-1        0.36      0.75 mg/l TCLP             
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane..........................       96-12-8        0.11      15                         
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane)...............      106-93-4        0.028     15                         
Dibromomethane.......................................       74-95-3        0.11      15                         
2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)...............       94-75-7        0.72      10                         
o,p'-DDD.............................................       53-19-0        0.023     0.087                      
p,p'-DDD.............................................       72-54-8        0.023     0.087                      
o,p'-DDE.............................................     3424-82-6        0.031     0.087                      
p,p'-DDE.............................................       72-55-9        0.031     0.087                      
o,p'-DDT.............................................      789-02-6        0.0039    0.087                      
p,p'-DDT.............................................       50-29-3        0.0039    0.087                      
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene................................       53-70-3        0.055     8.2                        
Dibenz(a,e)pyrene....................................      192-65-4        0.061     NA                         
m-Dichlorobenzene....................................      541-73-1        0.036     6.0                        
o-Dichlorobenzene....................................       95-50-1        0.088     6.0                        
p-Dichlorobenzene....................................      106-46-7        0.090     6.0                        
Dichlorodifluoromethane..............................       75-71-8        0.23      7.2                        
1,1-Dichloroethane...................................       75-34-3        0.059     6.0                        
1,2-Dichloroethane...................................      107-06-2        0.21      6.0                        
1,1-Dichloroethylene.................................       75-35-4        0.025     6.0                        
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene...........................      156-60-5        0.054     30                         
2,4-Dichlorophenol...................................      120-83-2        0.044     14                         
2,6-Dichlorophenol...................................       87-65-0        0.044     14                         
1,2-Dichloropropane..................................       78-87-5        0.85      18                         
cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene............................    10061-01-5        0.036     18                         
trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene..........................    10061-02-6        0.036     18                         
Dieldrin.............................................       60-57-1        0.017     0.13                       
Diethyl phthalate....................................       84-66-2        0.20      28                         
2-4-Dimethyl phenol..................................      105-67-9        0.036     14                         
Dimethyl phthalate...................................      131-11-3        0.047     28                         
Di-n-butyl phthalate.................................       84-74-2        0.057     28                         
1,4-Dinitrobenzene...................................      100-25-4        0.32      2.3                        
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol.................................      534-52-1        0.28      160                        
2,4-Dinitrophenol....................................       51-28-5        0.12      160                        
2,4-Dinitrotoluene...................................      121-14-2        0.32      140                        
2,6-Dinitrotoluene...................................      606-20-2        0.55      28                         
Di-n-octyl phthalate.................................      117-84-0        0.017     28                         
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene............................       60-11-7        0.13      NA                         
Di-n-propylnitrosamine...............................      621-64-7        0.40      14                         
1,4-Dioxane..........................................      123-91-1       NA         170                        
Diphenylamine (difficult to distinguish from               122-39-4        0.92      13                         
 diphenylnitrosamine).                                                                                          
Diphenylnitrosamine (difficult to distinguish from          86-30-6        0.92      13                         
 diphenylamine).                                                                                                
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine................................      122-66-7        0.087     NA                         
Disulfoton...........................................      298-04-4        0.017     6.2                        
Endosulfan I.........................................      939-98-8        0.023     0.066                      
Endosulfan II........................................     33213-6-5        0.029     0.13                       
Endosulfan sulfate...................................     1-31-07-8        0.029     0.13                       
Endrin...............................................       72-20-8        0.0028    0.13                       
Endrin aldehyde......................................     7421-93-4        0.025     0.13                       
Ethyl acetate........................................      141-78-6        0.34      33                         
Ethyl cyanide (Propanenitrile).......................      107-12-0        0.24      360                        
Ethyl benzene........................................      100-41-4        0.057     10                         
Ethyl ether..........................................       60-29-7        0.12      160                        
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate..........................      117-81-7        0.28      28                         
Ethyl methacrylate...................................       97-63-2        0.14      160                        
Ethylene oxide.......................................       75-21-8        0.12      NA                         
Famphur..............................................       52-85-7        0.017     15                         
Fluoranthene.........................................      206-44-0        0.068     3.4                        
