[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 249 (Thursday, December 29, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31617]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 29, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261, 266, and 268

[SW-FRL-5127-2]
RIN 2050-AE15

 

Standards for the Management and Use of Slag Residues Derived 
From HTMR Treatment of K061, K062, and F006 Wastes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 
proposing to allow materials resulting from the treatment of certain 
hazardous wastes to be used as a product in road construction and as an 
anti-skid/deicing material on road surfaces. These materials are 
residues (``slags'') generated from the treatment of pollution control 
dusts resulting from scrap metal recycling (electric arc furnace dust). 
The Agency evaluated the potential risks that might arise from the use 
of these ``slags'', and determined that these uses do not present a 
significant risk. This action would reclassify these treated materials 
as nonhazardous and allow these uses, but only if the toxic metals in 
the waste are reduced to safe levels by treatment.
    The Agency is proposing this action to clarify two seemingly 
inconsistent parts of the regulations governing residual materials 
generated from the treatment of hazardous wastes. This rule clarifies 
what uses of the treatment residues are allowed, and specifies what 
conditions must be met for these materials to be used in this manner. 
Furthermore, this action partially fulfills a settlement agreement 
entered into by the Agency with the Natural Resources Defense Council 
(NRDC) and the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC) to resolve the 
apparent inconsistency in the regulations.
    The Agency believes these proposed actions will promote recycling 
and resource recovery in two ways. This action will directly encourage 
the recovery of metals from the hazardous electric arc furnace dust and 
other metal wastes by allowing the ``slag'' residuals to be used in a 
beneficial and environmentally sound way. Furthermore, this proposed 
rule will encourage the recycling of scrap metal by helping to reduce 
the costs that result from the treatment and disposal of the electric 
arc furnace dust. The Agency believes that this rule would satisfy the 
goals of resource recovery, while also ensuring protection of human 
health and the environment.

DATES: EPA will accept public comments on this proposed rule until 
February 13, 1995. Comments postmarked after this date will be marked 
``late'' and may not be considered.

ADDRESSES: The public must send an original and two copies of their 
comments to EPA RCRA Docket Number F-94-SRTP-FFFFF, room 2616 (Mail 
Code 5305), 401 M Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460. The docket is open 
from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal 
holidays. The public must make an appointment to review docket 
materials by calling (202) 260-9327. A maximum of 100 pages may be 
copied at no cost. Additional copies cost $0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact the 
RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-9346, or at (703) 412-9810. For 
specific questions concerning this notice, contact Narendra Chaudhari, 
Office of Solid Waste (Mail Code 5304), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-4787.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Existing Regulations for Hazardous Wastes Used in a Manner 
Constituting Disposal

    Currently, hazardous wastes that are used in a manner constituting 
disposal (applied to or placed on land), including waste-derived 
products that are produced in whole or in part from hazardous wastes 
and used in a manner constituting disposal, are not subject to 
hazardous waste disposal regulations provided the products produced 
meet two conditions. First, the hazardous wastes must undergo a 
chemical reaction in the course of becoming products so as to be 
inseparable by physical means (see Sec. 266.20(b)). A second condition 
for exemption is that the waste-derived products must meet best 
demonstrated available technology (BDAT) treatment standards under the 
land disposal restrictions program for every prohibited hazardous waste 
that they contain before they are placed on land (see Sec. 266.20(b)).
    The exemption in Sec. 266.20 is used for slag residues (slags) 
generated from the treatment of hazardous waste K061 (and, to a limited 
extent, K062 and F006) using high temperature metal recovery (HTMR) 
processes. Section 266.20 is applicable because the majority of this 
slag is used in highway construction materials (e.g., as road subbase), 
and a limited amount is also used by directly applying it to road 
surfaces (i.e., top grade and as an anti-skid or deicing agent). (See 
56 FR 15020, April 12, 1991.)
    On August 19, 1991 and August 18, 1992 (see 56 FR 41164 and 57 FR 
37194), EPA finalized ``generic exclusions'' for nonwastewater slag 
residues generated from the HTMR treatment of several metal-bearing 
hazardous wastes (K061, K062, and F006). These HTMR slag residues are 
excluded from the hazardous waste regulations provided they meet 
designated concentration levels (generic exclusion levels) for 13 
metals, are disposed of in Subtitle D units, and exhibit no 
characteristics of hazardous waste (see Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)). The 
generic exclusion levels for the metals were based on the use of the 
EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML), which predicts the 
potential for groundwater contamination from wastes that are placed in 
a landfill. EPA limited the generic exclusion to residues disposed of 
in a Subtitle D unit because, at that time, the Agency could not 
properly evaluate concerns over potential releases to other media 
resulting from uses of the HTMR slag as product, especially as an anti-
skid material on road surfaces (see 56 FR 41164, August 19,1991).
    As EPA noted in the final rule for the initial generic exclusion 
for K061 residues (see 56 FR 41164, August 19, 1991), the use of HTMR 
residues as anti-skid material was not prohibited, provided the residue 
meets the exemption conditions given in Sec. 266.20. EPA also noted in 
the same notice that it would further evaluate the uses of K061 HTMR 
residues that constitute disposal, and would consider amendments to 
Sec. 266.20 for HTMR slags that might require further controls on such 
uses.