Fluorene.............................................       86-73-7        0.059     3.4                        
Heptachlor...........................................       76-44-8        0.0012    0.066                      
Heptachlor epoxide...................................     1024-57-3        0.016     0.066                      
Hexachlorobenzene....................................      118-74-1        0.055     10                         
Hexachlorobutadiene..................................       87-68-3        0.055     5.6                        
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene............................       77-47-4        0.057     2.4                        
HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins).............            NA        0.000063  0.001                      
HxCDFs (All Hexachlorodibenzofurans).................            NA        0.000063  0.001                      
Hexachloroethane.....................................       67-72-1        0.055     30                         
Hexachloropropylene..................................     1888-71-7        0.035     30                         
Indeno (1,2,3-c,d) pyrene............................      193-39-5        0.0055    3.4                        
Iodomethane..........................................       74-88-4        0.19      65                         
Isobutyl alcohol.....................................       78-83-1        5.6       170                        
Isodrin..............................................      465-73-6        0.021     0.066                      
Isosafrole...........................................      120-58-1        0.081     2.6                        
Kepone...............................................      143-50-8        0.0011    0.13                       
Methacrylonitrile....................................      126-98-7        0.24      84                         
Methanol.............................................       67-56-1        5.6       0.75 mg/l TCLP             
Methapyrilene........................................       91-80-5        0.081     1.5                        
Methoxychlor.........................................       72-43-5        0.25      0.18                       
3-Methylcholanthrene.................................       56-49-5        0.0055    15                         
4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)...................      101-14-4        0.50      30                         
Methylene chloride...................................       75-09-2        0.089     30                         
Methyl ethyl ketone..................................       78-93-3        0.28      36                         
Methyl isobutyl ketone...............................      108-10-1        0.14      33                         
Methyl methacrylate..................................       80-62-6        0.14      160                        
Methyl methansulfonate...............................       66-27-3        0.018     NA                         
Methyl parathion.....................................      298-00-0        0.014     4.6                        
Naphthalene..........................................       91-20-3        0.059     5.6                        
2-Naphthylamine......................................       91-59-8        0.52      NA                         
o-Nitroaniline.......................................       88-74-4        0.27      14                         
p-Nitroaniline.......................................      100-01-6        0.028     28                         
Nitrobenzene.........................................       98-95-3        0.068     14                         
5-Nitro-o-toluidine..................................       99-55-8        0.32      28                         
o-Nitrophenol........................................       88-75-5        0.028     13                         
p-Nitrophenol........................................      100-02-7        0.12      29                         
N-Nitrosodiethylamine................................       55-18-5        0.40      28                         
N-Nitrosodimethylamine...............................       62-75-9        0.40      2.3                        
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine............................      924-16-3        0.40      17                         
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine............................    10595-95-6        0.40      2.3                        
N-Nitrosomorpholine..................................       59-89-2        0.40      2.3                        
N-Nitrosopiperidine..................................      100-75-4        0.013     35                         
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine.................................      930-55-2        0.013     35                         
Parathion............................................       56-38-2        0.014     4.6                        
Total PCBs (sum of all PCB isomers, or all Aroclors).     1336-36-3        0.10      10                         
Pentachlorobenzene...................................      608-93-5        0.055     10                         
PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins)............            NA        0.000063  0.001                      
PeCDFs (All Pentachlorodibenzofurans)................            NA        0.000035  0.001                      
Pentachloroethane....................................       76-01-7        0.055     6.0                        
Pentachloronitrobenzene..............................       82-68-8        0.055     4.8                        
Pentachlorophenol....................................       87-86-5        0.089     7.4                        
Phenacetin...........................................       62-44-2        0.081     16                         
Phenanthrene.........................................       85-01-8        0.059     5.6                        
Phenol...............................................      108-95-2        0.039     6.2                        
Phorate..............................................      298-02-2        0.021     4.6                        
Phthalic acid........................................      100-21-0        0.055     28                         
Phthalic anhydride...................................       85-44-9        0.055     28                         
Pronamide............................................    23950-58-5        0.093     1.5                        
Pyrene...............................................      129-00-0        0.067     8.2                        
Pyridine.............................................      110-86-1        0.014     16                         