B. Summary of Petition and Settlement Agreement

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Hazardous 
Waste Treatment Council (HWTC) filed a petition for review challenging 
EPA's decision not to apply ``generic exclusion levels''--levels at 
which K061 slags are deemed nonhazardous--to K061 slags used as waste-
derived ``products'' and applied to or placed on land. The generic 
exclusion levels established for some metals in the K061 HTMR slags are 
lower than the BDAT standards that apply to K061. Therefore, while the 
generic exclusion requires that the nonhazardous K061 slag that meets 
exclusion levels be disposed of in a Subtitle D unit, K061 HTMR slag 
that may exhibit metal levels above the exclusion levels (but below 
BDAT) may be used as a product in a manner constituting disposal under 
the exemption in Sec. 266.20(b). The petitioners pointed out the 
seeming anomaly of the slag used in an uncontrolled manner being 
effectively subject to lesser standards than slag disposed in a 
controlled landfill.
    On August 13, 1993, EPA entered into a settlement agreement with 
these petitioners which would address their concerns through two 
separate notice-and-comment rulemakings. EPA agreed to propose the 
first rule within 6 months of the settlement date (and issue a final 
rule within 12 months) to either establish generic exclusion levels for 
``non-encapsulated'' uses of K061 slags, or effectively prohibit such 
uses of K061 slags on the land. EPA also agreed to propose a second 
rule within 16 months of the settlement date (and issue a final rule 
within 28 months), to establish generic exclusion levels for 
encapsulated uses of K061 slags on the land. The agreement specified 
that the generic exclusion levels for K061 slags will be based on an 
evaluation of the potential risks to human health and the environment 
from the use of K061 slags as waste-derived products, taking into 
account all relevant pathways of exposure.

C. Implementation of Settlement Agreement

    This action represents the second proposed rule required under the 
settlement agreement. EPA has promulgated the first rules required 
under the settlement agreement. (See 59 FR 8583, February 23, 1994 
(proposed) and 59 FR 43496, August 24, 1994 (final)). The final rule 
will effectively prohibit, beginning on February 24, 1995, anti-skid/
deicing uses of HTMR slags derived from K061, K062, and F006, as waste-
derived products placed on land. Today's proposal contains EPA's risk-
based determinations for all major K061, K062, and F006 HTMR slag uses, 
including anti-skid/deicing uses, and thus implements the remaining 
portion of the agreement.

II. Overview of Production, Processing, and Uses

A. Production of HTMR Slags

    According to information available to EPA, HTMR slags are by-
products of metal recovery operations (which involve recovery of metals 
from metal-bearing hazardous wastes) produced primarily at two 
facilities, Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc. (HRD) and 
International Metal Reclamation Company (Inmetco). HRD is currently the 
major generator of HTMR slags which are at issue in this proposed rule. 
In 1992, HRD processed 376,000 tons of electric arc furnace (EAF) dust, 
which is reportedly 68 percent of the EAF dust generated domestically. 
From this amount of EAF dust, HRD produced 120,000 tons of zinc 
calcine, 19,000 tons of lead concentrate, and 237,000 tons of slag (see 
EPA's Report to Congress on Metal Recovery, Environmental Regulation & 
Hazardous Waste; EPA 530-R-93-018). Inmetco provided information that 
it processed a total of 58,100 tons of wastes in 1993, recovering 
22,196 tons of metals and producing 15,000 tons of slag (See docket for 
information submitted by Inmetco at a meeting with EPA on March 10, 
1994).

B. Process Description

    There are a number of HTMR processes, all of which are multi-step 
processes. The rotary kiln is the HTMR process primarily used to 
recover metals from K061, K062, and F006 wastes. The process steps are 
generally these: (1) wastes are mixed with coal or coke and fluxes to 
prepare feed materials, (2) high temperature processing is used to 
reduce metal oxides to their metallic form, 3) volatile metals 
(primarily cadmium, zinc, and lead) are recovered by collection 
systems, and 4) residual materials are discharged from the process and 
cooled to form a slag (see BDAT Background Document for K061). It 
should be noted that not all metal-bearing hazardous wastes are 
amenable to recovery by HTMR processes, possibly because their metal 
content is too low or because of significant quantities of impurities 
or contaminants that cannot be removed due either to economic or 
technical limitations. Therefore, metal reclaimers usually set 
specifications for materials that they will accept for processing (see 
EPA's Report to Congress on Metal Recovery, Environmental Regulation & 
Hazardous Waste; EPA 530-R-93-018).

C. Properties and Uses of HTMR Slags

    According to information provided by the generators on the 
physical/chemical properties of HTMR slags (see RCRA docket), these 
slags are highly dense, chemically stable (inert), and highly durable 
(resistant to breakdown). These are all properties which the generators 
claim make HTMR slags desirable construction materials.
    HTMR slags are primarily used as subbase materials (e.g., in 
construction of roads, parking lots, and driveways) and as additive 
ingredients in cement or concrete/asphalt mixtures. Because the subbase 
is covered by a relatively hard/impermeable material and cement or 
concrete/asphalt mixtures lock in any additive ingredients, EPA 
considers these uses of HTMR slags to be ``encapsulated'' uses. A 
smaller portion of HTMR slags (believed to be less than 25 percent) are 
used as anti-skid/deicing materials, as top grade or surfacing 
materials (e.g., in construction of roads), and for other similar uses. 
Because anti-skid/deicing materials are dispersed freely on roads 
(during icy or snowy conditions to provide traction for vehicles) and 
top grade materials result in uncovered (unpaved) roads, parking lots, 
driveways, and the like, EPA considers these uses of HTMR slags to be 
``non-encapsulated'' uses.

III. Proposed Standards for the Management and Use of HTMR Slags

    EPA is proposing that risk-based generic exclusion levels in 
Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C), in addition to being exclusion standards for 
disposing HTMR slags derived from hazardous wastes K061, K062, and F006 
in a Subtitle D unit, also become exclusion standards for managing 
these slags and for using these slags as follows: 1) covered subbase 
materials (e.g., in construction of paved roads, parking lots, and 
driveways), 2) additive ingredients in cement or concrete/asphalt 
mixtures, 3) top grade or surfacing materials (e.g., in construction of 
roads, parking lots, and driveways), and 4) anti-skid/deicing 
materials.
    The Agency is proposing this action for the following reasons. 
Based on the results of a very conservative risk assessment completed 
by EPA for the relevant management practices and end-uses of HTMR slags 
(see Section IV. for details), EPA has tentatively determined that the 
wastepile, transport, road subbase, and landfill waste management 
scenarios for HTMR-derived slags do not require regulation in order to 
protect human health and the environment, if these slags meet the 
generic exclusion levels. In addition, EPA is proposing that use of 
HTMR slags as additive ingredients in cement or concrete/asphalt 
mixtures would also not require regulation, if these slags meet the 
generic exclusion levels. This is primarily because the cement or 
concrete/asphalt mixtures would mix with and chemically bind or 
encapsulate the portion of HTMR slags that are added, and any 
significant releases of slag constituents into the environment are 
unlikely. Finally, the risk assessment results, which are based on very 
conservative release and exposure assumptions, indicated little 
potential risk for the top grade and anti- skid/deicing end-uses of 
HTMR slags that meet the generic exclusion levels. Therefore, EPA is 
also proposing that uses of HTMR slags as top grade and anti-skid/
deicing materials would also not require regulation, if these slags 
meet the generic exclusion levels.
    As a consequence of the above proposed changes, EPA is also 
proposing to amend the existing regulations under Sec. 266.20 that 
conditionally exempt hazardous waste-derived products used in a manner 
constituting disposal from RCRA Subtitle C regulation. Specifically, 
the language of Sec. 266.20 would be revised to prohibit the uses of 
products containing HTMR slags derived from hazardous wastes K061, 
K062, and F006 when these slags are still hazardous wastes, i.e., 
contain hazardous constituents at concentrations exceeding the 
exclusion levels. This prohibition implements RCRA section 3004(g)(5) 
and 3004(m), which require EPA to prohibit land disposal of hazardous 
wastes that have not been pre-treated so as to minimize the short-term 
and long-term threats posed by their land disposal. In addition, EPA is 
including a cross-reference in the table ``Treatment Standards for 
Hazardous Wastes'' in Sec. 268.40 (the Land Disposal Restriction 
treatment standards) which notes the changes concerning utilization of 
HTMR slags in Secs. 261.3 and 266.20.
    As described in section IV.C, the Agency is also taking this 
opportunity to update the generic exclusion levels to reflect the 
changes in the drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for 
some of the metals of concern. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to 
amend the generic exclusion levels for antimony, beryllium, and nickel.
    EPA requests comments on the proposed changes. EPA also requests 
comments on the data used in the risk assessment, the methodology and 
assumptions used in the risk assessment, and other analysis supporting 
the proposed rule. Further, EPA requests comments on whether the uses 
of HTMR slags identified in this proposal are the only uses in practice 
or whether there are other uses practiced or planned. If EPA is alerted 
to other significant uses, the Agency could use the information to 
determine whether or not further analysis of those uses would be 
required.

IV. Overview of Risk Assessment Supporting This Proposal

    EPA performed a very conservative assessment of the potential risks 
to human health and the environment from the relevant management 
practices and uses of K061, K062, and F006 HTMR slags. This section 
summarizes the methods and results of EPA's risk assessment. A more 
detailed presentation of the risk assessment and uncertainties involved 
is provided in a technical background document entitled ``Assessment of 
Potential Risks to Human Health and the Environment from Management and 
Uses of HTMR Slags,'' which is included in the docket for this proposed 
rulemaking.

A. Methodology of Risk Assessment

    EPA's methodology consisted of four primary steps. First, a 
lifecycle analysis for the HTMR slags was performed, starting from the 
point of manufacture and ending at the point of disposal, to identify 
potential contaminant release scenarios (air, ground water, surface 
water, and soil) associated with slag management, use, and disposal 
practices. Second, based on the release scenarios, exposure pathways 
and receptor locations relevant to contaminants in HTMR slags were 
identified. Third, appropriate release, fate, and transport models were 
used to compute contaminant concentrations at receptor points for each 
release and exposure pathway. Finally, the media-specific 
concentrations for air, ground water, surface water, and soil were 
compared to the appropriate human health and ecological effects 
reference concentrations to determine the quantitative risks from 
exposures to contaminants in HTMR slags.
    EPA focused on selecting high-end values for use in the models to 
estimate the individual risk for those persons at the upper end (>90th 
percentile of the population distribution) of the risk distribution. 
The Agency chose this very conservative approach in order to identify 
any pathways or chemicals which would warrant a more in depth risk 
assessment and characterization. A summary of the data sources and risk 
assessment methodology for HTMR slags is provided below.
1. Sources of Constituents Data for HTMR Slags
    The constituents of concern in HTMR slags were identified in the 
Land Disposal Restrictions for Electric Arc Furnace Dust (K061) - Final 
Rule (56 FR No. 160, p 41164) and supported by the Best Demonstrated 
Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document for K061 (US EPA, 
1988). Specifically, the K061 Final Rule identified fourteen metals 
requiring BDAT treatment standards for K061, including: antimony, 
arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, 
selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc. However, for various 
reasons discussed in the K061 Final Rule, EPA promulgated the standard 
for vanadium as ``reserved.''
    For the purposes of the risk assessment, total concentrations of 
constituents of concern in HTMR residuals were based on the EPA-
collected data base presented in the BDAT Background Document for K061 
(US EPA, 1988). For each constituent of concern, the 95th percentile 
upper confidence limit of the mean (95th UCLM) was calculated for the 
total metal concentration (in ppm or, equivalently, mg constituent per 
kg HTMR residual). EPA selected this value to represent a reasonable 
high-end measure of constituent concentrations in HTMR residuals. Table 
1 presents the total concentrations and summary statistics for that 
data set, including maximum concentration, mean, and the range of 
concentrations.
    For exposure scenarios involving HTMR leachate (e.g., landfilling 
of HTMR-derived slag), the leachate concentration was assumed to be 
equal to the maximum levels allowed under the generic exclusion 
established in the K061 final rule. Table 1 also presents the generic 
exclusion levels (in mg/L).