Safrole..............................................       94-59-7        0.081     22                         
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)....................................       93-72-1        0.72      7.9                        
2,4,5-T (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid)..........       93-76-5        0.72      7.9                        
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene...........................       95-94-3        0.055     14                         
TCDDs (All Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins).............            NA        0.000063  0.001                      
TCDFs (All Tetrachlorodibenzofurans).................            NA        0.000063  0.001                      
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane............................      630-20-6        0.057     6.0                        
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane............................       79-34-6        0.057     6.0                        
Tetrachloroethylene..................................      127-18-4        0.056     6.0                        
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol............................       58-90-2        0.030     7.4                        
Toluene..............................................      108-88-3        0.080     10                         
Toxaphene............................................     8001-35-2        0.0095    2.6                        
Bromoform (Tribromomethane)..........................       75-25-2        0.63      15                         
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene...............................      120-82-1        0.055     19                         
1,1,1-Trichloroethane................................       71-55-6        0.054     6.0                        
1,1,2-Trichloroethane................................       79-00-5        0.054     6.0                        
Trichloroethylene....................................       79-01-6        0.054     6.0                        
Trichloromonofluoromethane...........................       75-69-4        0.020     30                         
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol................................       95-95-4        0.18      7.4                        
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol................................       88-06-2        0.035     7.4                        
1,2,3-Trichloropropane...............................       96-18-4        0.85      30                         
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane................       76-13-1        0.057     30                         
tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl) phosphate...................      126-72-7        0.11      0.10                       
Vinyl chloride.......................................       75-01-4        0.27      6.0                        
Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-, m-, and p-xylene        1330-20-7        0.32      30                         
 concentrations).                                                                                               
Antimony.............................................     7440-36-0        1.9       2.1 mg/l TCLP              
Arsenic..............................................     7440-38-2        1.4       5.0 mg/l TCLP              
Barium...............................................     7440-39-3        1.2       7.6 mg/l TCLP              
Beryllium............................................     7440-41-7        0.82      0.014 mg/l TCLP            
Cadmium..............................................     7440-43-9        0.69      0.19 mg/l TCLP             
Chromium (Total).....................................     7440-47-3        2.77      0.86 mg/l TCLP             
Cyanides (Total)\4\..................................       57-12-5        1.2       590                        
Cyanides (Amenable)\4\...............................       57-12-5        0.86      30                         
Fluoride.............................................    16964-48-8       35         NA                         
Lead.................................................     7439-92-1        0.69      0.37 mg/l TCLP             
Mercury--Nonwastewater from Retort...................     7439-97-6       NA         0.20 mg/l TCLP             
Mercury--All Others..................................     7439-97-6        0.15      0.025 mg/l TCLP            
Nickel...............................................     7440-02-0        3.98      5.0 mg/l TCLP              
Selenium.............................................     7782-49-2        0.82      0.16 mg/l TCLP             
Silver...............................................     7440-22-4        0.43      0.30 mg/l TCLP             
Sulfide..............................................     8496-25-8       14         NA                         
Thallium.............................................     7440-28-0        1.4       0.078 mg/l TCLP            
Vanadium.............................................     7440-62-2        4.3       0.23 mg/l TCLP             
Zinc\5\..............................................     7440-66-6        2.61      5.3 mg/l TCLP              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a   
  combination of a chemical with its salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only. 
\2\Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/l are based on analysis of composite samples.    
\3\Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards       
  expressed as a concentration were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in          
  accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O or 40 CFR part 265, subpart O, or    
  based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical            
  requirements. A facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR          
  268.40(d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples.              
\4\Both Cyanides (Total) and Cyanides (Amenable) for nonwastewaters are to be analyzed using Method 9010 or     
  9012, found in ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods'', EPA Publication SW-846,
  as incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, with a sample size of 10 grams and a distillation time of one  
  hour and 15 minutes.                                                                                          
\5\Zinc is not an ``underlying hazardous constituent'' in characteristic wastes, according to the definition at 
  268.2(i).                                                                                                     
Note: NA means not applicable.                                                                                  