                 Table 1.--Summary Statistics for Constituent Concentrations for HTMR Residuals                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Total constituent concentrations in HTMR residuals                     
                                                    fromrotary kiln incinerator                Generic exclusion
             Constituent             ---------------------------------------------------------     levels for   
                                         Range (ppm)         Mean (ppm)       95% UCLM (ppm)    leachate (mg/L) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony............................            111-405                195                266               0.10
Arsenic.............................             75-113                 86                 98               0.50
Barium..............................            331-467                374                408                7.6
Beryllium...........................              1.7-4                  2                  3               0.01
Cadmium.............................                <15                <15                <15               0.05
Total Chromium......................            205-978                612                797               0.33
Lead................................           365-4270               1926               2863               0.15
Mercury.............................               <0.1               <0.1               <0.1              0.009
Nickel..............................            422-952                588                727                1.0
Selenium............................            2.5-8.8                  5                  6               0.16
Silver..............................              32-59                 39                 46               0.30
Thallium............................          <0.5-<1.0                 <1                 <1               0.02
Zinc................................         4550-27400              14634              22117                70 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Concentration of chromium VI was estimated to be 1% of total chromium, based on leaching data for total   
  chromium.                                                                                                     


2. Release, Fate, and Transport Models
    To assess the risks from relevant management practices and uses of 
HTMR slags, EPA used fate and transport models to compute contaminant 
concentrations at exposure points for each release and exposure 
scenario. EPA used the appropriate algorithms from the MMSOILS model, a 
multimedia contaminant fate, transport, and exposure model, to simulate 
fate and transport of metals in HTMR slags through overland and 
subsurface transport. The overland transport of metals in HTMR slags 
incorporated transport to nearby soils and surface water (including 
dissolved contaminants and contaminants sorbed to slag particles). EPA 
used the Fugitive Dust Model (FDM) to compute dispersion and transport 
of particulates in air from ground-based sources. FDM is a computerized 
air quality model which was specifically designed to calculate air 
concentrations from fugitive dust sources. The model is based on the 
Gaussian plume algorithm for computing air concentrations, adapted to 
incorporate a gradient-transfer deposition algorithm. The MINTEQ metals 
speciation model was used to estimate soil adsorption coefficients for 
the metal constituents in HTMR slags whenever possible. The MINTEQ 
model is an aqueous speciation geochemical model which estimates metal 
adsorption as a function of Ph, metal concentrations in the dissolved 
phase, iron oxide content of potential sorbents, organic matter content 
of potential sorbents, pore water chemistry, and temperature. Further 
details of the models used are provided in the docket for this proposed 
rulemaking.
3. Sources of Environmental Releases
    EPA identified the potential sources of metals releases from HTMR 
slags based on known management practices and end-uses of HTMR slags: 
disposal in landfills, storage in wastepiles, transportation in trucks, 
use as road construction material underlying pavement (subbase or base 
material), use as additive ingredient in cement or aggregate in 
concrete/asphalt mixtures, use as road surface material (top grade), 
and use as anti- skid/deicing agent on road surfaces. Potential 
releases under these scenarios are described below.
    a. Wastepile--Four practices associated with the generation and 
management of wastepiles of HTMR slags may result in potential releases 
to the environment: (1) outdoor storage of an uncovered wastepile, (2) 
adding HTMR slags to the wastepile, (3) loading/unloading operations 
associated with transport of the wastepile, and (4) transport of slags 
from the facility to points of use.
    The HTMR slags generated at the manufacturing facility may be 
stored outside in an uncovered wastepile at the facility until it is 
transported offsite. Since the wastepiles are uncovered, air releases 
may occur if particulates from the wastepile become entrained in the 
atmosphere. The slag particulates also may be eroded from the wastepile 
as a result of wind and rain. In addition, since the slags could be 
stored directly on top of the soil (i.e., no liner), release to the 
ground water may occur if metals from the slags leach as a result of 
precipitation.
    As slags are added to the wastepile, the resulting disturbance may 
cause particles to become entrained in the atmosphere. Particulate 
emissions of slag material may also be caused by the loading/unloading 
operations associated with transport vehicles. Finally, particulate 
emissions of slag material may result from the transport of the 
wastepile, assuming that the transport vehicles are not fully covered.
    b. Road Subbase--The HTMR slags may be transported from the 
manufacturing facility to a site for use as a road subbase material. 
The subbase layer is then covered by a relatively impermeable road 
surfacing material, typically asphalt. Although there is potential for 
environmental releases from the subbase material prior to road 
surfacing and when road surfaces are broken up for repair, such 
releases are expected to be short- term, temporary events, and any 
releases would be relatively minor. Therefore, atmospheric and erosion 
releases were not modeled for the use of HTMR slags as a road subbase 
material. However, even while the subbase is covered, the metals in the 
slag could potentially be released during a high water table event. In 
this circumstance, the water table may become elevated to the extent 
that it contacts and saturates the road subbase layer. The metals in 
the slag could leach from the road subbase, pass through the 
unsaturated soil zone, and discharge into the groundwater.
    c. Additives in Cement or Concrete/Asphalt Mixtures--HTMR slag 
material may also be used as an ingredient in the production of cement 
(as a source of iron in cement kilns). Alternatively, the slag may be 
used as aggregate in the production of concrete or asphalt. In these 
uses, the cement or concrete/asphalt mixtures would mix with and 
chemically bind or encapsulate the portion of HTMR slags that are 
added. Therefore, there is not likely to be any significant releases 
from this use by any scenario. There is the possibility, if pieces of 
cement or concrete/asphalt are ultimately disposed in a landfill, that 
environmental releases may occur. This type of scenario was considered 
under disposal of HTMR slags directly in a landfill; this represents a 
``worst case'' for the concrete/asphalt mixtures because the landfill 
was assumed to contain the HTMR slags, and not slags mixed with or 
encapsulated in concrete or asphalt.
    d. Top Grade--The HTMR slags may be used as a top grade material, 
as the surface material for an unpaved road. Atmospheric releases of 
the slag particulate as a result of vehicular traffic, particulate 
releases resulting from both wind erosion and surface runoff, and 
contaminant releases from the top grade layer resulting from leaching 
processes are all possible release pathways, and were considered in the 
Agency's assessment.
    e. Anti-Skid/Deicing--The HTMR slags can be used as anti- skid/
deicing agents on ice and/or snow covered roads. A thin layer of the 
slag material is spread over the road surface in an effort to provide 
better traction for vehicle tires. During warm periods in which the 
snow and ice melt, the metals present in the slag material may leach 
from an unpaved road through the unsaturated zone and into the 
surficial aquifer. In addition, the slag material may erode from the 
site by wind and rain and be deposited on adjacent property. Lastly, 
slag particulates may become entrained in the atmosphere as a result of 
vehicle traffic, and may result in atmospheric emissions similar to 
that of the top grade scenario.
    f. Disposal in Landfill--One of the lifecycle phases considered in 
this analysis involves disposal of slag in a solid waste landfill. The 
potential leaching of constituents from the slag in the landfill into 
groundwater was evaluated previously in the rulemaking that established 
the generic exclusion levels for HTMR slag (see August 18, 1992, 57 FR 
37194). Other potential release scenarios from the landfill that were 
identified include: (1) erosion of particulates from the landfill, and 
(2) air releases and deposition to nearby soils. Particulates from slag 
may be eroded from the landfill as a result of the forces of wind and 
rain. The eroded material may ultimately be deposited onto a nearby 
residential plot of land or into a nearby surface water body. 
Particulates entrained in the atmosphere as a result of waste 
management activities at the landfill may also be transported to off-
site receptors.
4. Exposure Pathways
    EPA considered various direct and indirect exposure pathways for 
HTMR slag materials and believes that the potential for risk from most 
indirect pathways (e.g., food chain pathways) would not be significant. 
The comparison of risks associated with direct and indirect exposure 
pathways for metals suggested that the direct pathways typically 
present higher risks due to the: (1) weak uptake of soil-bound metals 
in plants, (2) limited ability of metals to bioaccumulate on a whole-
body basis (with the exception of mercury; however levels of mercury in 
HTMR slags, as presented in table 1, are not significant), and (3) 
tendency of metals to remain bound in the slag matrix in a form that 
further reduces their bioavailability.
    Therefore, EPA evaluated four direct exposure pathways that were 
identified as being relevant based on the presence of metal 
contaminants in HTMR slags and the uses of the material. The four 
direct exposure pathways of concern are:
      air pathway: emission and dispersion of respirable 
particulates (<10 microns in size);
      groundwater pathway: release of contaminants to 
subsurface soils and subsequent leaching into groundwater;
      surface water pathway: overland transport (via runoff and 
soil erosion) of contaminants to surface water; and
      soil pathway: overland transport of contaminants via soil 
erosion to offsite residential soils.