Appendix IV to Part 268 [Revised]

    32. Appendix IV to part 268 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix IV to Part 268--Wastes Excluded From Lab Packs Under the 
Alternative Treatment Standards of Sec. 268.42(c)

    Hazardous waste with the following EPA Hazardous Waste Codes may 
not be placed in lab packs under the alternative lab pack treatment 
standards of Sec. 268.42(c): D009, F019, K003, K004, K005, K006, 
K062, K071, K100, K106, P010, P011, P012, P076, P078, U134, U151.

Appendix V to Part 268 [Removed]

    33. Appendix V to part 268 is removed and reserved.

Appendix X to Part 268 [Added]

    34. Appendix X to part 268 is added to read as follows:

             Appendix X to Part 268--Recordkeeping, Notification, and/or Certification Requirements             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Recordkeeping,     
                                                                      Recipient of        notification, and/or  
       Entity              Scenario              Frequency           notification            certification      
                                                                                             requirements       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Generator........  A. Waste does not    Each shipment........  Treatment or         Notice must include:     
                       meet applicable                             storage facility.   EPA hazardous    
                       treatment                                                        waste number.           
                       standards or                                                    Constituents of  
                       exceeds applicable                                               concern.                
                       prohibition levels                                              Treatability     
                       (see Sec.                                                        group.                  
                       268.7(a)(1)).                                                   Manifest number. 
                                                                                       Waste analysis   
                                                                                        data (where available). 
                      B. Waste can be      Each shipment........  Land disposal        Notice and certification 
                       disposed of                                 facility.            statement that waste    
                       without further                                                  meets applicable        
                       treatment (meets                                                 treatment standards or  
                       applicable                                                       applicable prohibition  
                       treatment                                                        levels.                 
                       standards or does                                               Notice must include:     
                       not exceed                                                      EPA hazardous    
                       prohibition levels                                               waste number.           
                       upon generation)                                                Constituents of  
                       (see Sec.                                                        concern.                
                       268.7(a)(2)).                                                   Treatability     
                                                                                        group.                  
                                                                                       Manifest number. 
                                                                                       Waste analysis   
                                                                                        data (where available). 
                                                                                       Certification statement  
                                                                                        required under Sec.     
                                                                                        268.7(a)(2)(ii) that    
                                                                                        waste complies with     
                                                                                        treatment standards and 
                                                                                        prohibitions.           
                      C. Waste is subject  Each shipment........  Receiving facility.  Notice must include:     
                       to exemption from                                               Statement that   
                       a prohibition on                                                 waste is not prohibited 
                       the type of land                                                 from land disposal.     
                       disposal utilized                                               EPA hazardous    
                       for the waste,                                                   waste number.           
                       such as a case-by-                                              Constituents of  
                       case extension                                                   concern.                
                       under Sec. 268.5,                                               Treatability     
                       an exemption under                                               group.                  
                       Sec. 268.6, or a                                                Manifest number. 
                       nationwide                                                      Waste analysis   
                       capacity variance                                                data (where available). 
                       (see Sec.                                                       Date the waste is
                       268.7(a)(3)).                                                    subject to the          
                                                                                        prohibitions.           
                      D. Waste is being    Minimum of 30 days     EPA Regional         Generator must develop,  
                       accumulated in       prior to treatment     Administrator (or    keep on-site, and follow
                       tanks or             activity.              designated           a written waste analysis
                       containers                                  representative) or   plan describing         
                       regulated under 40                          authorized State.    procedures used to      
                       CFR 262.34 and is                           Delivery must be     comply with the         
                       being treated in                            verified.            treatment standards.    
                       such tanks or                                                   If waste is shipped off- 
                       containers to meet                                               site, generator also    
                       applicable                                                       must comply with        
                       treatment                                                        notification requirement
                       standards (see                                                   of Sec. 268.7(a)(2).    
                       Sec. 268.7(a)(4)).                                                                       
                      E. Generator is      Each shipment........  Treatment facility.  Notice in accordance with
                       managing a lab                                                   Sec. 268.7(a)(1),       
                       pack containing                                                  (a)(5), and (a)(6),     
                       certain wastes and                                               where applicable.       
                       wishes to use an                                                Certification in         
                       alternative                                                      accordance with Sec.    
                       treatment standard                                               268.7(a)(8).            
                       (see Sec.                                                                                
                       268.7(a)(8)).                                                                            
                      F. Small quantity    Initial shipment.....  Treatment facility.  Must comply with         
                       generators with                                                  applicable notification 
                       tolling agreements                                               and certification       
                       (pursuant to 40                                                  requirements in Sec.    
                       CFR 262.20(e))                                                   268.7(a).               
                       (see Sec.                                                       Generator also must      
                       268.7(a)(9)).                                                    retain copy of the      
                                                                                        notification and        
                                                                                        certification together  
                                                                                        with tolling agreement  
                                                                                        on-site for at least 3  
                                                                                        years after termination 
                                                                                        or expiration of        
                                                                                        agreement.              
                      G. Generator has     N/A..................  Generator's file...  All supporting data must 
                       determined waste                                                 be retained on-site in  
                       is restricted                                                    generator's files.      
                       based solely on                                                                          
                       his knowledge of                                                                         
                       the waste (see                                                                           
                       Sec. 268.7(a)(5)).                                                                       
                      H. Generator has     N/A..................  Generator's file...  All waste analysis data  
                       determined waste                                                 must be retained on-site
                       is restricted                                                    in generator's files.   
                       based on testing                                                                         
                       waste or an                                                                              
                       extract (see Sec.                                                                        
                       268.7(a)(5)).                                                                            
                      I. Generator has     One-time.............  Generator's file...  Notice of generation and 