In addition to these direct exposure pathways, EPA identified one 
indirect exposure pathway with respect to potential release scenarios, 
i.e., release of nonrespirable particulates (30 microns in size) 
followed by deposition to soil.

    EPA did not model each of these four pathways for every source of 
HTMR slags. The exposure pathways evaluated by EPA for each exposure 
source/scenario are summarized in matrix form in Table 2. Only those 
pathways relevant to a given source scenario were modeled for that 
scenario. For example, as noted previously, direct air pathways for the 
road subbase scenario were not evaluated because the subbase is 
essentially a covered source that is not subject to wind erosion, 
overland transport, or air dispersion. Similarly, EPA did not 
explicitly include HTMR slags contained in cement or concrete/asphalt 
mixtures for any of the exposure scenarios of concern.

  Table 2.--Exposure Pathways Evaluated for Sources/Scenarios Associated With the Use or Disposal of HTMR Slag  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Exposure source/scenario                         
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Exposure pathway                             Top grade                                                
                                        Wastepile     andanti-skid   Slaglandfill     Subbase     Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Water Ingestion..............  X              X              X1             X                            
Surface Water.......................  X              X              X                                           
Soil Ingestion......................  X              X              X                                           
Air Deposition to Soil and Ingestion  X              X              X                                           
Particulate Inhalation..............  X              X              X              .............  X             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Evaluated previously (see 57 FR 37194; August 18, 1992)                                                        