                       determined that                                                  subsequent exclusion    
                       waste is excluded                                                from the definition of  
                       from the                                                         hazardous or solid      
                       definition of                                                    waste, or exemption from
                       hazardous or solid                                               Subtitle C regulation,  
                       waste or exempt                                                  and information         
                       from Subtitle C                                                  regarding the           
                       regulation (see                                                  disposition of the      
                       Sec. 268.7(a)(6)).                                               waste.                  
                      J. Generator (or     One-time.............  EPA Regional         Notice must include:     
                       treater) claims                             Administrator or    Name and address 
                       that hazardous                              authorized State.    of Subtitle D facility  
                       debris is excluded                          Notification must    receiving treated       
                       from the                                    be updated as        debris.                 
                       definition of                               necessary under     EPA hazardous    
                       hazardous waste                             Sec. 268.7(d)(2).    waste number and        
                       under 40 CFR                                                     description of debris as
                       261.3(f)(1) (see                                                 initially generated.    
                       Sec. 268.7(d)).                                                 Technology used  
                                                                                        to treat the debris     
                                                                                        (Table 1 of Sec.        
                                                                                        268.45).                
                                                                                       Certification and        
                                                                                        recordkeeping in        
                                                                                        accordance with Sec.    
                                                                                        268.7(d)(3).            
                      K. Generator (or     One-time.............  Generator's (or      Notice must include:     
                       treater) claims                             treater's) files    Name and address 
                       that                                        and EPA Regional     of Subtitle D facility  
                       characteristic                              Administrator or     receiving the waste.    
                       wastes are no                               authorized State.   EPA hazardous    
                       longer hazardous                            Notification must    waste number and        
                       (see Sec.                                   be updated as        description of waste as 
                       268.9(d)).                                  necessary under      initially generated.    
                                                                   Sec. 268.9(d).      Treatability     
                                                                                        group.                  
                                                                                       Underlying       
                                                                                        hazardous constituents. 
                                                                                       Certification in         
                                                                                        accordance with Sec.    
                                                                                        268.9(d)(2).            
                      L. Other             N/A..................  Generator's file...  Generator must retain a  
                       recordkeeping                                                    copy of all notices,    
                       requirements (see                                                certifications,         
                       Sec. 268.7(a)(7)).                                               demonstrations, waste   
                                                                                        analysis data, and other
                                                                                        documentation produced  
                                                                                        pursuant to Sec. 268.7  
                                                                                        on-site for at least 5  
                                                                                        years from the date that
                                                                                        the waste was last sent 
                                                                                        to on-site or off-site  
                                                                                        treatment, storage, or  
                                                                                        disposal. This period is
                                                                                        automatically extended  
                                                                                        during enforcement      
                                                                                        actions or as requested 
                                                                                        by the Administrator.   
II. Treatment         A. Waste shipped     Each shipment........  Land disposal        Notice must include:     
 Facility.             from treatment                              facility.           EPA hazardous    
                       facility to land                                                 waste number.           
                       disposal facility                                               Constituents of  
                       (see Sec.                                                        concern.                
                       268.7(b)(4),                                                    Treatability     
                       (b)(5)).                                                         group.                  
                                                                                       Manifest number. 
                                                                                       Waste analysis   
                                                                                        data (where available). 
                                                                                       Applicable certification,
                                                                                        in accordance with Sec. 
                                                                                        268.7(b)(5)(i), (ii) or 
                                                                                        (iii), stating that the 
                                                                                        waste or treatment      
                                                                                        residue has been treated
                                                                                        in compliance with      
                                                                                        applicable treatment    
                                                                                        standards and           
                                                                                        prohibitions.           
                      B. Waste treatment   Each shipment........  Receiving facility.  Treatment, storage, or   
                       residue from a                                                   disposal facility must  
                       treatment or                                                     comply with all notice  
                       storage facility                                                 and certification       
                       will be further                                                  requirements applicable 
                       managed at a                                                     to generators.          
                       different                                                                                
                       treatment or                                                                             
                       storage facility                                                                         
                       (see Sec.                                                                                
                       268.7(b)(6)).                                                                            
                      C. Where wastes are  Each shipment........  Regional             No notification to       
                       recyclable                                  Administrator (or    receiving facility      
                       materials used in                           delegated            required pursuant to    
                       a manner                                    representative).     Sec. 268.7(b)(4).       
                       constituting                                                    Certification as         
                       disposal subject                                                 described in Sec.       
                       to Sec. 266.20(b)                                                268.7(b)(5) and notice  
                       (see Sec.                                                        with information listed 
                       268.7(b)(7)).                                                    in Sec. 268.7(b)(4),    
                                                                                        except manifest number. 
                                                                                       Recycling facility must  
                                                                                        keep records of the name
                                                                                        and location of each    
                                                                                        entity receiving        
                                                                                        hazardous waste-derived 
                                                                                        products.               
III. Land Disposal    A. Wastes accepted   N/A..................  N/A................  Maintain copies of notice
 Facility.             by land disposal                                                 and certifications      
                       facility (see Sec.                                               specified in Sec.       
                       268.7(c)).                                                       268.7(a) and (b).       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certification Statements

    A. I certify under penalty of law that I personally have 
examined and am familiar with the waste through analysis and testing 
or through knowledge of the waste to support this certification that 
the waste complies with the treatment standards specified in 40 CFR 
part 268, subpart D and all applicable prohibitions set forth in 40 
CFR 268.32 or RCRA section 3004(d). I believe that the information I 
submitted is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are 
significant penalties for submitting a false certification, 
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment. 
(Sec. 268.7(a)(2)(ii))
    B. I certify under penalty of law that I personally have 
examined and am familiar with the waste and that the lab pack does 
not contain any wastes identified at Sec. 268.42(c)(2). I am aware 
that there are significant penalties for submitting a false 
certification, including the possibility of fine or imprisonment. 
(Sec. 268.7(a)(8))
    C. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally 
examined and am familiar with the treatment technology and operation 
of the treatment process used to support this certification and 
that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately 
responsible for obtaining this information, I believe that the 
treatment process has been operated and maintained properly so as to 
comply with the performance levels specified in 40 CFR part 268, 
subpart D, and all applicable prohibitions set forth in 40 CFR 
268.32 or RCRA section 3004(d) without impermissible dilution of the 
prohibited waste. I am aware that there are significant penalties 
for submitting a false certification, including the possibility of 
fine and imprisonment. (Sec. 268.7(b)(5)(i))
    D. I certify under penalty of law that the waste has been 
treated in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 268.42. I am 
aware that there are significant penalties for submitting a false 
certification, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment. 
(Sec. 268.7(b)(5)(ii))
    E. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally 
examined and am familiar with the treatment technology and operation 
of the treatment process used to support this certification and 
that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately 
responsible for obtaining this information, I believe that the 
nonwastewater organic constituents have been treated by incineration 
in units operated in accordance with 40 CFR part 264, subpart O or 
40 CFR part 265, subpart O, or by combustion in fuel substitution 
units operating in accordance with applicable technical 
requirements, and I have been unable to detect the nonwastewater 
organic constituents, despite having used best good faith efforts to 
analyze for such constituents. I am aware that there are significant 
penalties for submitting a false certification, including the 
possibility of fine and imprisonment. (Sec. 268.7(b)(5)(iii))
    F. I certify under penalty of law that the waste has been 
treated in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 268.40 to 
remove the hazardous characteristic. This decharacterized waste 
contains underlying hazardous constituents that require further 
treatment to meet universal treatment standards. I am aware that 
there are significant penalties for submitting a false 
certification, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment. 
(Sec. 268.7(b)(5)(iv))
    G. I certify under penalty of law that the debris have been 
treated in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 268.45. am 
aware that there are significant penalties for making a false 
certification, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment. 
(Sec. 268.7(d)(3)(iii))