5. Evaluation Criteria
    EPA used human health and ecological (aquatic) effects criteria to 
evaluate levels of hazardous constituents in various media.
    a. Human Health--The human health reference values for the 
constituents of concern includes carcinogenic slope factors (CSFs), 
reference doses (RfDs), and reference concentrations (RfCs). The CSFs, 
a measure of carcinogenic potency, were used for both the inhalation 
and ingestion routes of exposure. The RfD is an estimate of the daily 
intake of a substance, within an order of magnitude, to which the adult 
human population (including sensitive subgroups) may be exposed without 
any adverse noncarcinogenic effects. The RfC is the analog to the RfD 
for inhalation exposure, although the RfC units are typically converted 
to concentration (mg/m3), using default exposure assumptions for 
breathing rate and body weight. Virtually all the reference values 
(i.e., CSFs, RfDs, and RfCs) were obtained from the Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS), EPA's primary source for verified human 
health reference values. Reference values were also identified in the 
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). When no verified RfC 
values were available, the RfC values were extrapolated from RfDs, 
assuming that a 70 kg adult inhales 20 m3 of air per day. Based on 
the human health reference values, the Agency calculated the reference 
concentrations in Table 3 for soil, drinking water, and air. The table 
includes Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water, when 
available. The human health reference values, and the methods used to 
calculate the reference concentrations, are summarized in the docket 
for today's rule. Two constituents of concern, thallium and lead, did 
not have reference values for ingestion or inhalation in either IRIS or 
HEAST. The reference value (i.e., RfD) for thallium was estimated from 
the lowest reference value of the thallium salts (e.g., thallium 
sulfate, thallium nitrate). A reference value for lead is not available 
at this time since Agency consensus has not been reached on how an RfD 
or RfC should be calculated for lead. However, EPA has established 
regulatory and recommended levels for lead in the various media, and 
these are included in Table 3.
    b. Ecological (Aquatic) Receptors--A comparison of chemical 
concentrations in surface water to their aquatic benchmarks was used to 
determine if any given constituent would pose a threat to aquatic 
organisms. Those chemicals whose surface water concentrations exceeded 
their aquatic water quality criteria would be identified as 
constituents of concern. The National Ambient Water Quality Criteria 
(NAWQC) were selected as the ecological reference concentrations for 
the protection of aquatic organisms (e.g., fish and daphnids). Since 
NAWQC were not available for all constituents, alternate criteria or 
advisory values were identified in the open literature. A complete 
description of the methods used to estimate the advisory NAWQC may be 
found in Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential 
Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota on the Oak Ridge 
Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (Suter et al., 1992). Table 3 
provides the NAWQC and advisory NAWQC for aquatic organisms for each of 
the constituents of concern.
6. Characterization of Risk
    The modeling results for the ground-water, surface water, soil, and 
air pathways were compared to the reference concentrations for the 
different media to assess the potential risk to human health and 
aquatic receptors. The resulting risk ratios (i.e., media concentration 
divided by reference concentration) were then evaluated to determine 
whether any of the metals of concern in HTMR slag would pose 
significant risks to humans or aquatic receptors for any of the 
exposure scenarios evaluated.

        Table 3.--Reference Concentrations for Soil, Water, and Air for the HTMR Constituents of Concern        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Reference                       Reference Surface
                                          Reference Soil     Drinking Water    Reference Air         Water      
              Constituent                Concentration\1\  Concentrations\2\  Concentrations3  Concentrations\4\
                                              (mg/kg)            (mg/L)          (ug/m\3\)            (mg/      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony...............................         3.2E+01              0.006          1.4E+00           0.018     
Arsenic................................         9.7E-01              0.05           5.7E-04           0.190     
Barium.................................         5.6E+03              2              5.0E-01           0.109     
Beryllium..............................         4.0E+02              0.004          1.0E-03           0.00061   
Cadmium................................         8.0E+01              0.005          1.4E-03           0.0011    
Chromium III...........................         8.0E+04              0.1            3.5E+03           0.210     
Chromium VI............................         4.0E+02              0.1            2.0E-04           0.011     
Lead...................................         4.0E+02              0.015          1.5E-01           0.0032    
Mercury................................         2.4E+01              0.002          3.0E-01           0.000012  
Nickel.................................         1.6E+03              0.1            7.0E+01           0.160     
Selenium...............................         4.0E+02              0.05           1.8E+01           0.035     
Silver.................................         4.0E+02              0.18           1.8E+01           0.00039   
Thallium...............................         6.4E+00              0.002          2.8E-01           0.0025    
Zinc...................................         2.4E+04             10              1.1E+03           0.110     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\RfDs and CSFs were used to calculate reference soil values, except for lead; the value for lead is a         
  recommended screening level for lead in soil for residential land use which is contained in the Agency's      
  interim soil lead guidance (this guidance suggests use of this screening level to identify sites that do not  
  require further study, and not as a clean up goal).                                                           
\2\Reference values for drinking water are MCLs, when available; the values for thallium and zinc are based on  
  RfDs, and the value for lead is the action level.                                                             
\3\Air reference values are based on CSFs or RfCs, when available; other values extrapolated from oral RfDs,    
  except for lead, which is based on 10% of the existing National Ambient Air Quality Standard.                 
\4\Reference values are National Ambient water Quality Criteria (NAWQC) for aquatic toxicity, except for        
  antimony, barium, beryllium, silver, and thallium, which are based on advisory NAWQC (see Section IV.A.5.b.)  

B. Results of Risk Assessment

    The results from EPA's very conservative risk assessment for the 
relevant management practices and uses of HTMR slags indicate that 
constituents of concern in HTMR slags pose little or no risk to human 
health or the environment. Based on this assessment, no significant 
risks were found for storage, transport, disposal, and encapsulated 
uses of HTMR slags (use as subbase, as an ingredient in cement or 
concrete/asphalt) that meet the generic exclusion levels. The non-
encapsulated uses of HTMR slags (top grade and anti-skid uses) that 
meet the generic exclusion levels showed the potential for some excess 
risk (i.e., risk above 1x10-6). The risk analysis indicates that 
direct inhalation exposure to arsenic from non-encapsulated uses may 
present an excess risk of cancer of 2.9x10-6. In other words, a 
maximum of approximately 3 additional cases of cancer would be 
predicted per million people exposed to the arsenic in the slag used in 
this manner. The results also suggest that areal deposition of arsenic 
from these non-encapsulated uses and subsequent ingestion of 
contaminated soil may also present a comparable excess risk of cancer 
(2.7x10-6). None of the other metals evaluated posed any 
significant increase in risk for these uses.
    These risks (from non-encapsulated uses) are at the low end of 
EPA's risk range of 1x10-4 to 1x10-6. Furthermore, for this 
assessment, EPA selected very conservative values for use in fate and 
transport models and for exposure scenarios. If the risk assessment had 
used a central tendency value (instead of a high-end value) for one of 
the high-end exposure assumptions, then the calculated risks from these 
uses would drop below the 1x10-6 level. For example, had the 
Agency used a 9 year exposure period for an individual exposed instead 
of the 30 year exposure period used in this risk calculation, the risk 
from non-encapsulated uses would have dropped to 8.7x10-7 cancer 
risk. This risk level is below the typical level of concern used by the 
Agency.