PART 271--REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE 
PROGRAMS

    35. The authority citation for Part 271 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.

Subpart A--Requirements for Final Authorization

    36. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entries to 
Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication in the Federal 
Register, and by adding the following entries to Table 2 in 
chronological order by effective date in the Federal Register:


Sec. 271.1 Purpose and scope.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *

                                   Table 1.--Regulations Implementing the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Promulgation date                       Title of regulation                        Federal Register reference               Effective date      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
September 19, 1994..............  Land Disposal Restrictions Phase II--Universal   [Insert FR page numbers].................  December 19, 1994.        
                                   Treatment Standards, and Treatment Standards                                                                         
                                   for Organic Toxicity Characteristic Wastes and                                                                       
                                   Newly Listed Wastes\4\ in Sec. 268.38.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****                                                                                                                                                   
\4\The following portions of this rule are not HSWA regulations: Secs. 260.30, 260.31, 261.2.                                                           


                                      Table 2.--Self-Implementing Provisions of the Solid Waste Amendments of 1984                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Effective date                     Self-implementing provision                          RCRA citation                Federal Register reference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
December 19, 1994...............  Prohibition on land disposal of newly listed     3004(g)(4)(C) and 3004(m)................  September 19, 1994.       
                                   and identified wastes.                                                                     59 FR [insert page        
                                                                                                                               numbers].                
September 19, 1995..............  Establishment of treatment standards for D001    3004(m)..................................  Do.                       
                                   and D012-D017 wastes injected into                                                                                   
                                   nonhazardous deep wells.                                                                                             
September 19, 1996..............  Prohibition on land disposal of radioactive      3004(g)(4)(C) and 3004(m)................  Do.                       
                                   waste mixed with the newly listed or                                                                                 
                                   identified wastes, including soil and debris.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-22493 Filed 9-16-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P