C. Changes to the Generic Exclusion Levels

    The generic exclusion levels promulgated for HTMR slags derived 
from K061, K062, and F006 were based on the health-based levels and 
MCLs in effect when the rule was put into place. Since then, the 
drinking water standards (i.e., MCLs) for some constituents have 
changed somewhat (see July 17, 1992, 57 FR 231776). Therefore, the 
Agency is taking this opportunity to propose to update the exclusion 
levels to reflect these changes. The original exclusion levels were 
calculated by multiplying the MCLs by a dilution-attenuation factor of 
10 (see August 18, 1992, 57 FR 37194). This factor is based on the 
EPACML model (see July 18, 1991, 56 FR 32993 for a description of the 
model used). Using this same factor, the new MCLs for antimony (0.006 
mg/L) and beryllium (0.004 mg/L) would result in new generic exclusion 
levels of 0.06 mg/L and 0.04 mg/L for antimony and beryllium, 
respectively. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to replace the 
existing exclusion levels in Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C) for antimony and 
beryllium with these values as part of today's rule. The Agency 
promulgated an MCL for nickel in 1992. That regulatory standard was 
challenged by a coalition of industry groups in a lawsuit filed in 
September, 1992. See Nickel Development Institute et al. v. EPA, No. 
92-1407, 1410, 1416 (D.C. Cir.). For the past two years, the Agency has 
been involved in discussions with these industry parties in an effort 
to resolve this litigation. Because of the uncertainties that currently 
surround the outcome of this litigation over the nickel MCL, EPA 
believes it is appropriate to consider alternative criteria to 
establish the generic exclusion level for nickel. EPA considered using 
the health-based level for nickel (0.7 mg/L) which is derived from the 
existing RFD for nickel of 0.02 mg/kg/day (see IRIS). Based on the 
calculations described in the above paragraph, this would result in a 
generic exclusion level of 7 mg/L for nickel. The existing BDAT 
treatment standard for nickel contained in the slags derived from HTMR 
processing of K061, K062, and F006 wastes is 5 mg/L. Between these two 
alternative criteria, EPA believes that it is appropriate to use the 
lower (more conservative) BDAT standard at this time. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to replace the existing exclusion level in 
Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C) for nickel with the nickel BDAT treatment 
standard of 5 mg/L.

V. Conclusions

    Based on the results of the risk assessment, EPA is proposing that 
HTMR slags that meet the generic exclusion levels in 
Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C) will be classified as nonhazardous waste, and 
also allowed to be managed or used as described in this proposal.
    Furthermore, the Agency is also proposing to amend Sec. 266.20 so 
that all uses constituting disposal of hazardous HTMR slag (i.e., HTMR 
slag that does not meet the generic exclusion levels) are no longer 
exempt from RCRA Subtitle C regulation. Because it is highly unlikely 
that users of hazardous HTMR slag will choose to meet the stringent 
requirements of Subtitle C, this change would effectively prohibit all 
uses of slags that do not meet the generic exclusion levels. As a 
consequence of the proposed changes to the generic exclusion in 
Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C), HTMR slags that are used as described in this 
proposal would not be affected by the changes in Sec. 266.20, because 
the HTMR slags used in these ways would not be hazardous waste 
(provided the slags meet the generic exclusion levels and all of the 
other requirements specified in Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C)).
    Finally, as described in section IV.C above, the Agency is also 
proposing to update the generic exclusion levels for changes in MCLs 
for antimony, beryllium, and nickel.

VI. Effective Date

    The Agency is proposing that this rule be effective six months 
after the date of publication of the final rule. (See RCRA section 
3010(a)). The Agency believes that this would provide sufficient time 
for affected parties to comply with the proposed changes.

VII. State Authority

A. Applicability of Rule 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 (HSWA) of 1984, 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), 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 applies in 
authorized States in the interim.

B. Effect on State Authorization

    EPA views today's proposed rule as a HSWA regulation. The proposed 
rule can be viewed as part of the process of establishing land disposal 
prohibitions and treatment standards for K061, K062, and F006 hazardous 
wastes. (See 56 FR 41175). The ultimate goal of the land disposal 
prohibition provisions is to establish standards which minimize short-
term and long-term threats to human health and the environment posed by 
hazardous waste land disposal. (See RCRA section 3004(m)(l)). In 
addition, EPA must ensure that land disposal of hazardous wastes K061, 
K062, and F006 are ultimately protective. (See RCRA Sec. 3004(g)(5)). 
The proposed exclusion levels would implement these provisions by 
assuring that these types of land disposal are ultimately protective 
and establish levels at which pretreatment minimizes the threats to 
human health and the environment posed by these types of land disposal.
    Today's proposed rule will result in more stringent Federal 
standards under Sec. 266.20, since it prohibits uses of hazardous HTMR 
slags. 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 modifications to EPA for 
approval.
    Authorized States are only required to modify their programs when 
EPA promulgates Federal regulations that are more stringent or broader 
in scope than the existing Federal regulations. For those Federal 
program changes that are less stringent or reduce the scope of the 
Federal program, States are not required to modify their programs. This 
is a result of section 3009 of RCRA, which allows States to impose 
regulations in addition to those in the Federal program. EPA has 
determined that the proposed changes to the generic exclusion are less 
stringent or reduce the scope of the Federal program. Therefore, 
authorized States are not required to modify their programs to adopt 
regulations that are equivalent or substantially equivalent.
    States with authorized RCRA programs may already have requirements 
similar to those in today's proposed rule. These State regulations have 
not been assessed against the Federal regulations being proposed today 
to determine whether they meet the tests for authorization. Thus, a 
State is not authorized to implement these requirements in lieu of EPA 
until the State program modifications are approved. Of course, States 
with existing standards could continue to administer and enforce their 
standards as a matter of State law. In implementing the Federal 
program, EPA will work with States under agreements to minimize 
duplication of efforts. In many cases, EPA will be able to defer to the 
States in their efforts to implement their programs rather than take 
separate actions under Federal authority.

VIII. Regulatory Impact

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (see 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive 
Order. The order defines ``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 a 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 
thereof; 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.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because it raises novel policy issues in terms of defining when 
products used in a manner constituting disposal should be regulated. As 
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in 
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in 
the public record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
whenever an Agency is required to issue a general notice of rulemaking 
for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for 
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the 
impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory 
flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of the Agency 
certifies that the rule will not have any impact on any small entities.
    This proposed rule will not have any impact on any small entities, 
since the regulated community will continue to have readily available 
options for using and managing HTMR slags. Therefore, pursuant to 
section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Administrator 
certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation, 
therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Agency has determined that there are no additional reporting, 
notification, or recordkeeping provisions associated with this proposed 
rule. Such provisions, were they included, would be submitted for 
approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 261

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

40 CFR Part 266

    Energy, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

40 CFR Part 268

    Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 16, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR Chapter I is 
amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 261.3 paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(C)(1) and (c)(2)(ii)(C)(2) 
are revised as follows:


Sec. 261.3  Definition of hazardous waste.

    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C)(1) Nonwastewater residues, such as slag, resulting from high 
temperature metals recovery (HTMR) processing of K061, K062, and F006 
waste, in units identified as rotary kilns, flame reactors, electric 
furnaces, plasma arc furnaces, slag reactors, rotary hearth furnace/
electric furnace combinations or industrial furnaces (as defined in 
paragraphs (6), (7), and (13) of the definition for ``Industrial 
furnace'' in 40 CFR 260.10)--provided that these residues meet the 
generic exclusion levels identified in the tables in this paragraph for 
all constituents, and exhibit no characteristics of hazardous waste and 
are disposed in Subtitle D units, or used as covered subbase materials 
(e.g., in construction of paved roads, parking lots, and driveways) or 
as additive ingredients in cement or concrete/asphalt mixtures, or as 
top-grade (e.g., surfacing material for roads, parking lots, and 
driveways), or as anti-skid/deicing materials. Testing requirements 
must be incorporated in a facility's waste analysis plan or a 
generator's self-implementing waste analysis plan; at a minimum, 
composite samples of residues must be collected and analyzed quarterly 
and/or when the process or operation generating the waste changes. 
Persons claiming this exclusion in an enforcement action will have the 
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the material 
meets all of the exclusion requirements.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Maximum for
                                                             any single 
                        Constituent                           composite 
                                                             sample-TCLP
                                                               (mg/l)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Generic exclusion level for K061 and K062               
                       nonwastewater HTMR residues                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
Antimony..................................................         0.06 
Arsenic...................................................         0.50 
Barium....................................................         7.6  
Beryllium.................................................         0.04 
Cadmium...................................................         0.05 
Chromium (total)..........................................         0.33 
Lead......................................................         0.15 
Mercury...................................................         0.009
Nickel....................................................         5    
Selenium..................................................         0.16 
Silver....................................................         0.30 
Thallium..................................................         0.02 
Zinc......................................................        70    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Generic exclusion level for F006                    
                      nonwastewater HTMR residues                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
Antimony..................................................         0.06 
Arsenic...................................................         0.50 
Barium....................................................         7.6  
Beryllium.................................................         0.04 
Cadmium...................................................         0.05 
Chromium (total)..........................................         0.33 
Cyanide (total) (mg/kg)...................................         1.8  
Lead......................................................         0.15 
Mercury...................................................         0.009
Nickel....................................................         5    
Selenium..................................................         0.16 
Silver....................................................         0.30 
Thallium..................................................         0.02 
Zinc......................................................        70    
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    (2) A one-time notification and certification must be placed in the 
facility's files and sent to the EPA region or authorized state for 
K061, K062, or F006 HTMR residues that meet the generic exclusion 
levels for all constituents and do not exhibit any characteristics that 
are sent to Subtitle D units, or used as described in paragraph 
(c)(2)(ii)(C)(1). The notification and certification that is placed in 
the generators or treaters files must be updated if the process or 
operation generating the waste changes and/or if the subtitle D unit 
receiving the waste changes. However, the generator or treater need 
only notify the EPA region or an authorized state on an annual basis if 
such changes occur. Such notification and certification should be sent 
to the EPA region or authorized state by the end of the calendar year, 
but no later than December 31. The notification must include the 
following information: The name and address of the subtitle D unit 
receiving the waste shipments; the EPA Hazardous Waste Number(s) and 
treatability group(s) at the initial point of generation; and, the 
treatment standards applicable to the waste at the initial point of 
generation. The certification must be signed by an authorized 
representative and must state as follows: ``I certify under penalty of 
law that the generic exclusion levels for all constituents have been 
met without impermissible dilution and that no characteristic of 
hazardous waste is exhibited. I am aware that there are significant 
penalties for submitting a false certification, including the 
possibility of fine and imprisonment.
* * * * *

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

    3. 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

    4. Section 266.20 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 266.20  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) Slags, generated from high temperature metals recovery (HTMR) 
processing of hazardous waste K061, K062, and F006, that are used in a 
manner constituting disposal are not covered by the exemption in 
paragraph (b) of this section and remain subject to regulation. 
However, these slags are not hazardous wastes if they meet the 
concentration levels as specified in Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C) and are 
used or disposed of as specified in Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C).

PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS

    5. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    6. Table ``Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes'' in 
Sec. 268.40 is amended by adding a footnote ``8'' at the end of the 
table and in the second column in the table,''Waste Description and 
Treatment/Regulatory Subcategory'', for waste codes F006, K061, and 
K062 to read as follows:


Sec. 268.40  Applicability of treatment standards.

    \8\See also restrictions on use of slags in Sec. 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C) 
and Sec. 266.20(c).

[FR Doc. 94-31617 Filed 12-28-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P